Correlates of Violence Against Married Women
in the Maseno and Nairobi Areas of Kenya
Japheth Jaoko
Abstract
In Kenya, it is extremely difficult to obtain the prevalence rates
of violence by husbands against their wives because the problem in
many cases is still accepted as a cultural practice or a private affair
and thus is rarely reported to authorities. Nevertheless, reports in the
popular literature and magazines indicate that the problem exists in
serious magnitudes. This exploratory study sets out to examine the
prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional violence by husbands
against their wives in the Maseno and Nairobi areas of Kenya. The
Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas at Arlington
approved the study as part of the author’s doctoral studies. Of the
208 women who participated in the study, 49.5% reported a history
of violence. Prevalence rate for physical violence was 45.7%, sexual
violence 12.9%, and emotional violence 39.4%.
Introduction
Violence against women is a serious violation of human rights.
This worldwide phenomenon is perpetrated against women in many
forms, such as intimate partner violence, sexual violence, trafficking,
forced prostitution, physical and sexual violence against prostitutes,
sex selective abortion, female infanticide, deliberate neglect of girls,
and rape in war.1 Other forms of violence against women include
inhumane cultural and religious practices, such as female genital
mutilation, dowry killing in India, and Middle Eastern honor
murders.2
Violence against women is a serious global health problem
associated with a range of health concerns such as physical injuries,
emotional and psychological complications, sexually transmitted
diseases, and pregnancy complications.3 In addition, a World Bank
50
Correlates of Violence Against Women of Kenya
report pointed out that violence on women accounts for as much
health problems and death in women as cancer, and surpasses both
road accidents and malaria combined as a cause for health problems
for women.4 This phenomenon transcends national boundaries,
geographic locations, socioeconomic status, culture, religion, and
ethnicity.5
Although violence against women has received increased
scientific, public, and policy attention over the last two decades,
there is still a paucity of scientific research on the problem in Kenya.
A review of the literature on domestic violence reveals that to date,
no national or community-based scientific study has been carried out
to examine the prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional violence
against married women in Kenya. Although no national prevalence
statistics for Kenya are available, the Kenyan Chapter of the
International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) estimates a
prevalence rate of about 50%.6
In an effort to fill a crucial knowledge gap, this exploratory study
sets out to examine the prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional
violence committed against women within a marriage relationship in
the Maseno and Nairobi areas of Kenya. For the purposes of this
study, violence is defined as any act perpetuated by the husband that
is harmful to the wife. This includes physical attacks, threatened
physical attacks, psychological or emotional hostility, sexual assaults
or threatened sexual assaults, and neglectful conducts.
Literature Review
Over the last two decades, the evidence of the scope and
significance of violence against women has increased throughout
most of the world. In the United States, estimates of the prevalence
of violence against women suggests that nine hundred thousand to
three million women suffer abuse at the hands of a partner each
year.7
In Europe, numerous national studies on the prevalence of
violence have been conducted with varying results. The prevalence
estimates range from 6% in Switzerland8 to 26.2% in the
Netherlands.9
In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, it is very difficult to get
scientific information on the prevalence of violence against women,
Campbellsville Review 51
as it appears to be extremely under-reported. Specifically, in subSaharan Africa, empirical evidence is limited to a small number of
studies. The prevalence estimates for South Africa is 46%.10 In
Tanzania, the reported rates are 45.7% for verbal abuse, 37.6% for
physical abuse, and 16.3% for sexual abuse.11 Due to underreporting, common in many survey studies, it would be safe to
assume that the true prevalence estimates in most countries are
probably higher than what is reported above.
Theories of Domestic Violence
Numerous causal theories have been developed to explain
violence against women. These theories can be broadly placed into
six categories as follow: 1) biological 2) psychological, 3) systems
theory, 4) sociological, 5) social structural, and 6) nested ecological
model.
Biological models focus upon three general approaches to
understanding the etiology of violence against women: organic,
genetics, and neurochemical.12 For example, head injuries that result
in brain infections or other changes in the structure of the brain have
been reported to put a person at an elevated risk for becoming
violent.13
Psychological theories, like the biological models, focus on
individual factors. However, unlike biological models, psychological
theories do not focus on organic causes. Rather, the focus is mainly
on individual personality traits or on childhood and other past
experiences that are assumed to shape individuals to become violent
in adult relationships. Factors such as stress, hopelessness, selfesteem, childhood abuse, and childhood exposure to violence are
often analyzed under this perspective.14
Systems theory locates the causes of violence against women
within the nuclear family unit. Within this theory, wife abuse is
viewed as a problem within the family unit dynamics rather than just
as a problem with only the abusive husband. Violence is viewed to
take place within unique relational contexts in which all family
members interact to maintain the family system. Wife abuse is thus
regarded as a family dysfunction, with both the husband and wife
contributing to the problem.15
52
Correlates of Violence Against Women of Kenya
Sociological theories of domestic violence shift the focus from
micro-level to macro-level analyses. Instead of looking at individual
factors in isolation, the focus is widened to include factors in the
families of origin, societies, and cultures. A key approach under the
sociological theories is the social learning theory.16 When applied to
the sphere of domestic violence, social learning theory postulates
that observing and experiencing violence in the family of origin
and/or within a broader society is a contributing risk factor to being
violent.17 This perspective is commonly referred to as the
intergenerational transmission of violence when applied to family
violence.
Similar to sociological theories, social structural theories of
domestic violence analyze the etiology of wife abuse at a macro-level.
This perspective postulates that wife abuse is rooted in the structure
of societies rather than the organic pathologies or personality traits
of individual men.18 A key approach that fits under the category of
social structural theory is feminist theory. The feminist approach
attempts to explain domestic violence by focusing on gender analysis
of power.19 Wife battering, in this case, is seen as a method through
which men seek to control women.
The nested ecological model considers a wide variety of factors
that interact at different levels within a broader social environment
to cause family violence.20 It attempts to analyze the etiology of
violence against women at four different levels: ontogenetic,
microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The ontogenetic level
focuses on risk factors that increase the likelihood of domestic
violence at the individual level. These factors may include biological
or organic factors, individual personality traits, or individual
developmental experiences that are assumed to shape one to become
violent. Within the microsystem level, the focus is on relationship
patterns within a family, family stressors, and structural factors of the
family. The exosystem level focuses on factors at the community
level. For example, unavailability of jobs or a steady income21 and
high levels of community crime have been found to be risk factors
for domestic violence.22 The macrosystem level focuses on factors at
the societal level such as societal cultural beliefs and values in relation
to domestic violence. For example, wife abuse in South Africa may
be viewed as a reflection of the country’s widespread culture of
violence that affirms violence as a conflict resolution method.23
Campbellsville Review 53
Method
This study employed a non-experimental, ex-post facto design to
measure the prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional violence
against married women in the Maseno and Nairobi areas of Kenya.
Data for the study was collected via a quantitative survey conducted
using a non-probability, purposive sampling procedure. A total of
208 married women participated in the survey.
The incidence and prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional
violence were measured using the Partner Abuse Scale: Physical
(PASPH) and the Partner Abuse Scale: Non-Physical (PASNP).
Both the PASPH and the PASNP were developed by Walter
Hudson.24
The starting point for recruiting participants consisted of visiting
local women groups at local universities, churches, market places,
and neighborhoods throughout Maseno and Nairobi areas of Kenya.
Four trained female research assistants contacted potential
participants on behalf of this author and those who agreed to
participate were asked to complete the survey. Those who agreed to
participate in the study helped to recruit additional participants from
among their acquaintances. The survey was presented as an
anonymous and voluntary study, with no names or identifying
information requested.
Data Analysis
Three levels of statistical analysis were conducted on the data
from this study. First, an initial univariate analysis of the data was
performed, with descriptive statistics conducted to summarize the
data in a manageable form. Second, bivariate analysis was conducted
on each predictor variable and criterion variable to determine the
individual effects of the predictor variables on the criterion variable.
Lastly, multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression
in order to detect the presence or absence of the criterion variable
based on a set of predictor variables.
With a dichotomous criterion variable, chi square tests were
performed in cases where the predictor variables are categorical
variables and t tests were performed in cases where the predictor
54
Correlates of Violence Against Women of Kenya
variables are continuous. All predictor variables that were found to
be significant were included in the multivariate analysis.
Multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression in
order to detect the presence or absence of physical abuse based on
the various predictor variables. Logistic regression was deemed most
appropriate due to the use of a dichotomous criterion variable as
well as the use of both continuous and categorical predictor
variables.
Findings
Participants in the study ranged in age from 19 to 64, with a
mean age of 33.48 years. Participants’ husbands were slightly older,
ranging in age from 21 to 70, with a mean age of 36.75 years.
Participants had been married an average of 8.75 years, with a range
of 1 to 41 years of marriage. The median number of children per
family was 2, with a range of 0 to 8 children per family.
Participants’ level of education ranged from 4.8% having no
formal education to 7.2% having a graduate level education. Almost
a third, 28.8%, of participants reported that they had a secondary
education. Concerning participants’ husbands, 2.4% had no formal
education with 9.1% having a graduate level education. Over a
fourth, 27.8%, of participants’ husbands had a secondary education.
Concerning employment status, 64.9% of participants were
employed, compared with 87.5% of their husbands.
Of the 208 women interviewed, 49.5% (n=103) reported having
suffered some form of violence from their husbands. Prevalence rate
for physical violence was 45.7% (n=95), sexual violence 12.9%
(n=27), and emotional violence 39.4% (n=82). All the participants
(100%, n=27) who suffered sexual violence also suffered emotional
and physical violence. Additionally, almost all of the participants who
suffered emotional violence (90%, n=74) also suffered physical
violence. Only 3.8% (n=8) of the women suffered emotional
violence without accompanying physical or sexual violence.
Participants who had experienced any form of violence had
significantly less education (M = 3.46) than did participants who had
not experienced violence (M = 4.42). Similarly, participants who had
experienced violence had husbands who had significantly less
Campbellsville Review 55
education (M = 3.73) than did participants’ husbands who had not
experienced violence (M = 4.83).
Additionally, almost six times as many participants, 61.1%, who
had experienced violence were not employed. This figure compares
to 10.6% of participants who had not experienced violence who
were not employed. Furthermore, almost seven times as many,
23.2%, of participants who had experienced violence reported that
their husbands were not employed. This figure compares to 3.5% of
participants who had not experienced violence who reported that
their husbands were not employed. No significant associations were
found between wife abuse and the number of years of marriage and
the number of children in a household.
Summary and Conclusion
In this study, almost half of all the women participants reported
having suffered some form of violence from their husbands.
However, because of the private and sensitive nature of domestic
violence in many areas of Kenya, it would be safe to assume that the
true prevalence estimates are probably higher than what is reported
in this study.
The findings of this study supports those of previous studies
that reported that women with low educational attainments are at a
higher risk for domestic violence,25 and that males with lower levels
of education are more likely to be abusive to their female partners.26
However, other studies have reported that there is no significant
association between risk of violence and either a woman’s
educational attainment or a male partner’s educational attainment.27
This study also found that unemployed women were at a greater
risk for domestic violence than those employed. Other studies have
reported that a woman’s access to independent income increased her
risk of experiencing domestic violence,28 while yet others have
reported that the effect of a woman’s employment status is
insignificant to her risk of violence.29 Further cross-national studies
are needed to examine the factors behind the seemingly
contradictory findings.
Consistent with the findings of this study, unemployment of a
male partner has been reported elsewhere to be associated with
increased risk of violence on women.30 Previous studies have also
56
Correlates of Violence Against Women of Kenya
shown that employment in low-status jobs increases the odds of
male to female violence.31
Although the findings of this study cannot be generalized to all
of Kenya, the findings do suggest that a large number of women in
Maseno and Nairobi areas are suffering violence in the hands of their
husbands. This phenomenon seems to be pervasive even though the
Kenya Government is a signatory to the United Nations’
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW).32 As a signatory to that convention, the
Kenyan government is obligated, among other things, to eliminate
violence against women in all its forms.
To make any progress in reducing the prevalence of violence
against women in Kenya, significant changes in governmental and
societal attitudes towards domestic violence must be undertaken.
Strategies to address the needs of abused women in the short term
and to combat the root causes in the long term must be instituted.
Public educational awareness programs must be developed to
sensitize the citizens to the fact that violence on women is
dehumanizing, illegal, and has serious health consequences.
Additionally, provision of shelters and support services for abused
women must be made available.
Although more research is certainly warranted to study violence
against Kenyan women beyond Maseno and Nairobi areas, perhaps
the findings of this study could play a modest role towards the
efforts to liberate abused Kenyan women from the bondage of
violence they suffer silently in the hands of their male partners. All
Kenyan women deserve to feel safe in their homes.
Endnotes
1 C. Watts and C. Zimmerman, “Violence Against Women: Global
Scope and Magnitude,” Lancet 359:1232-1238, n9313, 2002.
2 S. K. Araji, “Family Violence Including Crimes of Honor in Jordan,”
Violence Against Women 7:876-900, n5, 2001.
3 R. Jewkes, “Violence Against Women: An Emerging Health
Problem,” International Clinical Psychopharmacology 15:37-45, n3, 2000.
4 World Bank, World Development Report: Investing in Health (New York
City: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Campbellsville Review 57
5 M. A. Ellsberg, R. Peha, A. Herrera, J. Liljestrand, and A. Winkvist,
“Wife Abuse Among Women of Childbearing Age in Nicaragua,” Journal of
Public Health 89:241-245, n2, 1999.
6 FIDA (Kenya), “Report of a Baseline Survey Among Women in
Nairobi,” March 2002.
7 United States Department of Justice (1998). Violence Against Intimates:
“Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends,
and Girlfriends,” March 1998.
8 L. Gillioz, “Domination and Violence Against Women Within the
Couple,” European Strategies to Combat Violence Against Women (Copenhagen,
Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1997).
9 R. Romkens, “Prevalence of Wife Abuse in the Netherlands,” Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 12:119-125, n1, 1997.
10 Z. Dangor, L. A. Hoff, and R. Scot, “Woman Abuse in South Africa:
An Exploratory,” Violence Against Women 4:125-152, n2, 1998.
11 S. Maman, M. D. Sweat, J. K. Mbwambo, N. M. Hogan, G. P.
Kilonzo, J. C. Campbell, and E. Weiss, “HIV-Positive Women Report More
Lifetime Partner Violence: Findings from a Voluntary Counseling and
Testing Clinic in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania,” American Journal of Public Health
92:1331-1338, n8, 2002.
12 J. Alper, “Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior: How Good is
the Evidence?,” British Medical Journal 310, 372, 1995.
13 H. Johnson, “Violence and Biology: A Review of the Literature,”
Families in Society 77:3-18, n1, 1996.
14 M. Straus, R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in
the American Family (New York City: Doubleday, 1980).
15 K. Healey, C. Smith, and C. O’Sullivan, Batterer Intervention: Program
Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies. Issues and Practice in Criminal Justice
(Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1998).
16 A. Bandura, Social Learning Theory (Englewood Cliffs NJ: PrenticeHall, 1977).
17 S. Mihalic and D. Elliott, “A Social Learning Theory Model of
Marital Violence,” Journal of Family Violence 12:21-47, n1, 1997.
18 K. Yllo, “Through a Feminist Lens: Gender, Power, and Violence,”
R. J. Gelles and D. R. Loseke, eds., Current Controversies on Family Violence
(Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993), pp. 47-62.
19 E. Pence and M. Paymar, Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The
Duluth Model (New York City: Springer, 1993).
20 D. DePanfilis, “Intervening with Families When Children are
Neglected,” H. Dubowitz, ed., Neglected Children: Research, Practice, and Policy
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), pp. 211-236.
58
Correlates of Violence Against Women of Kenya
21 G. Kaufman-Kantor and M. Straus, Report on the USAF Family Needs
Screener (Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New
Hampshire, 1999).
22 A. Andrew, “Developing Community Systems for the Primary
Prevention of Family Violence,” Family and Community Health 16:1-9, n4,
1996.
23 L. Vogelman and G. Eagle, “Overcoming Endemic Violence Against
Women in South Africa,” Social Justice 18:209-229, 1991.
24 W. Hudson, WALMYR Assessment Scales and Scoring Manual
(Tallahassee, FL: WALMYR Publishing Co., 1997).
25 V. Rao, “Wife Beating in Rural South India: A Qualitative and
Econometric Analysis,” Social Science and Medicine 44:1169-1180, 1997
26 S. Martin, A. Tsui, K. Maitra, and R. Marinshaw, “Domestic
Violence in Northern India,” American Journal of Epidemiology 150:417-426,
1999.
27 S. Arscott-Mills, “Intimate Partner Violence in Jamaica: A
Descriptive Study of Women who Access the Services of the Women’s
Crisis Center in Kingston,” Violence Against Women 7:1284-1302, n11, 2001.
28 S. R. Schuler, M. Syed, and S. H. Badal, “Men’s Violence Against
Women in Rural Bangladesh: Undermined or exacerbated by microcredit
programmes?,” Development in Practice 8:148-158, n2, 1998.
29 T. Angless, M. Maconaschie, and M. V. Zyl, “Battered Women
Seeking Solutions: A South African Study,” Violence Against Women 4:637658, n2, 1998.
30 R. Castro, C. Peek-Asa, and A. Ruiz, “Violence Against Women in
Mexico: A Study of Abuse Before and During Pregnancy,” American Journal
of Public Health 93:1110-1117, n7, 2003.
31 G. L. Fox, M. L. Benson, A. A. DeMaris, and J. V. Wyk, “Economic
Distress and Intimate Violence: Testing Family Stress and Resources
Theories,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64:793-808, n3, 2002.
32 United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (New York: United Nations General Assembly,
1979).