Advances in Applied Sociology
2014. Vol.4, No.1, 5-14
Published Online January 201 4 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/aasoci) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aasoci.2014.41002
The Evaluation of Domestic Violence: The Case of Zonguldak
Tülin G. İçli1, Mehmet Pekkaya2, Hanifi Sever3
1Hacettepe University, Sociology Department, Ankara, Turkey
2Bülent Ecevit Universtiy, Business Administration Department, Zonguldak, Turkey
3Bülent Ecevit University, Phd C., Inspector, Turkish National Police, Zonguldak, Turkey
Received November 26th, 2013; revised December 26th, 2013; accepted January 5th, 2014
Copyright © 2014 Tülin G. İçli et a l. This is an open access article distrib uted under the C reative Commons At-
tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights ©
2014 are reserved f or SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Tülin G. İçli et al. All Copyright © 2 014
are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.
Domestic violence in general terms, refers to incidents in which one of the family members violently acts
against to another member. It may occur between spouses, between parents and children, between child-
ren or between children and grandparents. However, the most frequent type of domestic violence is be-
tween male and female partners. Since “family” is the fundamental element of society, the reasons of do-
mestic violence must be well-understood in order to implement correct precautions against it. The aim of
this study is to provide an evaluation of domestic violence in the city of Zonguldak. In this respect, some
important previous studies, and some remarkable statistics on Zonguldak are reviewed firstly. Upon that,
domestic violence cases in Zonguldak city between 2009 and 2011 are investigated retrospectively.
Keywords: Domestic Violence; Emotional Violence; Sexual Violence; Physical Violence
Introduction
Based on the societal structure, the structure of families may
vary. However, it is common that disputes within family mem-
bers are solved again within the family. One of the most signifi-
cant problems experienced in contemporary “family” is domes-
tic violence. Today, the news on domestic violence has become
more frequent in media. Although most incidents of domestic
violence remain secret in a family (İçli, 1994: p.7), some of
them yet lead to courts.
Domestic violence refers to incidents in which one of the
family members violently acts against to another member. Do-
mestic violence may occur between spouses, between parents
and children, between children or between children and grand-
parents. However, the most frequent type of domestic violence
is between male and female partners.
Domestic violence mostly occurs as one of the four types,
namely physical, psychological, economic and sexual type. The
person who experiences domestic violence is mostly pushed,
punched, kicked and attacked with several devices, leading to
physical pain (Kyriacou, et al., 1999: p.1892). In addition, the
person may experience threats, assaults, insults and humiliation.
Spouses may use the sexual intercourse as a way of punish-
ment. In addition to these well-established types of domestic
violence, there are other kinds. For instance, married women
who want to work may not be given permission to do so by
their husbands. Such instances are called economic violence.
Based on the data reported by the Turkish Statistics Institu-
tion (TUIK) (2011b), it can be stated that 42.9% of the women
living in the Western Black Sea region including the provinces
of Bartın, Karabük and Zonguldak have experienced domestic
violence. This region is in the fourth rank in Turkey by means
of domestic violence against women.
For this reason, the statistics and the inferences of this study
are very important for further researches on domestic violence
that may focus on similar demographic properties as of Zon-
guldak’s.
The aim of this study is to provide an evaluation of domestic
violence in the city of Zonguldak. The following parts of the
study contain data from some important previous studies, and
some remarkable statistics on Zonguldak and then, domestic
violence cases in Zonguldak city between 2009 and 2011 are
investigated retrospectively.
Studies on Domestic Violence
Violence occurs in different forms in the family context. It
may occur between spouse, between siblings or between par-
ents and offsprings. Such cases may lead to deaths. Parents
mostly kick, push, sock, or abuse their children.
With regard to domestic violence between siblings, it is
found that 80% of the children at the age group of 3 - 17 expe-
rience at least one violence incident perpetrated by their sibl-
ings (Ritzer, 1990: p. 188). There are studies that emphasize the
fact that violence is a learned act (Ayan, 2007; Bilican Gökkaya,
2011). It is further argued that children learn violence and it
becomes a lasting behavior in the adulthood (İçli, 1994; İçli,
2007).
Domestic violence between parents and children is very
common. Such violence incidents mostly occur between ado-
lescents and their parents in the form of verbal insults or even
physical attacks. In a study, it is found that 43% of the male
children and 41% of the female children had an experience of
attacks against older family members (Mahoney & Donelly,
OPEN ACCESS 5

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
2000). In another study, it is found that 14% of fathers and
20.2% of mothers experienced violence perpetrated by their
children.
It can be stated that women experience the most frequent
cases of domestic violence. There are various accounts of this
fact, including socio-psychological and sociological approaches.
İçli (1994) states that women are subjects of domestic violence
because they try to maintain marriage after the first incidence of
violence.
The fact that desperate women contribute to the continuation
of domestic violence has been related with gender-role based
socialization (İçli, 2007; Ritzer, 1990: pp. 190-192). After so-
cializing based on gender-roles, women think that they can not
avoid domestic violence or that they have limited chance to
avoid it when they face with violence (İçli, 1994: p. 10).
The other reason for frequent experience of women the do-
mestic violence is about economical disadvantages of women.
Since they have no or little economic sources to continue their
life independently, they feel themselves helpless in the face of
domestic violence. It is certain that such factors are much more
dominant in patriarch societies (Ann Hoff, 1990: p. 32).
The rate of women who are seriously wounded due to do-
mestic violence is 9%, while it is 22% in less serious wounding
cases (Wi lt & Olson, 1996). Furthermore, women are murdered
by their spouses in one-third of homicide cases in the US (Kel-
lermann & Mercy, 1992). Smith et al. (1998) reports that of
4.739 homicide incidents including women in the US in 1994,
28.4% of them were perpetrated by male spouses. Moreover;
17.337 homicide cases in the US were perpetrated by female
spouses (Maguire & Pastore, 1996). It is estimated that only
15% of domestic violence in the United Kingdom are reported
to police. 27% of women are estimated to have domestic vi-
olence experience in their life (Mooney, 1993). 97 women were
killed by their spouses in the UK and Wales in 1996 and it
forms 45% of all homicide cases involving women (Mayhew,
1996). In Pakistan, a total of 370 homicide cases involving
women were reported during the first six-month of 1992, and
50% of them were related to domestic violence (Bhatti et al.,
2011).
Catalano (2007) states that 95.7% of women are subject to
domestic violence perpetrated by their sposes. In another study
in UK, it is found that 28% of women among 1007 married
couples experince physical violence (Painter, 1991: p. 44). In a
similar vein, Mooney (1993) found that 30% of 430 women in
northern London had the experience of physical violence, in-
cluding pushing, shaking or stabbing. In Turkey, a total of
1.070 married women were interviewed in Ankara, İstanbul and
İzmir. It was found that 21.2% of the participants experienced
physical violence perpetrated by their spouses. The most fre-
quently stated reason for violence is “economical problems”.
78% of the participants reported that they prefer to keep quiet
and endure the violence (İçli, 1994).
Domestic violence mostly affects those women with limited
economical resources (Davis, 1999; Gelles, 1997; Hetling &
Zhang, 2010; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999; Logan et al., 2007; Renzet-
ti, 2009; Tolman & Raphael, 2000; Williams & Mickelson,
2004). Particularly, limitations on accessing the sources are
serious disadvantages for the women without any income or
with lower-levels of income (Williams & Mickelson, 2004). It
is estimated that nearly 4.4 million women are abused by their
spouses in the US every year (Plichta, 1996; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998). Although the women from all socio-eco-
nomic levels are subject to domestic violence (Wiehe, 1998),
domestic violence is much more frequent among those women
with lower levels of income (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990). A
study concerning the economic status of women experienced
domestic violence from 2001 to 2005 states that 12.7% of these
women have less than the annual income of $7,500 and that
only 2% of them have more than the annual income of $50,000
(Catalano, 2007). Another study suggests that 44% of the
women who are subject to domestic violence do not have any
job or any (Erbek at al., 2004).
As stated earlier, domestic violence against women may
happen in the form of sexual violence. In a study involving 613
Japanese women experienced domestic violence, it is found that
57% of the participants are subject to physical, psychological
and sexual violence (Yoshihama & Sorenson, 1994). Another
study carried out in Mexico found that 52% of the women ex-
perienced physical violence also experience sexual violence
(Granados-Shiroma, 1996). In a Nicaraguan study, it is found
that only five out of 100 battled women did not come across
sexual violence (Ellsberg at al., 2000).
Another study in Turkey dealt with the reports of married
couples applied for Marriage Counselling Center in İstanbul.
The rates of women who reported domestic violence and sexual
violence are as follows: 29.3% of them reported that they occa-
sionally experience sexual violence; 2% of them reported that
they frequently experience sexual violence and 4% of them
reported that their spouses force them to make love (Erbek et al.,
2004: p.200). The findings of a study carried out in Çanakkale
show that the sexual needs of 10.9% of the women with domes-
tic violence history are neglected. 9.8% of them reported forced
sexual intercourse. 7.9% of them reported that sexual perfor-
mance is underestimated. 4.9% of them states that sexual inter-
course is avoided and it is used as a punishment. 2.7% of them
reported rape by their spouse (Tanrıverdi & Şıpkın, 2008). In
another study in Aydın, it is found that 9.2% of women re-
ported sexual abuse (Karaçam et al., 2006).
Kyriacou et al. (1999) found that those women with domestic
violence experience who applied for hospitals in the US form
the first category. Their socio-economic and behavioral charac-
teristics of women from the age group of 18-64 were analyzed.
The most frequently stated reasons for domestic violence are
found to be the perpetrators’ use of alcohol, drug use, long-
period unemployment and the women’s meeting with ex-
spouses. The mean age of the women is found to be 32. The
educational background of the women with domestic violence
history is as follows: 35.2% university education; 29.7% high
school education; 33.2% less than high school education. The
distribution of their annual incomes is as follows: 83.2% less
than annual income of $30,000. The rate of women who are
alcohol addicted is found to be 22.7%. The mean age of perpe-
trators is found to be 34. The educational level of perpetrators is
found to be as follows; 21.1% university education; 30.5% high
school education and 39.5% less than high school education.
Their employment status is as follows: 49.2% full-employment,
9% part-time jobs and 9% unemployment. 63.7% of the perpe-
trators are addicted to alcohol, while 36.7% are addicted to
drugs.
In a Slovenian study involving 829 subjects (506 women and
323 men), it is found that 20.5% of men and 79.5% of women
are subject to domestic violence. Psychological violence was
experienced by 19.2% of men and 80.8% of women. Physical
violence was experienced 22.4% of men and 77.6% of women.
6

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Violence is found to be experienced mostly by the age group of
18 - 35 (29.1%). 22% of those who experienced domestic vi-
olence have no child. 26% of them have one, 36.2% two and
15.7% three or more children. Interestingly, it is also found that
perpetrators are other family members than husbands in 15.4%
of the incidents. The use of alcohol and unemployment are
found to be important factors in domestic violence (Selic et al.,
2011).
In another study carried out in the US, it is found that 753
women with domestic violence history are of the age group 18 -
54. More specifically, 28% of them were younger than 25, 46%
of them between 25 and 34, and 26% of them older than 35.
66% women have one child. Of those who reported psycholog-
ical violence, 55% were threatened to be battled. 55.4% of
those who experienced physical violence were stabbed and
pushed. 34% of them were slapped and kicked. 19.3 of them
reported forced sexual intercourse (Tolman & Rosen, 2001).
In the study carried out in Çanakkale involving 366 women,
it is found that 51.6% of women with domestic violence history
are graduates of primary school. It is also found that 36.9% of
perpetrators are also graduates of primary education. The rate
of women with children is found to be 89.1%. The incidents of
physical violence were pushing (29.2%), throwing objects
(28.4%) and slapping (25.7%) (Tanrıverdi & Şıpkın, 2008).
Another study was carried out in Ankara with a sample of
370 women who are older than 15 and have domestic violence
history. It is found that 51.4% of women are of the age group
30 - 49, 23.8% are illiterate, 62.7% are graduates of primary
school and 95% are housewives without any income. It is fur-
ther found that 72.9% perpetrator spouses are graduates of pri-
mary school and 89.7% of them are employed (Efe & Ayaz,
2010).
In another study, it is found that 34.2% of 202 women with
domestic violence history have university education, 30.8% of
them have the annual income of $50,000 and 55% of them are
younger than 40 (Gielen et al., 2000).
Ellsberg et al. (2000) found that 60% of the women in the
sample experienced more than one incident of domestic vi-
olence in the last twelve months. On the other hand, the rate of
those who experienced more than six domestic incidents in the
same period is 20%.
Separation and divorce are two significant factors in domes-
tic violence (Morley & Mullender, 1994). In a study carried out
in the Northern Ireland, it is found that 56% of the married
couples with single child divorce due to domestic violence
(Evason, 1982: p. 17). Browne (1987) argues that one-third of
the divorced women had experience of domestic violence.
Some studies deal with the characteristics of children who
either witness domestic violence or experience it. Such children
are in risk groups (Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Finkelhor et al.,
2005; Kitzmann et al., 2003). They are reported to have aggres-
sion and anti-social personality disorder (Widom, 2000). They
more frequently exhibit the externalizing behavior of aggres-
siveness towards peers in contrast to those who did not witness
domestic violence (Raviv et al., 2001). Those female children
who witnessed domestic violence are reported to exhibit with-
drawn behavior such as depression and anxiety disorder
(O’Keefe, 1994, 1995). On the other hand, in a study in Sivas,
54% of the children reported domestic violence perpetrated by
their father and 46% by their mother. The educational level of
their mother is mostly primary education (56%) and 89% are
house wife. In regard to perpetrator fathers, it is found that half
of them have high school or university education (50%). They
are mostly worker or civil servant (46%) (Ayan, 2007). It is
argued that those parents who perpetrate domestic violence
against their children have childhood domestic violence history
(Kaymak Özmen, 2004; Vahip, 2002).
Patriarch systems are regarded as one of the most significant
factors leading to domestic violence. Such systems allow men
to control and punish their spouses (Dobash & Dobash, 1984;
Ptacek, 1997; Hearn, 1998). On the other hand, it is argued that
women perpetrate domestic violence in order to avoid potential
physical and psychological violence perpetrated by their male
partners (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Dobash & Dobash, 1994).
Data on Demography of the City of Zonguldak
Table 1 presents the demographic data of Turkey and Zon-
guldak. As seen in Table 1, each year the population of Turkey
increases by nearly 1 million and the rate of the population
increase is 1.43% between 2007 and 2011. However, the popu-
lation of Zonguldak decreases and it becomes more apparent in
2011. Furthermore, the number of women in Zonguldak is
higher than that of men.
Table 2 provides the demographical characteristics of people
living in Zonguldak in 2011. As seen in the Table 2, the rela-
tion between age groups and gender is statistically significant
(chi square = 1742.56, p valu e = 0.000). As it can be noted, the
number of men over the age of 34 is higher than women, but
the number of women below the age of 34 is higher. On the
other hand, overall number of women is higher than that of men
and the mean age of women is also higher.
Table 3 presents the data on marriage and divorce in Zon-
guldak from 2005 to 2010. As can be seen, there is relation
between marige/divorce and year (chi square = 3042.39, p val-
ue = 0.000). The number of marriages with respect to divorces
made a peak in 2006 and made a decrease especially in 2010.
As a mean for six years, marage is 5.46 times higher than that
of divorce.
Table 4 presents the data on the reasons for divorces and
duration of marriages in Zonguldak in 2010. In regard to the
reasons for divorce in Zonguldak in 2010 (Table 4), incompa-
tibility is the most frequent reason stated by nearly all subjects.
It is interesting that the reasons for divorce do not include adul-
tery, attempt against life, cruelty or serious insult. The mean
marriage duration for those couple divorced is ten years.
Table 5 provides the data on the age of marriage for men
and women in Zonguldak from 2005 to 2010. In this five-year
pe- riod, the mean age of marriage for women increased from
22.5 to 23, and that for men also increased from 25 to 26.
Table 6 shows the data on educational levels of women in
Zonguldak in 2009. It is seen that 78.7% of women have less
than high school education.
Table 7 presents the percentages of domestic violence expe-
rienced by women in Zonguldak based on their age and educa-
tional level. It is seen that older the women, higher the rate of
domestic violence. Therefore, the age group that mostly expe-
riences domestic violence is interestingly that of 45 - 59 with
the rate of 45.4%.
In terms of educational background, it is seen that 52.2% of
the illiterate women experience domestic violence. This rate
among those with basic education is 39.9%. 25% of the women
with high school or higher education experience domestic vi-
olence. These findings may get inferences that higher the edu-
OPEN ACCESS 7

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Table 1.
Comparison of Turkey and Zonguldak in terms of population from
2007 to 2011.
Turkey Zonguldak
Men Wo men Men Wo men
2007 35,376,533 35,209,723 302,827 313,063
2008 35,901,154 35,615,946 304,997 314,154
2009 36,462,470 36,098,842 306,075 313,737
2010 37,043,182 36,679,806 307,550 312,153
2011 37,532,954 37,191,315 302,370 310,036
Annual
mean
difference
539,105 495,398 −114 −757
(%) 1.49 1.38 −0.03 −0.24
Source: TUIK, 2011.
Table 2.
Population of Z onguldak in 2011 in terms of gende r and age groups.
Age
groups Male (M) Female (F) Total Differences based on gender (=K − E)
0 - 4 20,904 19,850 40,754 −1054
5 - 9 20,783 19,636 40,419 −1147
10 - 14 23,111 21,856 44,967 −1255
15 - 19 22,419 22,243 44,662 −176
20 - 24 22,549 23,132 45,681 583
25 - 29 25,408 24,505 49,913 −903
30 - 34 26,431 25,950 52,381 −481
35 - 39 23,438 23,656 47,094 218
40 - 44 20,664 21,714 42,378 1050
45 - 49 20,846 22,744 43,590 1898
50 - 54 20,454 21,251 41,705 797
55 - 59 18,977 18,892 37,869 −85
60 - 64 13,354 13,802 27,156 448
65 - 69 8349 9544 17,893 1195
70 - 74 6202 8057 14,259 1855
75 - 79 5098 6770 11,868 1672
80 - 84 2614 4445 7059 1831
85 - 89 661 1590 2251 929
[phone]
Mean age: 33.87 35.46 34.67 Mean difference:
403.47
Source: TUIK, 2011.
Table 3.
Data on marriage and divorce in Z onguldak from 2005 to 2010.
Years 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Mean
Marriages (M) 6,103 6,494 6,094 5,960 6,192 5,033 5,979
Divorce (D) 1,101 1,007 1,106 1,176 1,173 1,023 1,097
Ratio of M/D 5.54 6.45 5.51 5.07 5.28 4.92 5.46
Source: TUIK, 2011.
Table 4.
Data on the reasons for divorces and duration of marriages in Zongul-
dak in 2010.
Reasons for divor ce Numb er Duration of marriage Numb e r
Adultery 1 Less than a year 52
Attempt against life,
cruelty or serious insult 1 One year 81
Two years 71
Infamous crime or
dishonorable conduct - Three years 78
Willful desertion 3 Four years 74
Insanity - Five years 62
Incompatibility 997 Six to ten years 233
Other 7 Eleven to fifteen years 153
Unknown 14 More than 16 years 219
Total 1023 Total 1023
Source: TUIK, 2011.
Table 5.
Age of marriage for men (M) and women (F) in Zonguldak from 2005
to 2010.
Age/gender 2005 2006 2007
F M F M F M
Mean age 23.3 26.6 25.7 28.8 24.5 27.7
Age of marriage 22.5 25.0 22.7 25.3 22.8 25.4
Age/gender 2008 2009 2010
F M F M F M
Mean age 24.3 27.5 29.3 32.4 26.2 29.6
Age of marriage 23.0 25.6 23.2 25.9 23.4 26.1
Source: TUIK, 2011.
cational levels of women, lower the rate of domestic violence.
Methodology
Based on the data reported by the Turkish Statistics Institu-
tion (TUIK) (2011b), it can be stated that 42.9% of the women
living in the western Black Sea region including the provinces
of Bartın, Karabük and Zonguldak have the experience of do-
mestic violence. This region is at the fourth rank in terms of
domestic violence experience of women.
Erbek et al. (2004, p.199) argue that the rate of women from
Western Black Sea Region (the cities of Zonguldak, Bartın and
Karabük) who applied EDAM (The Center of Marriage Advi-
sory) as a result of their experience of domestic violence is the
highest rate (28%) when compared with the rest of Turkey.
The data of the study are collected from the domestic vi-
olence cases occurred in the districts of Bağlık, Tepebaşı,
Mithatpaşa, Meşrutiyet, Yayla, Çınartepe, İnağzı, Asma, Yeni-
mahalle, Yeşil, Dilaver, and Baştarla in Zonguldak from 1 Jan-
uary 2009 to 31 December 2011. The number of cases investi-
gated is 326. The data are given in tables and cross tables that
are calculated for statistical tests by using SPSS 18.0 version
program.
8

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Table 6.
Data on educational levels of women in Zonguldak in 2009.
Educational level Primary education and l ess High school Undergraduate education Post-graduate Doctorate Total
Percentage (%) 78.7 15.5 5.5 0.2 0.1 100
Source: TUIK, 2011b.
Table 7.
Percentage of domestic violence experienced by women in Zonguldak based on their age and educational level.
Age group Domestic violence rate (%) Educational level Domestic violence rate (%)
15 - 24 31.9 Illiterate 52.2
25 - 34 36.6 Basic education 39.9
35 - 44
45 - 59 39.7 45.4 High school education and hig her 25
Source: TUIK, 2011b.
Results
Findings According to Victims
The years of the cases are as follows: 34% of cases occurred
in 2011, 37.1% in 2010 and 28.8% in 2009. All these cases
were reported to the official authorities. The half of the married
participants (50.5%) has been married for ten years or less. The
rate of participants who experienced domestic violence in the
first three years of the marriage is 25.8%. Of the married
couples, 13.2% have no child. 27.6% have one child and 45.4%
two children.
As seen in Table 8, 43.3% the participants are from the age
group of 30 - 39 and 30.1% of them of 19 - 29. The youngest of
the victims is 16 years-old, whereas the eldest one is 82 years
old.
81.3% of the participants have a history of domestic violence,
whereas, 18.7% have no history of violence.
Table 9 shows that mostly women are the target of the do-
mestic violence (90.2%). Only 6.7% of them are men. The term
“children” in the table refers to those younger than 18 years
old.
67.8% of the victims have primary education or less. Only
4% of them have university education.
Majority of the victims are house wife (76.7%). There are
also civil servants (3.1%) and workers (15.3%).
Majority of the victims (79.4%) have no income. Victims are
mostly subject to physical violence (68.1%). They also expe-
rience emotional violence (24.2%) and sexual violence (7.7%).
The victims reported several reasons for domestic violence,
including the use of alcohol by the spouse (20.6%), divorce suit
(14.4%) and adultery (13.5%). Additionally, 35% of them re-
ported that ordinary discussions lead to domestic violence.
Findings According to Perpetrators
As seen in Table 10, majority of the perpetrators are from
the age group of 30 - 39 (52.5%); 19.3% of them from the age
group of 40 - 49. The youngest perpetrator is 15 years old,
while the eldest one is 82 years-old.
The majority of the perpetrators have secondary education
(75.2%). Nearly half of the perpetrators are coal mining work-
ers (45.7%). However, the major income source can be stated
as mining for the people living in Zonguldak, known as the
most popular coalfield of Turkey. So, this finding is not sur-
Table 8.
Age groups of victims and Percentage of the previous domestic vi-
olence history.
Age group n % Violence History n %
11 - 18 7 2.1 Experienced violence 265 81.3
19 - 29 98 30.1
30 - 39 141 43.3 No violence experience 61 18.7
40 - 49 52 16
Older than 50 28 8.6 Total 326 100
Total 326 100
prising. The rate of the perpetrators who are unemployed is
12.6%.
The rate of the perpetrators who have no income is 12.6%.
Adultery is given as the highest frequent reason for domestic
violence by perpetrators (23.9%). Another frequently reported
reason for domestic violence is divorce suit (22.7%). Therefore,
nearly half of the cases occurred due to adultery and divorce
suit (46.6%).
Domestic violence occurred mostly in the form of slapping
and punching (53.7%). Additionally, attacks with knives and ax
also occurred with the rat e of 4.3% .
As a result of domestic violence, 20% of the victims were
wounded, requiring more serious medical intervention. The rate
of those experienced psychological trauma as a result of do-
mestic violence is 23.6% (Table 11).
At the significance level of 0.05, it is statisctically significant
that types of domestic violence experienced related with the
victims with income and without income. Namely, as the rea-
sons of “the use of alcohol and psychological problems” and
“economics problems” are more common for victims without
income than victims with income, but the reasons of “adultery”
and “divorce suit” are more common for victims with income
than victims without income. The victims without income re-
ported that the frequent reason for domestic violence is either
the use of alcohol or economic problems. The frequent reasons
for domestic violence by the victims with income are adultery
and divorce suit (Table 12).
Of 326 victims experienced domestic violence in the period
of 2009-2011, one-fifth (65 persons) were treated in intensive
care or medically observed in clinics. Of those who treated in
OPEN ACCESS 9

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Table 9.
Victims.
Vi ct i ms n %
Women 294 90.2
Children 1 0.3
Spouses 22 6.7
Sons/daughters 9 2.8
Total 326 100
Reasons for Domestic Violence n %
The use of al cohol by t he spouse 67 20.6
Economic problems 41 12.6
Incompatibility 114 35
Adultery of the spouse 44 13.5
Mental illness of the spouse 13 4
Divorce suit 47 14.4
Total 326 100
Violence type n %
Physical violence 222 68.1
Emotional violence 79 24.2
Sexual violence 25 7.7
Total 326 100
Income n %
Yes 67 20.6
No 259 79.4
Total 326 100
Job n %
House wife 250 76.7
Civil servant 10 3.1
Worker 50 15.3
Self-employed 13 4
Retired 3 0.9
Total 326 100
Education n %
Illiterate 15 4.6
Basic education 206 63.2
High school 92 28.2
University 13 4
Total 326 100
intensive care unit, 38 had experienced physical violence, while
25 had sexual violence. Nearly one-fourth of the 326 cases (77
persons) reported psychological trauma and their wish to have
psychiatric treatment as a result of domestic violence. It is seen
that domestic violence has negative effects on the individuals’
health and psychological well-being.
Furthermore, 43.55 of the victims (142 persons) needed for a
long-time treatment or intensive care due to traumas they expe-
rienced (Table 13).
The relation between types of violence and the reaction of
Table 10.
Age of perpetrators.
Age group n %
11 - 18 5 1.5
19 - 29 47 14.4
30 - 39 171 52.5
40 - 49 63 19.3
Older than 50 40 12.3
Total 326 100
Income n %
Yes 285 87.4
No 41 12.6
Total 326 100
Job n %
Unemployed 41 12.6
Civil servant 16 4.9
Worker 149 45.7
Retired 36 11.0
Self-employed 84 25.8
Total 326 100
Education al l evel n %
Illiterate 5 1.5
Secondary school education 245 75.2
High school education 62 19.0
University education 13 4.0
Post-graduate education 1 0.3
Total 326 100
Reasons for Domestic Violence n %
The use of al cohol 51 15.6
Economic problems 45 13.8
Incompatibility 68 20.9
Adultery 78 23.9
Mental illness 10 3.1
Divorce suit 74 22.7
Total 326 100
perpetrators is statistically significant at a level of 0.01. It is
seen in Table 14 that it is much more likely for perpetrators of
physical violence to escape after the incident. The possibility of
arrest of perpetrators o psychological or sexual violence is
much higher. Since the results of physical violence are much
more subject to legal punishment, they tend to escape. However,
for the perpetrators of psychological and sexual violence such
cases are much less.
The relationship between duration of marriage and the reac-
tion of perpetrators is found to be statistically significant. Those
who relatively married for a short time are arrested. However,
those who married long time ago tend to escape after the inci-
dent (Table 15).
It is found that the relationship between duration of marriage
10

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Table 11.
Types of violence.
group n % n %
Slapping and punching 175 53.7 Simple medical
Intervention 184 56.4
Kicking 37 11.3
Attacks with knife 10 3.1 Requires more
serious medical
intervention 65 20.0 Attacks with ax 4 1.2
Profanity and insults 76 23.3
Rape and forced sexual
intercourse 24 7.4 Psychological trau ma 77 23.6
Total 326 100 Total 326 100
Table 12.
Reasons for domestic violence based on income status of victims.
Victims with
income Victims without income
n % n %
2
χ
P-value
The use of alcohol and
psychological problems 12 17.9 68 26.2
11.47 0.43
Economic problems 4 6 37 14.3
Routine family disputes 24 35.8 90 34.7
Adultery 14 20.9 30 11.6
Divorce suit 13 19.4 34 13.1
Table 13.
Medical intervention for the victims based on the types of domestic
violence.
Physical
violence Psychological violence Sexual violence Total
n % n % n % n %
Simple medical
intervention 183 82.43
1 1.27 - - 184 56.44
Clinical observation
and intensive care 38 17.12
2 2.53 25 100 65 19.94
Psychological
trau ma 1 0.45 76 96.2 - - 77 23.62
Total 222 100 79 100 25 100 326 100
Table 14.
The relationship between types of violence and perpetrators reaction.
Perpetrator
escaped Perpetrators arrested
n % n %
2
χ
P value
Physical violence 47 85.45 175 64.58
9.177 0.010
Psychological violence 6 10.91 73 26.94
Sexual violence 2 3.64 23 8.49
Total 55 100 271 100
and the types of domestic violence is statistically significant
(Table 16). Longer the duration of marriage, lower the rate of
physical and sexual violence, but higher the rate of psychologi-
cal violence. Therefore, in the early years of marriage, disputes
Table 15.
Relation between duration of marriage and perpetrators reaction.
Duration of
marriage Perpetrator escaped Perpetrator arrested
n % n %
2
χ
P value
1 - 7 years 16 29.1 112 41.3
6.625 0.036
8 - 16 years 17 30.9 95 35.1
+17 years 22 40.0 64 23.6
Total 55 100 271 100
Table 16.
Relationship between duration of marriage and the types of domestic
violence.
Duration of
marriage Physical violence
Psychological
violence Sexual violence
n % n % n %
2
χ
P value
1 - 7 years 100 45.0 22 27.9 6 39.3
11.98 0.018 8 - 16 years 65 29.3 34 43.0 13 34.4
+17 years 57 25.7 23 29.1 6 26.4
Total 222 100 79 100 25 100
are solved through physical power. During the first seven years
of the marriage and during the advanced mature period (seven-
teen years and longer) the rate of psychological violence is
lower. However, it is very high (nearly 50%) during the mature
period of marriage (8 - 16 years).
The reason for the use of physical power to solve disputes
during the early years of marriage seems to be related with the
inexperience of spouses. Later in the marriage, psychological
violence is much more frequently used to solve disputes. It may
be a result of the fact that spouses recognizes that they could
not solve problems through physical power. The children may
be also influential in this regard. The rate of violence decreases
significantly during the advanced mature period of marriage.
Because spouses become mature, children become older and
spouses need themselves much as a result of their ages.
The duration of marriage leads to the changes in the reasons
for domestic violence (Table 17). The relationship between
duration of marriage and the types of domestic violence is
found to be statistically significant at a level of 0.01. For the
couples who are married for 17 or more years, the reasons for
domestic violence are the use of alcohol and related psycholog-
ical problems (42.5%).
Economic problems are found to be primary reason for do-
mestic violence among the couples married for the period of 1 -
7 years (41.5%). The longer the duration of marriage, lower the
effects of economic problems on domestic violence. These
couples also experience domestic violence due to daily family
disputes (49.1%). Such disputes may arise since they get mar-
ried before well knowing each other.
Adultery is much more common reason for domestic vi-
olence for the couples married for the period of 1 - 7 years
(40.9%). The effects of adultery on domestic violence decrease
when they are based on the duration of marriage.
The rate of divorce increases in the eighth and sixteenth
years of the marriage (36.2%). The subjects are found to have
wanted to divorce and prosecuted for divorce. As stated earlier,
OPEN ACCESS 11

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Table 17.
Relationship between du ration o f marriage and the reasons f o r domestic
violence.
Duration of
marriage
The use of
alcohol and
psychological
problems
Economic
problems
Routine
family
disputes Adultery
Divorce suit
n % n % n % n % n %
1 - 7 years 22 27.5 17 41.5 56 49.1 18 40.9 15 31.9
8 - 16 years 24 30.0 13 31.7 42 36.8 16 36.4 17 36.2
+17 years 34 42.5 11 26.8 16 14.0 10 22.7 15 31.9
Total 80 100 41 100 114
100 44 100 47 100
2
χ
(P value) 22.43 (0.004)
divorce suit is one of the reasons for domestic violence.
Discussion
Studies show that when the victims are getting older, the
possibility of experiencing domestic violence increases. The
mean age of women in the study by Kyriacou et al. (1999) is 32,
while that in the study by Vahip & Doğanavşargil (2006) is 38.
Selic et al. (2011) argued that the rate of violence decreases
when the couples become older. The age group which most
frequently comes across domestic violence is found to be that
of 18 - 35 with the rate of 29.1. In a study carried out in the US,
the age group of victims is found to be as follows: 28% young-
er than, 46% is from the age group of 25 - 34 and 26% older
than 35 (Tolman & Rosen, 2001). In another study carried out
in Ankara, it is found that 51.4% of the victims belong to the
age group of 30 - 49 (Efe & Ayaz, 2010). Gielen et al. (2000)
found that 55% of the victims are younger than 40. In the cur-
rent study, 43.3% the participants are from the age group of 30
- 39 and 30.1% of 19 - 29. This finding is consistent with the
data of TUIK.
In regard to educational background of women who are vic-
tims of domestic violence there are different findings. For in-
stance, Kyriacou et al. (1999) found the followings; 35.2 of
university education, 29.7% high school and 33.2% less than
high school. Gielen et al. (2000)’s findings in this regard are as
follows: 34.2% university education. In another study, it is
found that 35.2% of the victims are university graduates, 29.7%
high school graduates and 33.2 of them have less than high
school education (Selic et al., 2011). Tanrıverdi & Şıpkın (2008)
found that 51.6% of the victims are primary school graduates.
Efe & Ayaz (2010) found that 23.8% of the victims are illiterate,
while 62.7% are primary school graduates. In the current study,
majority of the victims are primary school graduates (63.2%)
and 28.4% of them are high school graduates. The findings on
the educational background of the victims show similarities
with those of the studies carried out in Turkey, but inconsistent
with those of the international studies.
Catalano (2007) states that 95.7% of the women experience
domestic violence perpetrated by their spouse. The rate of such
women is found to be 28% in the study by Painter (1991, p.44),
30% in the study by Mooney (1993) and 21.2% in the study by
İçli (1994). Selic et al. (2011) found that physical violence tar-
gets 22.4% of men and 77.6 of women and that psychological
violence targets mostly women (19.2% of men, 80.8% of
women). In the current study, it is found that 68.1% of victims
experience physical violence perpetrated by their spouse, while
24.2% of them experience psychological violence.
The rate of women who experienced sexual violence and
abuse has been reported as follows; 57% in the study in Japan
by Yoshihama and Sorenson (1994), 52% in the study in Me x-
ico by Granados-Shiroma (1996), 19.3% in the study in the US
(Tolman & Rosen, 2001); 95% in Nicaragua study (Ellsberg et
al., 2000); 35.3% in the study in Istanbul (Erbek et al., 2004,
p.200); 36.2% in the study in Çanakkale (Tanrıverdi & Şıpkın,
2008) and 9.2% in the study in Aydın (Karaçam et al., 2006). In
the current study, the rate of women experienced sexual vi-
olence is 7.7% that is much lower.
Unlike other reports (Bhatti et al., 2011; Kellermann &
Mercy, 1992; Maguire & Pastore, 1996; Mayhew, 1996;
Mooney, 1993; Smith et al., 1998), there was no killing of the
victim in the period analyzed in the study.
Research suggests that employment and income are two sig-
nificant factors in the incidents of domestic violence in which
one of the spouses are killed (Dugan et al., 1999). There are
also other findings, stating that domestic violence has much
more hazardous effects for the women with no or little income
and economic sources (Catalano, 2007; Davis, 1999; Erbek et
al., 2004; Gelles, 1997; Hetling & Zhang, 2010; Lloyd & Taluc,
1999; Logan et al., 2007; Renzetti, 2009; Tolman & Raphael,
2000; Williams & Mickelson, 2004). The current finding that
majority of the victims have no income (79.4%) is consistent
with those of the previous studies.
Kyriacou et al. (1999) argue that primary reasons for domes-
tic violence are the use of alcohol, drug use, continuous or re-
cent unemployment and meeting with ex-spouses. Selic et al.
(2011) state that the use of alcohol and unemployment are two
crucial factors leading to domestic violence. Similar to previous
studies, the women experiencing domestic violence stated the
use of alcohol (20.6%), divorce suit (14.4%), adultery (13.5%)
and economic problems (12.6%) as the factors resulting in do-
mestic violence.
Kyriacou et al. (1999) found that 63.7% of the perpetrators
are alcohol-addicted, while 36.7% drug-addicted. In the current
study, 15.6% of the perpetrators reported that they implement
violence due to their addiction to alcohol. The other reason
reported by the perpetrators is the suspicion of adultery (23.9%).
Divorce suit was also reported as a reason for domestic vi-
olence by the perpetrators (22.7%). On the other hand, in the
current study, the use of alcohol is found to be a significant
factor in domestic violence during the later stages of the mar-
riage.
The age range of the women is mostly that of 19 - 39 (30.1%
(19 - 29 age group) and 43.3% (30 - 39 age group)). The age
range of perpetrators is mostly that of 30 - 49 (52.5% (30 - 39
age group) and 19.3% (40 - 49 age group)).
The educational background of the perpetrators is similar to
that of the victims. One-fourth of the perpetrators are found to
have lower levels of education (75.2%).
Kyriac ou et al. (1999) found in relation to e mployment status
of the perpetrators that 49.2% have full-time employment, 9%
part-time employment, 9% are continuously unemployed,
16.8% are unemployed for a long time and 13.3% are recently
unemployed. In the current study, only 12.6% of the perpetra-
tors are unemployed and that nearly half of them are workers
(45.7%). However, given that the major income source for the
people living in Zonguldak is coal mines, this finding is not
surprising.
12

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
Tolman & Rosen (2001) argued that 55% were threatened to
be battled. 55.4% of those who experienced physical violence
were stabbed and pushed. 34% of them were slapped and
kicked. 19.3% of them reported forced sexual intercourse. In
another study, the most frequent cases of physical violence
occurred in the form of pushing forcefully (29.2%), throwing
an object (28.4%) and slapping (25.7%) (Tanrıverdi & Şıpkın,
2008). Vahip & Doğanavşargil (2006) found that 88.7% of
women experienced physical violence in the form of pushing,
kicking and slapping and that 22.6% of them cannot do daily
activities due to their wounds. In the current study, it is also
found that one of two women experienced physical violence in
the form of slapping or punching (53.7%). The rate of those
who experienced psychological violence in the form of insults
and profanity is 23.3%. The rate of women experiencing sexual
violence is found to be 7.4%. There are also attacks with vari-
ous objects such as axe, knife and other cutting devices with the
rate of 4.3%. The rate of the victims that required more than a
simple medical intervention is found to be 19.9%. The rate of
those victims who experienced psychological trauma and
wanted to have psychiatric treatment is found to be 23.6%.
Conclusion
Domestic violence is the most important problem for society
which must be understood completely. Moreover, governments
should take a serious sanction to protect victims.
Although motives, types and frequency of domestic violence
vary from country to country, it is a common social problem.
Domestic violence has four common types such as physical,
psychological, sexual and economic type. The most frequent
incidents of domestic violence target women and children.
The vast majority of women experience domestic violence
perpetrated by their spouses. As it is known to be the most
common type of domestic violence, physical violence is the
main problem for spouses. However, the rates of sexual and
emotional violence should not be ignored.
Use of alcohol and unemployment are two crucial factors
leading to domestic violence. Unfortunately, we found impor-
tant evidence about these problems in this study. The age of
victims is mostly 20 or older. The peak point of the victims is
the age group of 30 - 39. It suggests that victims keep quiet
when they face violence, leading to continuous form of the
violence. The reason for the women’s such reactions is mostly
related with their economical status. Since mostly they have n o
income, they are dependent upon their spouses for economic
sources. Women also believe that their spouse will stop domes-
tic violence at some point in the future.
The educational background and age of the perpetrators are
similar to that of the victims. The perpetrators are found to have
lower levels of education, that is, lower educated spouses are
potential danger for victims.
Domestic violence may result in serious wounding cases as
well as serious psychological trauma. In most cases, perpetra-
tors attack the victims with knives or other cutting devices.
REFERENCES
Ann Hoff, L. (1990). Battered woman as survivors. New York: Rout-
ledge Pub.
Ayan, S. (2007). Aile içinde şiddete uğrayan çocuklarin saldırganlık
eğilimleri. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 8, 206-214.
Bhatti, N., Jamali, M. B., & Phu lpoto, N. N. (2011). Domestic violence
against women: A case study of district Jacobabad, Sindh Pakistan.
Asian Social Science, 7, 146-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v7n12p146
Bilican Gökkaya, V. (2011). Türkiye’de kadına yönelik ekonomik
şiddet. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 12,
101-112.
Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill. New York: The Free
Press.
Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of
marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Jour-
nal of Family Violence, 10, 265-293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02110993
Catalano, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence in the United States.
Washington DC: US Department of Justice.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1000
Davis, M. (1999). The economics of abuse: How violence perpetuates
women’s poverty. In R. Brandwein (Eds.), Battered women, children,
and welfare reform: The ties that bind (pp. 17-30). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1984). The nature and antecedents of
violent events. British Journal of Cri minology, 24, 269-288.
Dugan, L., Daniel N., & Richard R. (1999). Explaining the decline in
intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity,
women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Ho micide Studies,
3, 187-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088767999003003001
Efe, Ş. Y., & Ayaz, S. (2010). Kadına yönelik aile İçi şiddet ve
kadınların aile İçi şiddete bakışı. Anadolu Psikiya tri Dergisi, 11, 23-
39.
Ellsberg, M. C., Pena, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., & Winkvist, A.
(2000). Candies in hell: women’s experience of violence in Nicara-
gua. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1595-1610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00056-3
Erbek, E., Eradamlar, N., Beştepe, E., Akar, H., & Alpkan, L. (2004).
Kadına yönelik fiziksel ve cinsel şiddet: Üç grup evli çiftte kar-
şılaştırmalı bir çalışma. Düşünen Adam, 17, 196-204.
Evason, E. (1982). Hidden violence: Battered women in northern Irel-
and. Belfast: Farset Co-operative Press.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., Turner H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2005).
Measuring poly-victimization usin g t he Juv enile Victimization Ques-
tionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1297-1312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.06.005
Gelles, R. J. (1997). Intimate violence in families (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gielen, A. C., O’Campo, P. J., Campbell, J. C., Schollenberger, J.,
Woods, A. B., Jones, A. S., Dienemann , J. A., Kub, J., & Wynne, E.
C. (2000), Women’s opinions about do mestic violence screening and
mandatory reporting. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19,
279-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00234-8
Granados-Shiroma, M. (1996). Salud reproductive violence contra la
mujer: Reproductive hea lth a nd vio lence aga ins t women: An ana lysis
from a gender perceptive. Asociación Mexicana de Población, Con-
sejo Estatal de Población, Nuevo León, El Colegio de México.
Hearn, J. (1998). The violence of men. London: Sage.
Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2001). Gender dif ferences in the
risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 25, 1037-1051.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00255-1
Hetling, A., & Zhang, H. (2010 ). Domestic violence, p ov erty and social
services: Does location matter? Social Science Quarterly, 91, 1144-
1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00725.x
Hotalling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (19 90). A risk marker analysis of
assaulted wives. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 1-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00979135
İçli, T. G. (1994). Aile içi şiddet: Ankara İstanbul ve İzmir örneği.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, 7-20.
İçli, T. G. (2007 ). Kriminoloji. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
Karaçam, Z., Çalışır, H., Dündar, E., Altuntaş, F., & Avcı, H. C. (2006).
Evli kadınların aile içi şiddet görmelerini etkileyen faktörler ve
kadınların şiddete ilişkin bazı özellikleri. Ege Üniversitesi Hem-
şirelik Yüksek Okulu Dergisi, 22, 71-88.
Kaymak Özmen, S. (2004). Aile içinde öfke ve saldırganlığın yansı-
OPEN ACCESS 13

T. G. İÇLİ ET AL.
maları, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37,
27-39.
Kellermann, A. L., & Mercy, J. A. (1992). Men, women, and murder:
Gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimiza-
tion. Journal of Trauma, 33, 1-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199207000-00001
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003).
Child witnesses to d omestic violence: A Meta-Analy tic review. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical P s ychology, 71, 339-352.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.339
Kyriacou, D. N., Anglin , D., Taliaf erro, E. , Stone, S ., Tubb , T., Linden ,
J. A., Muelleman, R., Barton, E., & Kraus, J. F. (1999), Risk factors
for injury to women from domestic violence. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 341, 1892-1898.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199912163412505
Lloyd, S., & Taluc , N. (199 9). The imp act of recen t partn er violence on
women’s capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5,
370-392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10778019922181275
Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., Cole, J., & Swanberg, J. (2007). Partner
stalking and implications for women’s employment. Journal of In-
terpersonal Violence, 22, 268-291.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260506295380
Mahoney, A., & D on n elly, W. O. (2000). Adolescent-to-parent physical
aggression in clinic-referred families: Prevalence and cooccurrence
with parent-to-adolescent physical aggression. Victimization of
Children and Youth: An Interna tional Research Conferen ce. Durham,
NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire.
Mayhew, P. (1996). Crime statistics for England and Wales. HMSO:
London.
Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. L. (1996). Sourcebook of criminal justice
statistics 1995. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Mooney, J. (1993). The hidden figure of domestic violence in North
London. London: Islington Council:
Morley, R., & Mullender, A. (1994). Preventing domestic violence to
woman, police research group crime prevention unit series. Paper
No: 48, London: Home Office Police Department.
O’Keefe, M. (1994). Linking marital violence, mother-child/father-
child aggression, and child behavior problems. Journal of Family Vi-
olence, 9, 63-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01531969
O’Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child ab use in maritally violen t fa mi-
lies. Journal of Inter personal Violence, 10, 3-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626095010001001
Painter, K. (1991). Wife rape, Marriage and the Law. Survey Report:
Key Findings and Recommendations. Faculty of Economic and So-
cial Studies University of Manchester, Department of Social Policy
and Social Work.
Plichta, S. B. (1996). Violence and abuse: Implications for women’s
health. In M. M. Falik, & K. S. Collin s (Eds.), Women’s health: The
Commonwealth Fund survey (pp. 237-272). Baltimore: Johns Hop-
kins University Press.
Ptacek, J. (1997). The tactics and strategies o f men who batter. In A. P.
Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners (pp. 104-123).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Raviv, A., Erel , O., Fox, N. A., Leavitt, L. A., Raviv, A., Dar, I., Sha-
hinfar, A., & Greenbaum, C. W. (2001). Individual measurement of
exposure to everyday violence among elementary schoolchildren
across various settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 117-
140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(200103)29:2<117::AID-JCOP1
009>3.0.CO;2-2
Renzetti, C. M. (2009). Economic stress and domestic violence. Ap-
plied Research Foru m, National Online Resource Center on violence
against women.
http:// www.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=2187
Ritzer, G. (1990 ). Social Problems. Random House. NewYork.
Selic, P., Pesjak, K., & Kersn ik, J. (2011). The prevalence of exposure
to domestic violence and th e f actors as so ciated with co -occu rrence of
psychological and physical violence exposure: A sample from pri-
mary care patients. BMC Public Health, 11, 621-631.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-621
Smith, P. H., Moracco, K. E., & Butts, J. D. (1998). Partner homicide in
context: A population-based perspective. Homicide Studies, 2, 400-
421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088767998002004004
Tanrıverdi, G., & Şıpkın, S. (2008). Çanakkale'de sağlık ocaklarına
başvuran kadınların eğitim durumunun şiddet görme düzeyine etkisi.
Fırat Tıp Dergisi, 13, 183-187.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and conse-
quences of violence against women: Findings from the national vi-
olence against women su rvey. Washington, DC: Natio nal Institute of
Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Tolman, R., & Raphael, R. (200 0). A review of research on welf are and
domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 655-682.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00190
Tolman, R., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the lives of
woman receiving walfare. Violence against Woman, 7, 141-158.
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUIK). (2011). Marriage and Divorce Sta-
Tistics 2010. Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Matbaası.
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUIK). (2011b). Woman in Statistics 2010.
Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Matbaası.
Widom, C. S. (2000). Childhood victimization: Early adversity, later
psychopathology. National Institute of Justice Journal, 1, 2-9.
Wiehe, V. R. (1998). Understanding family violence: Treating and
preventing partner, child, sibling, and elder abuse. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Williams, S. L., & Mickelson, K. D. (2004). The nexus of domestic
violence and poverty: Resilience in women’s anxiety. Violence
against Women, 10, 283-293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801203262519
Wilt S., & Olson S. (1996). Prevalence of domestic violence in the
United States. Journal of American Medical Women’s Association,
51, 77-82.
Yoshihama, M., & Sorenson S. B. (1994). Physical, sexual, and emo-
tional abuse by male intimate: Experiences of women in Japan. Vi-
olence and Victims, 9, 63-77.
Vahip, I. (2002). Evdeki şiddet ve gelişimsel boyutu: Farklı bir açıdan
bakış. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 13, 312-319.
Vahip, I., & Doğanavşargil, Ö. (2006). Aile içi fiziksel şiddet ve kadın
hastalarımız. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 17, 107-114.
14