People who are intolerant of violence against women
Community levels of intolerance of violence against women provide context for the prevalence rates of violence against women in Australia, with higher levels of intolerance associated with lower levels of prevalence. Here 'intolerance' is measured by examining the proportion of people whose score falls into the lowest endorsement of attitudes supportive of violence category based on the Community Attitudes Supportive of Violence Against Women Scale (CASVAWS).
The visualisation below allows users to explore the relative differences in levels of intolerance of violence against women for select population groups. In 2017, a greater proportion of women than men were categorised as having the highest level of ‘intolerance’. Compared with all other age groups, a lower proportion of people aged 75 and over were categorised as having the highest level of ‘intolerance’.
Proportion of people with lowest endorsement of attitudes supportive of violence, by population groups, 2017
Exploring levels of intolerance of violence against women over time can help to identify shifts in community attitudes and evaluate primary prevention policy and programs. A lower mean score on the CASVAWS indicates a higher level of intolerance of violence against women and is seen as desirable.
The visualisation below shows a reduced mean score between 2009 and 2017 indicating a positive shift in attitudes, for women and men.
Mean score on the Community Attitudes Supportive of Violence Against Women Scale (CASVAWS), by gender, 2009, 2013 and 2017
- The Community Attitudes Supportive of Violence Against Women Scale (CASVAWS) is one of several composite measures included in the National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS). The CASVAWS measures the overall concept of ‘condoning violence against women’ and includes 32 questions across four themes: Excuse the perpetrator and hold women responsible; Minimise violence against women; Mistrust women’s reports of violence; Disregard the need to gain consent.
- The NCAS collects information from Australians aged 16 years and over.
- The data outlined in the first visualisation provides a comparison of the proportion of a particular population who fell into the quartile with the lowest endorsement of violence against women. Approximate quartiles were used in the reporting of the NCAS for the purpose of comparing different groups at a single point in time. The quartiles were calculated by taking the sample as a whole and dividing it into quartiles based on participant scores. The first quartile represents the lower scores, equating to lowest levels of endorsement observed and the fourth quartile represents the highest scores, equating to highest levels of endorsement observed. The second and third quartiles were combined and labelled as a medium level of endorsement. After dividing the scores of the entire sample into quartiles, comparisons of particular populations can then be made by comparing what proportion of each population group sits in each quartile.
- The scores are relative and indicate whether one group has a relatively lower endorsement than another group. However, the scores do not indicate the overall level of endorsement of any group in an absolute sense, for example, it cannot be said that a group has a “good” or “bad” level of endorsement.
- Non-main English speaking country includes respondents born overseas in a non-main English speaking country, that is, a country where the main language is not English.
- Mean scores on the CASVAWS are reported here for the purposes of exploring changes to attitudes over time. These data cannot be compared to the proportion of people with the lowest level of endorsement. Mean scores range from 0-100, with lower scores indicative of higher levels of intolerance of violence against women.
- To determine whether differences in CASVAWS scores between demographic groups in the sample represent genuine differences in the population, tests of statistical significance were conducted. Significance was tested at the 99 per cent confidence level (p≤.01). As the NCAS sample size is large, it is possible for a result to be statistically significant but too small to be of any practical importance. Thus, only results that are likely to have practical importance are noted as statistically significant, based on a Cohen’s effect size of > 0.2 (and p≤.01).
- For more information see Methods, Glossary and Data sources.
Next expected: 2021