INTRODUCTION

Violence against women, and especially intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence, represents a major public health problem and breach of the victims' human rights. Estimates produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that approximately 30% of women worldwide experience physical and/or sexual IPV or nonpartner sexual violence during their lives. These figures highlight the global prevalence and significance of IPV as a public health issue. The majority of this violence is preventable. The health sector has an important responsibility to discharge in terms of providing comprehensive health care for women subjected to violence and/or referring such women to other support services they may need (WHO, 2024).

The present study adopted Heise's (1998) ecological framework as its main theoretical foundation. This framework enables a multilevel understanding of IPV by linking individual histories with broader social and cultural influences. In the Turkish context—particularly in the southeastern region—strong patriarchal traditions, gender hierarchy, and honor-based norms significantly shape men's attitudes and behaviors toward women (Dikmen & Münevver, 2020; Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, 2019; Sakalh-Uğurlu & Glick, 2003). In Türkiye, patriarchal gender norms and honor-based cultural values continue to shape men's attitudes toward relationships and masculinity (Dikmen & Münevver, 2020; Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies, 2019). Men's control over women is often socially justified as protection of family honor, and deviation from traditional female roles may trigger violence (Kocacık & Dogan, 2006; Sakalh-Uğurlu & Glick, 2003). Moreover, incarcerated men in Türkiye represent a particularly high-risk group for IPV perpetration, as imprisonment is often associated with antisocial traits, exposure to trauma, and adherence to rigid masculine ideologies (Sehlikoğlu et al., 2025). Studies of incarcerated men in various countries have shown that their IPV tends to be more severe and more closely linked to dominance, jealousy, and substance use compared to nonincarcerated men (Henning & Feder, 2004). Discussing IPV within the Turkish prison context thus offers valuable insight into how structural inequality, cultural norms, and incarceration interact to shape men's violent behaviors. Understanding these dynamics is essential for interpreting the findings of this study. According to Heise's (1998) ecological framework, IPV emerges from the interplay between factors operating at four levels: individual (e.g., childhood trauma, emotion regulation, temperament), relationship (e.g., family conflict, partner dynamics), community (e.g., social isolation, economic stress), and societal (e.g., gender norms, patriarchal values). In the context of Türkiye—particularly in the southeastern region—these levels interact within a sociocultural system that emphasizes honor, obedience, and traditional masculinity. This framework therefore guided both the research questions and interpretation of findings, linking men's personal histories of trauma to broader cultural structures that sustain gender-based violence.

More than a quarter (27%) of women worldwide aged 15–49 who have been in a relationship report experiencing some form of physical and/or sexual violence from their intimate partners (WHO, 2024). Psychological violence is the most widespread form of partner violence against women, followed by physical violence (Santos et al., 2020). The latest national research from Türkiye reported that 26%, 8%, 15%, and 5% of women had been subjected to emotional or psychological, physical, economic, and sexual violence, respectively, by their spouses or intimate partners in the previous 12 months (Research on Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey, 2015).

Many acts of IPV result in femicide (Silva & Schermann, 2021). IPV represents 7% of the total disease burden seen in women aged 18–44 and adversely affects whole families' emotional and social well-being (Mikton, 2010). The WHO emphasizes that exposure to violence among women can adversely their physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health and can, in some settings, exacerbate the risk of contracting HIV (WHO, 2024). The most deleterious outcomes reported in the scientific literature among women who experience IPV are psychological disorders; cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems; and physical injuries (Souza & Silva, 2019). The self-esteem of women subjected to IPV is adversely affected, their recovery being undermined by resulting losses in the areas of income, employment, housing, and social participation improvement (Hing et al., 2021; Moulding et al., 2021). Diabetes (Stubbs & Szoeke, 2022), depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation (Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006) are more common in such women.

Studies investigating the general characteristics of men who commit violence against women show that individual (impulsivity, low self-respect, and insecurity), behavioral (use of alcohol and other drugs), and contextual (patriarchal society) characteristics associated with the profile of the aggressor can explain the infliction of domestic violence (Scott & Oliveira, 2018). International research on male perpetrators of IPV has similarly emphasized multiple, interacting domains—individual impulsivity and low self-esteem, behavioral patterns such as substance use, and contextual influences like patriarchal norms and socioeconomic disadvantage (Fulu et al., 2017; Scott & Oliveira, 2018). These patterns align with Heise's ecological model and justify the current study's multilevel examination of men's trauma histories, temperaments, and gender attitudes in the Turkish context. A study investigating the characteristics of men arrested in connection with crimes of violence showed that these were young adults, married, with low levels of education, and working in paid employment, and that the majority engaged in violence while under the influence of alcohol and had other records on intrafamilial violence (Madureira et al., 2014). The majority of men who commit physical violence against women in Türkiye have been found to exhibit unequal gender attitudes, to have low levels of education, to have been subjected to physical violence in their own childhoods, to be in arranged marriages, to have three or more children, and to use alcohol and substances and to gamble (Akkuş, & Yıldırım, 2018). One important determinant of attitudes toward IPV in Türkiye is the possession of unequal gender attitudes (Özpınar & Acar, 2022). A qualitative study involving men who commit violence reported that these referred to traditional women's roles and male hegemony (Sikweyiya et al., 2020). Understanding these factors is essential for developing effective prevention strategies.

The current research

Although research from Türkiye and other countries has been performed concerning men who inflict violence on their partners, I encountered no studies examining the individual experiences of such individuals in depth, such as childhood traumas, temperament characteristics, and reasons for the infliction of violence. In order to reduce women's exposure to violence and to develop culturally appropriate interventions, it is essential to understand the characteristics and violence-related histories of the men perpetrating it and the reasons for that violence. By situating this research within Heise's (1998) ecological framework and the sociocultural realities of southeastern Türkiye, this study aimed to offer a culturally informed understanding of how men's early life experiences, gender norms, and local cultural values intersect to shape their use of violence against partners. From that perspective, the present study was performed to determine the sociodemographic characteristics of men who commit IPV, those men's experiences of violence in childhood, their gender norms, and their experiences regarding their infliction of violence on their partners. This study contributes uniquely to the literature by providing an in-depth, culturally contextualized understanding of how early-life trauma, gender norms, and masculine identity intersect to shape men's violence against partners in Türkiye—a population rarely explored in qualitative depth.

In the light of that aim, the study sought to answer the following questions:

• What are the sociodemographic characteristics of men who inflict violence on their female partners?
• What are the childhood experiences of violence of men who inflict violence on their female partners?
• What are the gender norms of violence of men who inflict violence on their female partners?
• How do these men explain their use of violence against their partners?

METHOD

Research method

This study employed a qualitative research design using inductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) criteria were adopted for reporting the research.

Study group

The research was conducted in a closed correctional facility located in a province in southeastern Türkiye. This region is known for its conservative and patriarchal social structure, where traditional gender roles and honor-based norms are deeply embedded in daily life. This cultural context is important for understanding how the participants perceive and rationalize IPV. The study group consisted of male prisoners aged over 18 in a closed prison convicted of violence against their partners, with no difficulty in speaking or understanding Turkish, and voluntarily consenting to participate, selected using the purposeful sampling method. Some participants may have had other criminal records, as individuals sentenced to less than 3 years in Türkiye are not typically incarcerated, and crimes against women generally attract shorter sentences (except in cases of femicide). However, detailed information about additional offenses was not available, as the Ministry of Justice did not authorize access to these records. Fifty prisoners meeting the study group selection criteria were present in the selected prison during the dates when the research was conducted. However, four refused to answer any questions other than those investigating their sociodemographic characteristics, and two declined to take part at all. The study was thus completed with 44 prisoners. Data concerning the participants' sociodemographic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Recruitment and screening

Recruitment took place in collaboration with the prison's psychosocial services unit. Information about the study was communicated to all eligible inmates by prison psychologists and social workers during routine group meetings. Participation was entirely voluntary, and no incentives or privileges were offered. The researcher was not involved in the recruitment process until potential participants had indicated their interest to the prison staff, in order to minimize coercion. Prisoners were provided with a written information sheet explaining the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study in clear, accessible language. Those interested met individually with the researcher and a prison psychologist to review the consent form. Written informed consent was obtained before participation. Participants were informed that refusal or withdrawal would not affect their treatment, privileges, or legal status in any way. Eligibility screening was conducted by the prison's psychosocial team based on official records and psychological evaluations. Men were included if they (a) were aged 18 or older, (b) were convicted of violent crimes against an intimate partner (e.g., spouse, fiancée, or cohabiting partner), and (c) could communicate in Turkish and consent voluntarily. Individuals convicted of other violent crimes not involving a partner (e.g., robbery, assault of strangers) were excluded.

Definition of IPV

For the purposes of this study, IPV was defined according to the WHO (2021) as “any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological, or sexual harm to those in the relationship” (p. 2). Both physical acts (e.g., hitting, slapping, strangling) and nonphysical acts (e.g., threats, coercion, humiliation, and controlling behaviors) were included in this definition. However, the final sample consisted of men convicted of physical violence, as verified by court documentation.

Data collection form

The study data were collected using a semistructured interview form produced via an examination of the previous literature on the subject (Madureira et al., 2014; Özpınar & Acar, 2022; Scott & Oliveira, 2018; Sikweyiya et al., 2020). To explore participants' subjective meanings and personal interpretations, the researcher employed probing techniques during interviews. In addition to the main questions, follow-up questions such as “What feelings did you have at that time?,” “How do you see that affecting you now?,” and “Could you describe that situation in more detail?” were used to deepen the exploration of participants' perceptions and meaning constructions (Morgan & Guevara, 2008; Prior, 2017). The final version of the form was produced by canvassing the opinions of three specialists (with PhDs in psychiatric nursing and publications on the subject of intrafamilial violence). The first part of the form contained questions investigating the participants' sociodemographic characteristics (such as age, years of marriage, occupation, education, economic status, and marital status). This semistructured interview form posed the following questions:

• Would you speak about your relationships with your family during childhood?
• Would you speak about your experience with violence, if any, during your childhood?
• How do you think women should behave toward their partners?
• In your opinion, what are women's roles in the family?
• Would you speak about subjects on which you are unable to agree with your partner?
• Would you speak about the reasons for inflicting violence on your partner?

Data collection

The research data were collected by the researcher, with the guidance of the semistructured interview form, between February 1, 2024, and October 4, 2024, in a suitable room in the prison, at separate face-to-face interviews with each participant. Each individual who was in the prison and newly arrived during the research timetable was evaluated in terms of the research inclusion criteria by staff working at the prison's psychosocial unit (three psychologists and one social services specialist). The researcher was notified when participants suitable for the study group had been identified, and these were then interviewed by the researcher using an interview calendar. During the interviews, the researcher was accompanied by a female psychologist, both for safety purposes and also to reduce the effect of the researcher. That psychologist was undertaking a postgraduate qualification in sociology, and in order to avoid affecting the interview process, she had never previously interviewed any of the participants. The researcher conducting these interviews was a female academic with a PhD in psychiatric nursing, trained in the field of qualitative research, with published papers related to qualitative research, and working as an associate professor at a university. Reflexively, the researcher had no personal history of violence but possessed professional experience in psychiatric nursing and qualitative research. To ensure transparency and minimize bias, reflexive notes were kept throughout data collection and analysis, documenting expectations, emotional reactions, and reflections about men's narratives of violence (Nowell et al., 2017).

The prison refused permission for the interviews to be recorded. The researcher therefore made a written record during the interviews, from which transcripts were subsequently produced. The participants were asked to grant the researcher sufficient time to note down their responses. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached, meaning no substantially new categories or patterns emerged in subsequent interviews. If a participant chose to stop sharing before that point, the interview was respectfully concluded, and their contributions were still included in the analysis. Once each interview had been concluded, transcripts were sent to the participants for them to make comments and/or amendments. After each interview, the researcher and the accompanying psychologist held a brief debriefing session to document contextual impressions (e.g., participants' emotional tone, nonverbal cues, and the overall atmosphere of the session). These reflexive notes were used to support interpretation during analysis. The interviews lasted between 50 and 60 minutes. Following each interview, the written records were transferred word for word to a computer. The participants were given code identities, from K-1 to K-44.

Data analysis and trustworthiness

Because audio recording was not permitted by the prison administration, detailed contemporaneous written notes were taken during each interview and expanded immediately afterward into comprehensive transcripts. Although the interviews were not audio recorded, efforts were made to capture participants' expressions as accurately as possible. The data were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis following the preparation, organizing, and reporting phases described by Elo and Kyngäs (2008). All transcripts were read repeatedly to ensure immersion in the data and were coded by the researcher. Codes were grouped into subthemes based on similarities, and main themes were subsequently developed through abstraction. To enhance credibility, an experienced clinical psychologist reviewed selected transcripts, preliminary codes, and the emerging thematic framework as part of a peer debriefing process. The psychologist's role was limited to providing methodological feedback and did not involve independent coding, theme development, or interpretive decision-making. All final analytic decisions remained the responsibility of the researcher.

Member checking was conducted by returning brief written summaries of each interview to participants for verification and clarification. Participants were invited to comment on the accuracy of the summarized content rather than full transcripts. No substantial corrections were requested. Trustworthiness was ensured in accordance with the criteria proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1982). Credibility was supported through prolonged engagement, reflexive journaling, peer debriefing, and member checking. Dependability and confirmability were strengthened by maintaining an audit trail documenting coding decisions and analytic reflections. Transferability was addressed by providing detailed descriptions of the research context and participant characteristics.

Ethical issues

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Batman University (Approval 2023/03–05). Written permission was obtained from the General Directorate for Prisons and Houses of Detention to which the prison where the research was conducted belonged (B.M. 2024/419). Written consent to participate was also obtained from the prisoners taking part.

RESULTS

Inductive qualitative content analysis of the interviews revealed seven main themes and related subthemes: childhood traumas, personal and familial criminal histories, childhood behaviors, stated reasons for IPV, stated reasons for femicide, attitudes toward violence, and gender norms. To increase transparency, the frequency of participants contributing to each theme and subtheme is summarized below. These counts are based on the participant identifiers (K-1 … K-44) appearing in the transcripts. Each theme was supported by multiple participants, as shown in Table 2. Below is a synthesized yet nuanced presentation of each theme, integrating representative participant statements to preserve the richness of the data.

Theme 1: Childhood traumas

Participants frequently reported being exposed to multiple forms of trauma in childhood, including physical abuse, economic exploitation, witnessing domestic violence, and neglect. These experiences were described as both formative and normalized within their family environments.

Subtheme 1: Exposure to intrafamilial physical violence (n = 19; 43.2%)

Many participants recounted harsh discipline, usually from fathers or older brothers.

“My father used to beat me a lot. I was mistreated a lot—kicks, slaps, and even being placed in handcuffs.” (K-22)

“My older brothers used to beat me until wounds appeared on my body. Even if I did something wrong, I was just a child.” (K-2)

Subtheme 2: Exposure to intrafamilial economic violence (n = 25; 56.8%)

Many began working at very young ages and were deprived of their earnings.

“I looked after animals as a child. I worked as a bootblack. My older brothers took the money I earned away from me.” (K-2)

“At the age of 12 I went to Adana to work. I stayed there 4–5 years.” (K-22)

Subtheme 3: Witnessing intrafamilial physical violence (n = 8; 18.2%)

Several participants witnessed their fathers beating their mothers, sometimes with tragic outcomes: “My father wanted to marry a second woman. My mother objected. My father used to beat my mother. She committed suicide when I was 10. Maybe my father killed her” (K-41).

Subtheme 4: Neglect (n = 13; 29.5%)

Accounts of emotional neglect and absence of care were common.

“My father was a total alcoholic. He took no interest in us. He did not work.” (K-15)

“I grew up on the streets … I never knew my father. He left us when he married for the second time. I swear I never saw any love.” (K-28)

Subtheme 5: Self-directed behaviors (self-harm/suicide; n = 2; 4.5%)

A few participants reported self-harm or suicide attempts, illustrating the psychological strain associated with early experiences and relational conflicts. These instances are integrated under the broader context of childhood traumas and formative experiences shaping later behaviors.

“I was 19 when I first tried to kill myself. I was in love with a girl, but my family did not think I should marry her.” (K-1)

“I used to punch the walls. I would punch myself in the head.” (K-4)

These formative experiences often normalized aggression and shaped how participants managed conflict in intimate relationships.

Theme 2: Personal and familial criminal histories

Subtheme 1: Personal criminal history (n = 8; 18.2%)

Many participants had prior arrests for theft, assault, or drug-related crimes: “I have been in and out of prison since the age of 13 for theft and mugging” (K-39).

Subtheme 2: Family history of crime (n = 3; 6.8%)

Some reported that their fathers or brothers had also been imprisoned: “My father was always in prison. I never saw him. He committed murder” (K-38). The presence of personal or familial criminal histories suggests the role of modeling and early exposure to deviant behaviors in participants' understanding of acceptable conduct.

Theme 3: Childhood behaviors (n = 6; 13.6%)

Participants frequently described themselves as aggressive, defiant, or delinquent children.

“We used to go stealing and never came home. I ran wild and was an ignorant child.” (K-12)

“I ran away from home around 14. I was always fighting. I used to beat everyone up.” (K-25)

These patterns of early aggression and defiance may have contributed to later use of violence, reflecting learned behaviors and coping mechanisms shaped by their upbringing.

Theme 4: Stated reasons for IPV (n = 43; 97.7%)

All participants had perpetrated physical IPV, and most justified their behavior through situational or relational explanations. Subthemes included women's roles, jealousy, anger, substance use, family influence, second marriage, and financial stress.

Subtheme 1: Roles expected of women (n = 2; 4.5%)

“If only I had not hit her. We were going to a wedding. My wife had ironed my trousers badly. Then there was a fight and a lot of noise.” (K-23).

Subtheme 2: Jealousy (n = 9; 20.4%)

“You must stay indoors for the sake of my honor, I told her, and broke her arm.” (K-1).

“My wife wore revealing clothing … I told her to cover her hair up, but she didn't.” (K-22).

Subtheme 3: Anger and humiliation (n = 7; 15.9%)

“She was always comparing me to others … saying others bought their wives cars but I never did. So I stabbed her.” (K-16).

Subtheme 4: Alcohol and drugs (n = 7; 15.9%)

“Our fights were because of drugs. I used to swear at my wife and beat her under the influence.” (K-19).

Subtheme 5: Family interference (n = 11; 25%)

“My wife would throw my mother out of the house … I worship my mother. I could not turn my back on her.” (K-11).

Subtheme 6: Financial stress (n = 3; 6.8%)

“We were unable to pay the rent. My wife shouted at me and told me to bring money. Go out and steal, she said.” (K-34).

Subtheme 7: Second marriage (n = 1; 2.3%)

One participant referenced conflicts related to marrying a second woman and the resulting tensions with his first spouse: “I married a second woman … then going to see her caused conflicts with my first wife” (K-14). This illustrates how structural and familial expectations can contribute to situational triggers for IPV.

Theme 5: Stated reasons for femicide (n = 5; 11.4%)

Five participants described killing their partners, usually citing perceived infidelity or insult as immediate triggers.

“I loved my wife, but she cheated on me. I caught her with someone else … I shot both her and her lover.” (K-28)

“It happened in a moment's anger. My wife insulted me. I took out my licensed gun and shot her.” (K-6)

These narratives reflect the participants' own perception of threats to honor and control within their relationships. Consistent with national and international literature on femicide, acts of intimate partner homicide are often linked to perceived infidelity or insults, demonstrating the cultural and relational framing of violence (e.g., Özpınar & Acar, 2022; WHO, 2021).

Theme 6: Attitudes toward violence (n = 11; 25.0%)

This theme captures how participants rationalized, normalized, or morally justified the use of violence. Rather than describing specific incidents, these statements reflected general beliefs that violence was a necessary part of family life, a disciplinary tool, or an expression of masculinity.

“A man has to control his home. If a woman gets out of line, he needs to set her straight.” (K-12)

“We were raised seeing our fathers hit our mothers. For us, it was normal. It didn't feel wrong.” (K-8)

“Sometimes words don't work. You have to use your hands so that they understand.” (K-23)

Out of 44 participants, 11 (25%) explicitly rationalized or normalized violence as part of family life or masculinity, indicating that although traditional gender norms were widespread (37/44, 84%), rationalization of violence was present only in a subset of men. These statements indicate how cultural and familial norms legitimize the use of violence, revealing internalized beliefs about masculinity and authority without implying that all men endorsing traditional norms justify violence.

Theme 7: Gender norms (n = 37; 84.1%)

Traditional gender expectations were pervasive across nearly all interviews. Participants described women's obedience and domestic responsibility as unquestionable social facts.

“My wife must look after the children, cook, and do the housework. If she doesn't, what is she good for?” (K-8)

“A woman must respect her husband. Otherwise, she is not a proper wife.” (K-10)

Although a few statements reflected more egalitarian views, such as “The man and woman must be equal in the home … Even our Prophet used to help his wife” (K-36), these were exceptions and do not alter the predominance of traditional norms in the sample.

DISCUSSION

Violence toward women is one of the most destructive results of societal gender inequality and adversely affects millions of women across the world physically, psychologically, and economically. The present research into men who inflict violence against their female partners examined the sociodemographic roots of violent behavior, attitudes toward violence, and experiences of extreme violence, such as spousal murder, through various themes ranging from childhood traumas to gender norms. These background characteristics—particularly low education, economic hardship, and exposure to traditional patriarchal norms—likely shaped the ways in which participants perceived, justified, and narrated their experiences of violence. The findings can also be interpreted through the ecological framework, in which individual-level trauma and temperament interact with relational, community, and societal forces. Early trauma may impair emotion regulation and increase impulsivity—mechanisms that heighten the risk of using violence in intimate relationships. However, in patriarchal societies such as Türkiye, these personal vulnerabilities are reinforced by cultural expectations that normalize male authority and control, amplifying the risk of IPV and femicide. Therefore, interventions must simultaneously address trauma recovery, emotional regulation, and sociocultural gender norms. Additionally, future cross-national research could explore how broader cultural and social determinants, such as gender inequality indices and national norms, interact with individual-level risk factors to influence IPV prevalence. It is also important to note that the men's explanations for violence are based on self-reported perceptions, which may involve justification or rationalization rather than objective causation. These narratives, however, remain valuable in understanding how perpetrators construct meaning around their behavior.

Previous studies have identified strong links between IPV perpetration and men's sociodemographic and psychosocial backgrounds. Low educational attainment and economic hardship have consistently been associated with higher IPV rates, partly due to stress, lack of communication skills, and adherence to patriarchal gender norms (Capaldi et al., 2012; Fulu et al., 2017). Gender ideologies that equate masculinity with control and dominance further normalize violent behavior (Jewkes et al., 2015). Moreover, a large body of evidence indicates that childhood exposure to violence—either as a witness or victim—is among the strongest predictors of future IPV perpetration (Widom & Wilson, 2015). These findings align with the current study's themes of intergenerational transmission of violence, showing that early trauma, rigid gender norms, and social inequality converge to sustain men's violent behavior in adulthood. Unlike most prior studies that focused primarily on victims' perspectives or used quantitative designs, this research offers rare qualitative insight into the lived experiences and meaning-making processes of incarcerated men who perpetrated IPV in Türkiye. By situating men's narratives within their sociocultural and developmental contexts, the study extends existing knowledge about the intergenerational and cultural transmission of violence.

The great majority of the interviewees in this study were men with low education and economic status. The women exposed to violence had low education levels and were unemployed. Similar previous research investigating the characteristics of men imprisoned for violence against women also determined a low level of education among the men and that they worked in low-income jobs. A low level of education and financial difficulties among men may represent contributory factors to the infliction of violence. The fact that better educated women are less tolerant of aggression is also consistent with the finding that women with low education levels are more exposed to violence (Magrin & Oliveira, 2023). One of the reported explanations for higher rates of violence toward spouses among men with low levels of education may be that such men have not learned nonviolent behavioral models. Indeed, studies have recommended that men be taught and shown nonviolent relationship models that will benefit both themselves and women (Magrin & Oliveira, 2023).

The majority of our interviewees had been exposed to and/or witnessed violence within their families and social settings. Similarly, previous studies have emphasized that whether or not men were exposed to violence in their childhoods is one of the most powerful predictors of their beating their spouses. Studies have also reported that men who repeatedly inflict violence on women and children also have histories of intrafamilial violence and were exposed to and/or witnessed violence in the family (Fulu et al., 2017; Goodman et al., 2020; Jeremiah et al., 2017; Zietz et al., 2020). Boys who witness violence on the part of their fathers are three times more likely to beat their own wives when they marry (Campbell, 1993). The fact that witnessing intrafamilial violence increases rates of anger (Ayhan, 2024) and of acceptance and commission of violence (Ayhan & Özkan, 2016) reveals the importance of social learning and trauma in the context of violence. It may therefore be useful to implement violence prevention and healthy communication skills development programs for children and parents to overcome this cycle. Some participants in this research had histories of self-harming. These findings indicate the presence of common risk factors underlying violent tendencies and self-harming behaviors.

A number of interviewees had also been neglected in their own childhoods. Studies on the subject have consistently shown that adverse childhood experiences, including neglect, may affect the tendency to resort to violence in adulthood (Fulu et al., 2017; Goodman et al., 2020; Jeremiah et al., 2017; Zietz et al., 2020). Research into the motives of violence against women in adulthood among men who were neglected in childhood has shown that various psychological and social factors underlie this. These include traumas experienced at early ages, antisocial personality disorders, and inadequate coping strategies (Gauthier et al., 2024; White & Widom, 2003). To summarize, the effects of childhood neglect are complex and multidimensional. Measures aimed at reducing those effects are therefore important in terms of lowering the risk of IPV.

Some participants and their relatives in this study had histories of crime, and some family members encouraged them to commit crime. Studies on the subject have determined that men who inflict violence on their parents also have records of other intrafamilial violence (Madureira et al., 2014) and criminal careers (Walby & Myhill, 2001). However, findings indicating childhood traumas and cognitive dissonance in familial relationships in individuals involved in crime reveal the important roles of childhood and the family in the crime cycle (Ayhan et al., 2024). The family can affect individuals' perspectives and dispositions toward criminal behavior, and the family structure can play a decisive role in the development of crime-related attitudes. It is therefore important that preventive policies be instituted.

Statements by some interviewees in this research also suggest that they exhibited antisocial and social maladjustment behaviors in childhood. A previous study of child criminals showed that temperament and psychopathy possessed similar predictive capacities, but that neither was more significant than a previous history of crime and violence in predicting future criminality (DeLisi et al., 2018). Further research is now needed to improve understanding of the effect of childhood behaviors on tendencies toward violence in men who inflict violence on women.

The interviewees reported explanations for inflicting violence on their partners, including the roles they expected of them, jealousy, alcohol and substance use, their mothers, their mothers-in-law, their second spouse, and financial difficulties. Similarly, previous studies involving men who are violent toward their spouses have described alcohol and drug use (Madureira et al., 2014), anger experienced due to infidelity and women's endeavors to end the marriage, and men's sexual possessiveness (Fleming et al., 2015; Wilson & Daly, 1996) as important factors. These findings show that not only individual characteristics but also cultural norms including gender roles and men's sense of possession are effective factors underlying IPV.

Infidelity and inability to cope with perceived disrespect were reported as explanations for femicide by participants in this study. Previous studies have cited various factors including sexual jealousy and suspicion of infidelity, societal and gender inequality, separation and divorce proceedings, alcohol and substance use, preexisting intrafamilial violence, and psychological problems as reasons for spouse killings (Adinkrah, 2008; Chimbos, 1998). Understanding these factors is highly important in terms of preventing spouse killings and developing appropriate strategies.

Examination of the participants' attitudes toward violence showed that some rationalized it and that others witnessed rationalized violence. It is important to understand how men who resort to violence rationalize this in order to reduce exposure to violence and develop culturally appropriate interventions. Data concerning the rationalization of violence have revealed that a range of patriarchal social, cultural, and religious factors combine together to construct traditional masculinity. They also show that the use of violence by men is a tactic designed to control women and emphasize their authority and power over them (Sikweyiya et al., 2020). This shows how attitudes toward violence are shaped by individuals' past experiences and social contexts and emphasizes that interventions aimed at violence prevention need to focus on altering these attitudes.

The participants in this research also described unequal gender roles, such as women's roles in the home and toward their husbands, and their social gender roles. Similar research has determined attitudes indicative of patriarchal, gender inequality and a tendency to inequality in marriage among men who resort to violence (Özpınar & Acar, 2022; Sikweyiya et al., 2020; Walby & Myhill, 2001). Men who inflict violence on their partners have also been reported to regard such violence as a means of imposing discipline on their spouses (Sikweyiya et al., 2020). Patriarchal societies may indirectly normalize violence toward women by emphasizing such values as power, control, and obedience during the raising of boys. Praising the use of violence in favor of emotional expression as boys are brought up increases the risk of their internalizing violence (Andrus, 2020). These findings should also be interpreted within Türkiye's sociocultural and cultural-historical context. In the southeastern regions where this study was conducted, patriarchal family systems, male honor codes, and religion-based moral expectations shape everyday gender relations and normalize unequal power structures between men and women (Dikmen & Münevver, 2020; Sakalh-Uğurlu & Glick, 2003). Providing this cultural grounding helps international readers understand the meaning of gender norms identified in this study. Men might usefully be offered awareness training to help them rethink unequal gender roles and modify their attitudes and behaviors regarding them. Men who are violent toward women generally have a low level of education and are difficult to contact within the community, and the time they spend in prison may represent a useful opportunity to provide such awareness-raising training.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to this study. First, because the study was performed in a closed prison, the participants may have been convicted of other crimes in addition to IPV (apart from those who had killed their spouses). However, detailed data on such offenses were not available to the researcher, as access to criminal records was restricted by the Ministry of Justice. The findings cannot, therefore, be interpreted solely as the characteristics of men who commit IPV. Although the research involved a large study group, its qualitative nature means that it cannot be generalized to all men who commit IPV. Second, I was unable to interview the spouses of the men who had committed violence, meaning that the reported explanations for violence could not be compared between the perspectives of victims and perpetrators. Future studies involving separate interviews with both spouses may permit a more detailed analysis of the difference between the sexes in the context of the motives of violence based on the same pattern. Further research focusing specifically on men who perpetrate violence against their partners without involvement in other forms of criminal behavior could provide a clearer understanding of the factors underlying IPV. In addition, cross-cultural comparative studies would help elucidate how gender inequality and social norms contribute to variations in IPV risk across different national and cultural contexts. These findings must be interpreted within Türkiye's broader patriarchal and honor-based cultural context, where rigid gender norms continue to shape men's perceptions of power, control, and family honor. The findings align with Heise's (1998) ecological framework, illustrating how violence emerges from interacting factors across individual, relational, community, and societal levels. This theoretical lens helps explain how men's early trauma, patriarchal values, and social environments jointly shape their violent behaviors.

Implications

This research reveals that men who inflict violence on their partners also have a deep-rooted history of violence in their own lives. The trauma, violence, and neglect experienced during their own childhoods by the participants occupy an important place in elucidating the transmission of violence from one generation to another. The reasons why men commit violence against their partners include unequal perception of societal gender roles, spouses' failure to adopt the roles expected of them, jealousy, anger, alcohol and substance abuse, the influence of family members, financial problems, infidelity, and disrespect. Infidelity and an inability to cope with insults emerged as basic causes of spouse murders. These findings show how violent tendencies among men are encouraged by societal gender inequalities, intrafamilial violence, and intergenerational traumas. This in turn highlights the importance of raising education levels, developing policies that support gender equality, and addressing the traumas that individuals experience during their childhood if violence is to be prevented.

This study provides important insights that can guide both clinical practice and social policy. Clinicians, particularly mental health professionals and social workers, can benefit from understanding the interplay between men's early adverse experiences, patriarchal gender norms, and violent behaviors. Screening male clients for histories of childhood trauma and maladaptive coping strategies may help in early identification of individuals at risk of perpetrating IPV. Integrating trauma-informed and gender-transformative approaches into rehabilitation programs for offenders can improve treatment outcomes and reduce recidivism. At the societal level, the findings underline the urgent need for community-based interventions that address rigid gender roles and normalize equality-based relationship dynamics. Public education campaigns, school-based gender equality curricula, and community dialogue programs that engage men in redefining masculinity have been shown to reduce violence-supportive attitudes. Implementing such strategies in patriarchal regions like southeastern Türkiye could help prevent intergenerational transmission of violence. From a reflexive perspective, I observed that some participants were initially reserved but became more expressive as rapport developed. Although I did not share similar experiences, maintaining empathy and nonjudgmental listening encouraged participants to describe not only their actions but also their emotions and rationalizations. The findings indicate that although intergenerational trauma was prevalent among participants—such as exposure to childhood physical abuse, neglect, and familial violence—only a subset explicitly rationalized or justified their own violent behavior (11/44; 25%). This suggests that trauma alone does not uniformly lead to moral justification of IPV; rather, it interacts with internalized patriarchal norms to shape how some men interpret and rationalize their actions. The coexistence of remorse and justification observed in interviews may therefore reflect this nuanced interplay between early adverse experiences and culturally reinforced gender expectations (Jewkes et al., 2015; Shakoor et al., 2022). I was often struck by the coexistence of remorse and justification in participants' accounts, which revealed how deeply intergenerational trauma and patriarchal norms intertwine in shaping men's self-perceptions. From a research perspective, future studies should employ longitudinal and mixed-method designs to explore causal mechanisms linking childhood trauma, socialization, and adult IPV perpetration. Comparative studies involving both perpetrators and victims, as well as cross-cultural research, would further deepen understanding of the complex pathways that sustain IPV. Moreover, evaluating the effectiveness of prison-based psychosocial interventions targeting gender-norm change and emotional regulation skills would provide evidence-based guidance for policymakers and practitioners.

In line with recent literature, future interventions could focus on structural and relational factors highlighted in Heise's (1998) ecological framework, such as family support, parenting programs, and economic stability, which have been shown to reduce risk factors associated with IPV (Grych et al., 2015; Jewkes et al., 2020). Such programs address relational and community-level influences, complementing individual-focused strategies, and help create environments that prevent the intergenerational transmission of violence.