Abstract
This study undertook an assessment of multigenerational attitudes towards gender norms related to intimate partner violence (IPV), sexuality, and reproductive health behaviours. A cross-sectional household survey was conducted among 1630 young people and adults, in six communities in Ebonyi state, southeast Nigeria. In data analysis, mean attitude scores were computed and compared across generation cohorts using analysis of variance. Attitudes toward each domain of intimate partner relationships served as the dependent variables in three separate linear regression analyses, where the predictors were identified accordingly. The results showed that the differences in mean scores on attitudes towards gender norms about IPV and sexuality in intimate partner relationship were not statistically significant across the generation cohorts (p > 0.05). However, there were significant differences in the attitudes of generation cohorts towards gender norms relating to sexuality and reproductive health behaviour. The sociodemographic predictors of attitudes to gender norms on IPV were male gender (β = 0.106, p = < 0.001) and urban residence (β = 0.075), p = < 0.001), while tertiary education predicted attitudes to gender norms on sexuality (β= − 0.156, p = 0.012) and reproductive health behaviour (β= − 0.216, p = < 0.001). The findings highlighted generational similarities and differences in attitudes towards gender norms in intimate partner relationships. Generational differences were shaped by factors such as age, gender, and education level. Conducting longitudinal studies could reveal how these attitudes evolve and societal changes’ impact.
Keywords: Gender norms, Intimate partner relationships, Multigeneration, Sexual and reproductive health
Subject terms: Public health, Population screening
Introduction
Adherence to harmful gender norms may result in negative sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes. Young men who hold on to harmful gender norms have higher likelihood of; having more sexual partners, holding negative attitudes about condom use, believing that pregnancy validates masculinity, relegating male responsibility towards pregnancy1,2. On the other hand, the practice of feminine gender norms which includes passively accommodating the desires of men – termed “acquiescence femininity”3 may lead to higher likelihood of; giving birth at a young age, unintended pregnancy, poor assertive communication skills, experiencing power imbalance in sexual relationship, self-inefficacy to avoid HIV, having a partner that disapproves of safer sexual practice1,4,5. Hence, young people who maintain harmful and inequitable gender norms are at higher risk of indulging in behaviour that could lead to unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual violence.
Gender roles are usually centred on societal conceptions of masculinity and femininity6. In traditional gender roles, men are expected to be the breadwinners responsible for productive ventures external to the home and women are expected to stay at home and take care of the children7. Gender norms and roles evolve with time to be either reinforced, moderated, or jettisoned due to extensive interactions within the family, at school, in the workplace, in line with religious affiliations, the media, and the wider world. They define how people of a particular gender and age are expected to behave, express themselves, and interact with others in a given social context8. Interestingly, gender norms have changed significantly over time to a more egalitarian gender role, where there is more and/or equal distribution of professional and family life responsibilities9,10.
Intimate partner relationships are close relationships between two persons who share a significant emotional bond. Ideally, intimate partner relationships are supposed to be characterized by a high level of trust, intimacy, and mutual support11. However, due to conflicts, disagreements, lack of trust, jealousy, possessiveness and/or incompatibility, some relationships degenerate into intimate partner violence (IPV). This is a pattern of behaviour in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner, and it can lead to physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse12. Based on traditional gender roles that emphasize male dominance and female submission, there is a stereotype that portrays men as perpetrators of IPV and women as the victims13.
Intimate partner violence remains a pervasive issue in Nigeria. Traditional gender norms often place men in dominant roles and women in submissive positions, perpetuating intimate partner violence (IPV). The National Demographic Health 2019 report showed that 30% of women aged 15–49 have experienced physical violence, with cultural acceptance of IPV playing a significant role14. Older generations often view IPV as a private matter, reinforcing its normalization.
In Nigeria, sexuality and reproductive health behaviours are also shaped by gender norms. Traditional beliefs often discourage open discussions about sex, leading to misinformation and risky sexual behaviours15. Older generations tend to adhere to conservative views, promoting abstinence until marriage and stigmatizing premarital sexual activities15. This contrasts with the more liberal attitudes of younger generations, who are increasingly exposed to global media and advocacy on sexual rights16. The lack of comprehensive sex education further exacerbates the gap in knowledge and safe practices among young people.
Transmission of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours across generations plays a significant role in shaping human relationships and cultural beliefs17,18. Specifically, cultural norms significantly influence societal values and impact the health and wellbeing of the younger generations. It can hinder young people’s access to SRH services and education. For instance, young women may face barriers in accessing contraceptives due to societal expectations of chastity and the stigma associated with premarital sex19,20. Additionally, the fear of IPV may prevent women from negotiating safe sex practices, increasing the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended pregnancies.
Patriarchal social systems and power imbalances have historically perpetuated gender inequality and violence against women21. Even though societies have evolved over time, remnants of patriarchal values and gender norms may persist across generations. Attitudes that support or tolerate intimate partner violence can be deeply ingrained within social structures, leading to similar attitudes being passed down to younger generations. Cultural values and norms can be passed down from one generation to another through cultural transmission22.
Hence, the need to identify and address multigenerational transmission of negative gender norms and dysfunctional sexual and reproductive behavioural patterns that can impact the overall health and wellbeing of young people. To effectively address these issues, interventions that have the potential to break unhealthy multigenerational transmission processes and improve young people’s sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing are needed. To design such interventions, information is needed on the similarities and differences in attitudes to gender norms across generational cohorts of young people and adults, and the predictors of these attitudes.
While there is a growing body of literature on gender norms and SRH, several gaps remain in Nigeria. Specifically, there is limited literature on attitudes toward gender norms related to IPV and sexuality. Moreover, most studies focus on single-generation perspectives, often neglecting the comparative analyses of attitudes across different age groups23,24. Addressing these gaps is essential for developing targeted interventions that consider the diverse and evolving nature of gender norms in Nigeria.
To better understand these dynamics, it is crucial to examine how attitudes toward gender norms on intimate partner relationships differ across generational cohorts in Nigeria. By doing so, it seeks to contribute to the development of targeted interventions and policies that promote gender equity and improve health outcomes for younger generation. This study identifies and compares attitudes to gender norms related to intimate partner violence, sexuality, and reproductive behaviour across generation cohorts of young people and adults as well as their predictors.
Methods
Study area and design
A cross-sectional quantitative survey was used to identify and compare attitudes to gender norms about intimate partner violence, sexuality, and reproductive health and behaviour across generation cohorts of young people and adults as well as their predictors. The study was conducted in six local government areas (LGAs) in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Ebonyi state is one of Nigeria’s five states in the southeast geo-political zone and has about 355,000 young people between 15 and 24 years. The State has an estimated total population of 4,339,13625.
Two LGAs were selected from each of the three geopolitical zones in the state. These LGAs have been prioritized by the State government for scaling up sexual and reproductive health (SRH) interventions as they recorded the highest level of unwanted teenage pregnancies in the State. In each LGAs, one community was purposively selected due to the presence of a functional public healthcare facility that provides youth friendly SRH services.
Study population and sampling technique
The study population consisted of heads of households and young people within the ages of 15 to 24 years living in selected households. A sample size of 606 households was determined using the guidelines outlined in the demographic and health survey (DHS) sampling and household listing manual26. To arrive at the sample size of 606 households, a total of 101 households were drawn from each community. A total of 1,020 young people (aged 15 to 24) were estimated using the same formula: n=〖Deft〗^2 × (1/p-1)/α^2, where n represents the sample size, Deft is the design effect, p is the estimated proportion of the attribute in the population, and α is the desired relative standard error. The design effect was set at 1.6, p was set at 0.5, and α was set at 0.0501. However, a total of 1,025 young boys and girls between the age 15 to 24 were selected and interviewed from the 606 households.
Households were selected through a modified cluster sampling procedure. A cluster was defined as a community governed by a traditional leader. All heads of households who have young boys and girls within 15 and 24 years were selected and interviewed. Eligible young persons from selected households who gave consent and whose household heads consented to their participation in the study were recruited and interviewed from 1st to 16th November 2022.
Data collection
The structured questionnaire was adapted from UN Women’s 2013 annual publication on gender and evaluation and the Compendium of gender scales27,28. The questionnaire was pretested in a neighbouring state to ensure that the questions and statements are understandable, clear, and appropriately structured for the adults and young people.
The questionnaire was used to elicit information on the demographic characteristics of the respondents and their attitudes towards gender norms in intimate partner relationships across three domains, namely: (i) intimate partner violence (IPV); (ii) sexuality or sexual behaviours in intimate partner relationships; and (iii) reproductive health and behaviour in intimate partner relationships.
The domain that assessed attitudes to gender norms on intimate partner violence utilized variables such as “A girl/woman should tolerate violence to keep her relationship or family together”; “It is all right for a man/boy to beat his wife/girlfriend if she is unfaithful”; “It is all right for a girl to insult a boy who asks for a relationship”; “Sometimes a boy must force a girl to have sex if he loves her”.
Attitudes to gender norms on sexuality and sexual behaviours in intimate partner relationships across generation cohorts was assessed using variables such as “It is the man/boy who decides what type of sex to have”; “Sex is more important to men than to women”; “A woman/girl should not initiate sex”; “Men/boys need sex more than women/girls”.
The attitudes to gender norms on reproductive health and behaviour across generation cohorts was assessed using variables such as “Women/girls who carry condoms on them are easy/ promiscuous”; “Men/boys should be outraged (annoyed) if their wives/female partners ask them to use condom”; “Purchasing condoms is the duty of the male partner”; “Only when a woman has a child is she a real woman”.
Each domain had gender norm statements to which participants were asked to select one of three options – agree, partially agree, do not agree. The IPV and reproductive health domains each had 10 gender norm statements, while the sexuality domain had 11 statements.
Data were collected using both electronic and paper copies of the questionnaire. The electronic version of the questionnaire was coded in the Open Data Kit (ODK) software and administered using android tablets. The questionnaires were administered by forty-two (42) research assistants who were recruited and trained for a period of four days on the data collection procedures, including the ethical conduct of research. The research assistants worked in pairs, and each person either handled the paper copy of the questionnaire or the android tablet. Data collection lasted for sixteen days. The information on the electronic questionnaires were first verified to ensure consistency with the corresponding paper copies before the forms were uploaded to the central server.
This study was conducted under the ethical guidelines and regulations. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Committee of the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Enugu (NHREC/05/01/2008B-FWA00002458-1RB00002323) before entry into the study site. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants before administering the survey. Parental informed consent was also obtained for young people aged 15 to 17. All the participants consented to their anonymized data being used in publications.
Data analysis
Data entry and analysis were undertaken using Stata version 17. The data were initially analysed using frequencies and proportions for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables.
Age categories that represented five generation cohorts of young people and adults were generated. The cohorts were determined based on the respondents’ age at the time of the survey and defined as: Silent Generation & Baby Boomers (1928–1964), Generation X (1965–1980), Generation Y/Millennials (1981–1997), Generation Z2 (1998–2004), and Generation Z1 (2005–2007).
Generation Z was purposefully disaggregated by the authors into two groups – those who had attained 18 years (Generation Z2) and those who were less than 18 years (Generation Z1) at the time of the survey. The age disaggregation of Generation Z into adults and non-adults was necessary because of the varying vulnerabilities, health outcomes, and legal and social rights of adults and non-adults (adolescents).
The responses to gender norm statements (that is agree, partially agree, and disagree) were weighted using a scale of 1 to 3, where the most desirable response was assigned a score of 3 and the least desirable response was assigned a score of 1. Total domain scores were generated for each respondent by summing the scores of gender norm statements within each domain.
 |
Where Q = Gender norm statement.
Mean scores and standard deviations were generated for each gender norm statement on intimate partner violence, sexuality in intimate partner relationships, and reproductive health and behaviour, by adding the individual scores of respondents and dividing this by total number of respondents .
 |
Where Q = Gender norm statement, R = Individual respondent scores, N = Number of respondents.
Overall mean scores for each domain were generated by adding the total domain scores of all respondents and dividing this by the product of total number of respondents and number of gender norm statements. For instance, for IPV domain that had 10 gender norm statements, the overall domain score was calculated using the formula
 |
Where T = Total domain score for each respondent, N = Number of respondents.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences in mean scores across the five generational cohorts for each gender norm statement, and the three domains.
Predictors of attitudes were determined through three multiple linear regression analyses, with each of the intimate partner relationships domains as dependent variables respectively. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Multiple linear regression was used to test if gender, generation cohort, place of residence, level of education and marital status significantly predicted attitudes to gender norms related to intimate partner relationships. The fitted regression model was,
 |
Where, Y is the response/dependent variable, b 0 is the constant or intercept, b1 through bp are the estimated coefficients, and x1 through xp are the values of the explanatory/independent variables. The level of statistical significance was determined by a p-value of < 0.05.
Results
Table 1 shows the demographic and background characteristics of the participants in the survey. There were a total of 1630 respondents, comprising of 605 heads of households (HHs) and 1025 young people from the households. The mean age of the heads of households was 45.49 years, while that of the young people was 18.10 years. The gender distribution of the heads of households was 52.89% female, while that of the young people was 55.71% female.
Table 1.
Demographic and background characteristics of participants in the survey.
| Variables | Frequency (percent) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Heads of HHs (N = 605) | Young people (N = 1025) | Total (N = 1630) | |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 320 (52.89) | 571 (55.71) | 891 (54.66) |
| Male | 285 (47.11) | 454 (44.29) | 739 (45.34) |
| Generation cohort (age category) | |||
| Silent boomers (≥ 58) | 84 (13.88) | – | 84 (5.15) |
| Gen X (42–57) | 313 (51.74) | – | 313 (19.20) |
| Gen Y (25–41) | 181 (29.92) | – | 181 (11.10) |
| Gen Z2 (18–24) | 26 (4.30) | 538 (52.49) | 564 (34.60) |
| Gen Z1 (15–17) | 1 (0.17) | 487 (47.51) | 488 (29.94) |
| Level of education | |||
| None | 65 (10.74) | 8 (0.78) | 73 (4.48) |
| Primary | 199 (32.89) | 605 (59.02) | 804 (49.33) |
| Secondary | 262 (43.31) | 405 (39.51) | 667 (40.92) |
| Tertiary | 79 (13.06) | 7 (0.68) | 86 (5.28) |
| Place of residence | |||
| Urban | 300 (49.59) | 515 (50.24) | 815 (50) |
| Rural | 305 (50.41) | 510 (49.76) | 815 (50) |
| LGA of residence | |||
| Abakaliki | 102 (16.86) | 171 (16.68) | 273 (16.75) |
| Afikpo south | 100 (16.53) | 170 (16.59) | 270 (16.56) |
| Ezza south | 103 (17.02) | 171 (16.68) | 274 (16.81) |
| Ikwo | 98 (16.20) | 172 (16.78) | 270 (16.56) |
| Izzi | 100 (16.53) | 170 (16.59) | 270 (16.56) |
| Ohaozara | 102 (16.86) | 171 (16.68) | 273 (16.75) |
| Marital status | |||
| Single (never married) | 42 (6.94) | 1001 (97.66) | 1043 (63.99) |
| Currently married. | 556 (91.90) | 22 (2.15) | 578 (35.46) |
| Previously married | 7 (1.16) | 2 (0.20) | 9 (3.01) |
| Mean age (SD) | 45.49 (11.14) | 18.10 (2.61) | 28.27 (15.02) |
| Median age (IQR) | 45 (39–52) | 18 (16–20) | 20 (17–40) |
*SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range.
A disaggregation of the survey participants into generation cohorts shows that majority of the participants belonged to generation Z, comprising 34.60% in the 18–24 years age cohort (Z2), and 29.94% in the 15–17 years age cohort. The proportions of participants in the other age cohorts are, 5.15% in the Silent boomers (≥ 58), 19.20% in generation X (42–57 years), and 11.10% in generation Y (25–41 years).
Table 2 shows the mean scores of participants’ attitudes to gender norms about intimate partner violence in relationships, and the differences in mean scores across generation cohorts. The results show that the differences in mean scores of participants’ attitudes to IPV are not statistically significant across the generation cohorts (p > 0.05) for majority of the gender norm statements and the IPV domain. A mean score ranging between 1.314 and 1.392 observed across the generational cohorts for the statement “There are times when a woman deserves to be beaten”, suggests a high level of agreement with this harmful belief. The mean score between 1.834 and 2.005 as observed across the generational cohorts for the statement " A man/boy being violent to his wife/girlfriend is a private matter that should not be interfered with “, suggests that respondents are more likely to disagree with harmful gender norms.
Table 2.
Attitudes to gender norms on intimate partner violence across generation cohorts.
| Gender norm statements | Mean (95% CI) | F (Prob > F) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silent boomers | Gen X | Gen Y | Gen Z2 | Gen Z1 | ||
| There are times when a woman deserves to be beaten. | 1.392 (1.231 − 1.554) | 1.383 (1.304 − 1.462) | 1.314 (1.215–1.414) | 1.372 (1.313–1.431) | 1.361 (1.424–1.424) | 0.33 (0.859) |
| A girl/woman should tolerate violence to keep her relationship or family together. | 1.880 (1.683 − 2.079) | 1.757 (1.658 − 1.856) | 1.718 (1.585–1.851) | 1.817 (1.740–1.894) | 1.672 (1.594 − 1.749) | 2.19 (0.067) |
| It is all right for a man/boy to beat his wife/girlfriend if she is unfaithful. | 1.523 (1.347 − 1.700) | 1.434 (1.350 − 1.519) | 1.425 (1.314–1.537) | 1.512 (1.444–1.580) | 1.438 (1.370–1.506) | 1.00 (0.406) |
| It is all right for a woman/girl to beat her husband/boyfriend if he is unfaithful. | 1.083 (1.014 − 1.152) | 1.131 (1.083–1.18) | 1.182 (1.104–1.26) | 1.150 (1.112–1.189) | 1.119 (1.082–1.155) | 1.12 (0.347) |
| A woman/girl can hit her husband if he won’t have sex with her. | 1.083 (1.006–1.16) | 1.144 (1.093 − 1.194) | 1.116 (1.054–1.178) | 1.085 (1.058–1.112) | 1.104 (1.069–1.139) | 1.25 (0.287) |
| A man/boy can hit his wife/girlfriend if she won’t have sex with him. | 1.190 (1.076 − 1.304) | 1.169 (1.114 − 1.225) | 1.204 (1.124–1.284) | 1.252 (1.202–1.301) | 1.199 (1.150–1.247) | 1.29 (0.273) |
| A man/boy being violent to his wife/girlfriend is a private matter that should not be interfered with. | 1.988 (1.805 − 2.171) | 1.862 (1.764 − 1.961) | 2.005 (1.868–2.046) | 1.973 (1.900–2.046) | 1.824 (1.744–1.903) | 2.74 (0.027) |
| It is impossible to speak about ‘forced’ sex in relationships. | 1.702 (1.524 − 1.879) | 1.863 (1.765–1.96) | 1.807 (1.676–1.937) | 1.952 (1.88–2.024) | 1.852 (1.773–1.932) | 2.27 (0.059) |
| It is all right for a girl to insult a boy who asks for a relationship. | 1.214 (1.221 − 1.353) | 1.287 (1.221 − 1.354) | 1.287 (1.200–1.374) | 1.269 (1.222–1.317) | 1.279 (1.225–1.332) | 0.30 (0.881) |
| Sometimes a boy must force a girl to have sex if he loves her | 1.381 (1.319 − 1.442) | 1.208 (1.145 − 1.269) | 1.331 (1.236–1.427) | 1.363 (1.307–1.419) | 1.317 (1.258–1.376) | 5.40 (0.003) |
| Overall attitudes to gender norms on IPV | 1.355 (1.295 − 1.414) | 1.368 (1.331 − 1.404) | 1.391 (1.336–1.446) | 1.432 (1.403–1.461) | 1.387 (1.356–1.419) | 2.39 (0.05) |
*Statistically significant values (at p<0.05) are in bold.
The mean scores, and differences in the mean scores of participants attitudes to gender norms about sexuality and sexual behaviours in intimate partner relationships are shown in Table 3. The results show that there are significant differences in the attitudes of generation cohorts towards the gender norm statements on sexuality in intimate partner relationships, as well as in the mean scores for the sexuality domain (p < 0.05). A mean score ranging between 2.426 and 2.811 observed across the generational cohorts for the statement " Sex is more important to men than to women”, suggests a high level of disagreement with this belief.
Table 3.
Attitudes to gender norms on sexuality and sexual behaviours in intimate partner relationships across generation cohorts.
| Statements | Mean (95% CI) | F (Prob > F) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silent boomers | Gen X | Gen Y | Gen Z2 | Gen Z1 | ||
| It is the man/boy who decides what type of sex to have. | 2.428 (2.269–2.588) | 2.527 (2.446–2.608) | 2.525 (2.411–2.639) | 2.418 (2.354–2.483) | 2.352 (2.280–2.424) | 3.14 (0.014) |
| Men/boys are always ready to have sex. | 2.285 (2.108–2.463) | 2.521 (2.438–2.604) | 2.475 (2.359–2.591) | 2.597 (2.542–2.653) | 2.486 (2.418–2.553) | 4.13 (0.002) |
| Men/boys need sex more than women/girls. | 2.426 (2.355–2.497) | 2.415 (2.328–2.502) | 2.458 (2.343–2.574) | 2.473 (2.411–2.536) | 2.424 (2.353–2.495) | 3.39 (0.009) |
| Sex is more important to men than to women | 2.750 (2.62–2.879) | 2.811 (2.756–2.867) | 2.779 (2.698–2.86) | 2.464 (2.401–2.528) | 2.426 (2.355–2.497) | 22.96 (< 0.001) |
| A man should know what his partner likes during sex. | 1.417 (1.258–1.575) | 1.537 (1.447–1.627) | 1.691 (1.561–1.82) | 2.716 (2.666–2.767) | 2.645 (2.587–2.704) | 236.97 (< 0.001) |
| A man/boy needs other women/ girls even if things with his wife/ female partner are fine. | 1.583 (1.411–1.756) | 1.808 (1.709–1.907) | 1.713 (1.579–1.846) | 1.693 (1.622–1.765) | 1.531 (1.459–1.602) | 5.73 (< 0.001) |
| You don’t talk about sex you just do it. | 2.809 (2.686–2.933) | 2.671 (2.591–2.751) | 2.663 (2.557–2.769) | 1.837 (1.765–1.912) | 1.699 (1.625–1.772) | 122.22 (< 0.001) |
| A woman/girl should not initiate sex. | 1.655 (1.463–1.847) | 1.610 (1.514–1.706) | 1.613 (1.486–1.74) | 1.948 (1.876–2.021) | 1.983 (1.906–2.061) | 14.98 (< 0.001) |
| A woman/girl who has sex before marriage does not deserve to be respected. | 1.69 (1.497–1.884) | 1.521 (1.432–1.609) | 1.536 (1.415–1.656) | 1.551 (1.484–1.619) | 1.772 (1.692–1.853) | 6.60 (< 0.001) |
| A man/boy who has sex before he marries does not deserve respect | 1.440 (1.274–1.607) | 1.559 (1.468–1.649) | 1.696 (1.568–1.824) | 1.521 (1.456–1.586) | 1.684 (1.607–1.761) | 4.12 (0.002) |
| Young men and women should have sex before they get married to know if they are compatible. | 2.297 (2.114–2.481) | 2.303 (2.209–2.397) | 2.188 (2.055–2.321) | 1.801 (1.728–1.874) | 1.579 (1.507–1.652) | 45.91 (< 0.001) |
| Overall attitudes to gender norms on sexuality in intimate partner relationships | 2.026 (1.946–2.105) | 2.098 (2.057–2.139) | 2.101 (2.042–2.159) | 2.147 (2.116–2.178) | 2.105 (2.071–2.139) | 2.44 (0. 045) |
Table 4 shows the mean scores and differences in means across generation cohorts for attitudes to gender norms related to the reproductive health and reproductive behaviours of men/boys and women/girls in intimate partner relationships. and the differences in mean scores across generation cohorts. The differences in the mean scores of the attitudes of generation cohorts to all gender norm statements on reproductive health and behaviours are statistically significant (p < 0.05). The difference in overall mean scores for the domain is not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Table 4.
Attitudes to gender norms on reproductive health and behaviour across generation cohorts.
| Statements | Mean (95% CI) | F (Prob > F) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silent boomers | Gen X | Gen Y | Gen Z2 | Gen Z1 | ||
| Women/girls who carry condoms on them are easy/ promiscuous. | 1.821 (1.627–2.015) | 1.671 (1.577–1.765) | 1.79 (1.658–1.922) | 2.139 (2.064–2.212) | 2.397 (2.322–2.473) | 40.97 (< 0.001) |
| Men/boys should be outraged (annoyed) if their wives/female partners ask them to use condom. | 2.357 (2.177–2.537) | 2.424 (2.335–2.514) | 2.442 (2.326–2.558) | 1.807 (1.733–1.88) | 1.760 (1.683–1.838) | 51.76 (< 0.001) |
| A woman can suggest using condoms just like a man can | 2.714 (2.569–2.859) | 2.831 (2.776–2.884) | 2.867 (2.801–2.934) | 2.434 (2.368–2.500) | 2.227 (2.150–2.305) | 46.93 (< 0.001) |
| A man and woman should decide together what type of contraceptive to use. | 2.333 (2.151–2.516) | 2.495 (2.408–2.582) | 2.475 (2.356–2.594) | 2.75 (2.702–2.798) | 2.690 (2.633–2.748) | 14.46 (< 0.001) |
| It is a woman/girl’s responsibility to avoid getting pregnant. | 1.595 (1.404–1.786) | 1.728 (1.628–1.829) | 1.790 (1.656–1.924) | 2.381 (2.311–2.451) | 2.486 (2.416–2.555) | 65.84 (< 0.001) |
| Only when a woman has a child is she a real woman. | 1.5 (1.320–1.679) | 1.594 (1.499–1.689) | 1.585 (1.46–1.711) | 1.761 (1.686–1.835) | 1.758 (1.677–1.839) | 4.11 (0.003) |
| A real man produces a male child. | 2.857 (2.755–2.959) | 2.821 (2.763–2.879) | 2.895 (2.834–2.956) | 1.681 (1.609–1.752) | 1.643 (1.566–1.721) | 14.98 (< 0.001) |
| A couple should decide together if they want to have children. | 1.321 (1.174–1.469) | 1.319 (1.243–1.395) | 1.364 (1.256–1.473) | 2.735 (2.684–2.788) | 2.779 (2.726–2.831) | 453.60 (< 0.001) |
| It is wrong to teach young girls about contraceptives to reduce the chance of pregnancies and STIs | 2.167 (1.977–2.357) | 2.262 (2.165–2.358) | 2.315 (2.188–2.442) | 1.383 (1.322–1.444) | 1.416 (1.348–1.484) | 110.73 (< 0.001) |
| Purchasing condoms is the duty of the male partner | 2.285 (2.093–2.478) | 2.377 (2.280–2.474) | 2.674 (2.574–2.774) | 2.282 (2.212–2.351) | 2.305 (2.231–2.379) | 8.39 (< 0.001) |
| Overall attitudes to gender norms on reproductive health in intimate partner relationships | 2.095 (2.013–2.177) | 2.152 (2.113–2.191) | 2.219 (2.169–2.27) | 2.135 (2.103–2.167) | 2.146 (2.111–2.181) | 2.21 (0.06) |
*Statistically significant values (at p<0.05) are in bold.
Table 5 shows that male gender significantly predicted attitudes to gender norms on IPV (β = 0.106, p = < 0.001) and sexuality (β = − 0.043, p = 0.022), while tertiary education significantly predicted attitudes to gender norms on sexuality (β = − 0.156, p = 0.012) and reproductive health (β = − 0.216, p = < 0.001). Urban residence significantly predicted attitudes to gender norms on IPV (β = 0.075, p = < 0.001), indicating that they are more likely to influence attitudes towards positive gender norms on IPV. For the gender category, a negative significant relationship was found between being male and sexuality in IPR (β = -0.043, p = 0.022), indicating that males are less likely to influence attitudes towards positive gender norms as it relates to sexuality.
Table 5.
Multiple linear regression analyses of demographic factors associated with attitudes to gender norms in intimate partner relationships (IPR).
| Independent variables | Coefficient (p-value) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| IPV | Sexuality in IPR | Reproductive health behaviour in IPR | |
| Place of residence (rural) | |||
| Urban | 0.075 (< 0.001) | 0.011 (0.557) | 0.024 (0.196) |
| Generation cohorts (Z1) | |||
| Z2 | 0.071 (0.009) | 0.076 (0.011) | 0.051 (0.085) |
| Y | -0.010 (0.895) | -0.034 (0.699) | 0.175 (0.049) |
| X | -0.075 (0.484) | -0.083 (0.481) | 0.148 (0.209) |
| Silent boomers | -0.116 (0.441) | -0.195 (0.237) | 0.167 (0.309) |
| Gender (female) | |||
| Male | 0.106 (< 0.001) | -0.043 (0.022) | 0.018 (0.332) |
| Level of education (none) | |||
| Primary | 0.007 (0.878) | 0.041 (0.417) | 0.031 (0.535) |
| Secondary | -0.034 (0.458) | -0.048 (0.337) | -0.039 (0.426) |
| Tertiary | -0.073 (0.194) | -0.156 (0.012) | -0.216 (< 0.001) |
| Marital status (currently married) | |||
| Single | -0.056 (0.329) | -0.034 (0.585) | -0.082 (0.195) |
| Previously married | -0.061 (0.670) | -0.287 (0.066) | -0.136 (0.380) |
| Constant | 1.379 (0.000) | 2.078 (0.000) | 2.276 (0.000) |
| Prob > F | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| R-squared | 0.0329 | 0.0283 | 0.0296 |
*Statistically significant values (at p<0.05) are in bold.
Discussion
This study examines similarities and differences in attitudes to gender norms on intimate partner relationships across generation cohorts of young people and adults, and demographic factors that are associated with these attitudes. The overall findings reveal that attitudes to gender norms on intimate partner violence are quite similar across generation cohorts of adults and young people. This outcome conforms to existing literature that asserts the existence of intergenerational associations in gender ideologies of parents and their children29, as well as the transmission of risk attitudes from older generations to younger generations30,31.
Regarding attitudes to gender norms on sexual and reproductive behaviour, findings from our study show significant differences across generation cohorts. This supports evidence of the transformation of values and norms surrounding sexuality across generation cohorts, resulting from improved access to sexual and reproductive health information and services32. Our study also conforms to existing reports that demographic and socioeconomic factors play a significant role in shaping attitudes towards gender norms and intimate partner relationships. Although individuals are socialized within specific family, community, and peer environments that shape their beliefs and attitudes, different generations may experience distinct socialization processes influenced by factors such as parenting styles, educational systems, media exposure, and social networks33,34. These processes can contribute to the development of divergent attitudes towards gender norms and sexual and reproductive behaviours across generations. Finally, access to information and advancements in communication technology have increased over time. Younger generations have grown up in the digital age with greater access to diverse perspectives, online platforms, and sexual and reproductive health resources. This exposure to information can influence their attitudes and beliefs, leading to generational differences compared to older generations who may have had limited access to such information.
The finding of similarities in attitudes towards gender norms regarding intimate partner violence across generation cohorts suggests that certain beliefs and attitudes related to IPV persist across time. Studies that have examined attitudes across different age groups simultaneously have reported varying results. Some studies suggest that older generations tend to hold more traditional gender norms and may exhibit higher tolerance for intimate partner violence35. However, other studies indicate that attitudes towards gender norms and intimate partner violence are similar across generations7. These variations could be attributed to the fact that attitudes towards gender norms and intimate partner violence are influenced by cultural and contextual factors, and therefore could vary significantly between countries, regions, and different subcultures within a single society. Education and awareness campaigns can positively influence attitudes towards gender norms and reduce tolerance for intimate partner violence. Studies have shown that exposure to gender equality interventions is associated with more egalitarian attitudes and reduced tolerance for intimate partner violence across generations36. Hence the need for more educational interventions that promote gender equality and contribute to changing attitudes across generations.
The finding of similarities in attitudes to gender norms related to intimate partner violence across different generation cohorts of adults and young people aligns with several existing theories and frameworks. The Social Learning Theory suggests that individuals acquire attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours through observation and imitation of others37. Within families and communities, individuals may learn gender norms and attitudes towards intimate partner violence from their parents, peers, and other social influences. If these attitudes remain relatively consistent across generations, it can contribute to the observed similarities in attitudes towards gender norms related to intimate partner violence.
Regarding the significant differences across generation cohorts of adults and young people in attitudes towards gender norms and sexual and reproductive behaviours, studies conducted in various LMICs have highlighted generational differences in attitudes towards gender norms and sexual and reproductive behaviours32,38. Younger generations often exhibit more progressive attitudes, with greater acceptance of gender equality and increased autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making compared to older generations. Moreover, education and awareness of sexual and reproductive health can positively influence attitudes and behaviours. Younger people have increased access to comprehensive sexuality education, information about contraceptive methods, and reproductive health services when compared to older generations. Exposure (or a lack thereof) to sexual and reproductive health interventions contributes to more egalitarian attitudes across generations, as well as to informed decision-making36.
The finding of differences in attitudes to gender norms related to sexual and reproductive behaviours across different generation cohorts of adults and young people aligns with several existing theories and frameworks. Generational shifts suggest that societal attitudes and norms change over time, reflecting shifts in cultural, social, and political landscapes39. Different generations grow up in distinct contexts and are exposed to different influences, which can shape their attitudes towards gender norms and sexual and reproductive behaviours. Younger generations often experience more progressive attitudes due to factors such as increased education, access to information, and evolving social norms, while older generations may hold more traditional views shaped by historical context. Culture evolves over time, and intergenerational differences can emerge due to changing cultural values and norms40. Shifts in attitudes towards gender norms and sexual and reproductive behaviours can be influenced by broader social movements, advocacy efforts, and increased awareness about gender equality and reproductive rights. As societies evolve, generational gaps in attitudes may arise due to these cultural changes.
Our research findings are dependent and limited to the specific cross-sectional quantitative methodology and characteristics of our study population. We recognize that attitudes towards gender norms and intimate partner violence can vary across cultures, regions, and populations, so our findings may not be universally applicable. Additionally, while generational differences may exist in attitudes towards gender norms and sexual and reproductive behaviour, there can also be substantial within-generation variation in attitudes, and this remains to be explored. Qualitative interviews will provide nuanced insights into the underlying reasons for these attitudes, and highlight the influence of socialization processes, cultural norms, and experiences within intimate partner relationships.
Conclusion
The findings of this study revealed both similarities and differences in attitudes towards gender norms related to intimate partner relationships across the generational cohorts. Understanding the similarities and differences in attitudes across generations has important implications for interventions aimed at addressing gender-based violence and promoting healthy relationship dynamics. The study highlights the need for tailored strategies that consider the diversity of attitudes within and across generations, while also highlighting the potential for intergenerational dialogue and learning.
While some core beliefs and expectations persisted across generations, reflecting enduring aspects of traditional gender norms, notable shifts were observed among younger generations, indicative of evolving attitudes towards gender equality and relationship dynamics. These generational differences were influenced by various factors, including age, gender, place of residence, and level of education. Longitudinal studies could shed light on how attitudes towards gender norms related to intimate partner relationships evolve over time and the potential impact of societal changes on these attitudes.
Author contributions
Authors CM, IA and OO conceived the study. All authors participated in the collection and analysis of data. CM and JO produced the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript for publication.
Funding
The research leading to these results received funding from IDRC under Grant Agreement No 109809-001.
Data availability
The data sets can be made available on request by the corresponding author.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted under the ethical guidelines and regulations. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Committee of the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Enugu (NHREC/05/01/2008B-FWA00002458-1RB00002323) before entry into the study site. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants before administering the survey. Parental informed consent was also obtained for young people aged 15 to 17. All the participants consented to their anonymized data being used in publications.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Kirby, D., Lepore, G. & Ryan, J. Sexual risk and protective factors: factors affecting teen sexual behavior, pregnancy, childbearing and sexually transmitted disease: which are important? which can you change. Which Can. You Change2005, 1954–2003 (2005).
- 2.Marcell, A. V., Ford, C. A., Pleck, J. H. & Sonenstein, F. L. Masculine beliefs, parental communication, and male adolescents’ health care use. Pediatrics119 (4), e966–e975 (2007). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Jewkes, R. & Morrell, R. Gender and sexuality: emerging perspectives from the heterosexual epidemic in South Africa and implications for HIV risk and prevention. J. Int. AIDS. Soc.13, 1–11 (2010). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ott, M., Bell, D. & Fortenberry, J. O2-S1. 01 developmental changes in masculinity, sexual behaviour, and STI risk among adolescent boys. Sex. Transm. Infect.87 (Suppl 1), A53–A54 (2011). [Google Scholar]
- 5.Nahom, D. et al. Differences by gender and sexual experience in adolescent sexual behavior: implications for education and HIV prevention. J. Sch. Health. 71 (4), 153–158 (2001). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Blackstone, A. M. Gender roles and society. In: Human Ecology:An Encyclopedia of Children, Families, Communities, and Environments. (edn Edited by Julia R. Miller, Richard M. Lerner, Lawrence B. Schiamberg), 335–338 (Santa Barbara, 2003).
- 7.Treleaven, C. Gender, Generation, and Jobs: Differences in Gender Role Ideologies by Age and Occupation (2015).
- 8.Cislaghi, B. & Heise, L. Gender norms and social norms: differences, similarities and why they matter in prevention science. Sociol. Health Illn.42 (2), 407–422 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.de Jesus, N. E. Gender Role Attitudes in Youth Nicole Ann Bazik American University (2010).
- 10.Gupta, G. R. Gender, sexuality, and HIV/AIDS: the what, the why, and the how. Can. HIV AIDS Policy Law Rev.5 (4), 86–93 (2000). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Howe, F. The value of intimate relationships and the challenge of conflict. J. Invitational Theory Pract.8, 15–26 (2002). [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nicolaidis, C. & Paranjape, A. Defining intimate partner violence: Controversies and implications. Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective 2009, 19–29 (2009).
- 13.Conroy, A. A. Gender, power, and intimate partner violence: a study on couples from rural Malawi. J. Interpers. Violence. 29 (5), 866–888 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.National Population Commisison (NPC). In [Nigeria], ICF Macro: Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2018, (eds Abuja) (NPC and ICF, 2019).
- 15.Mbachu, C. O. et al. Exploring issues in caregivers and parent communication of sexual and reproductive health matters with adolescents in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. BMC Public. Health. 20 (1), 1–10 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Coyne, S. M. et al. Contributions of mainstream sexual media exposure to sexual attitudes, perceived peer norms, and sexual behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Adolesc. Health. 64 (4), 430–436 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fadyl, J. K. How can societal culture and values influence health and rehabilitation outcomes? Expert Rev. PharmacoEcon. Outcomes Res.21 (1), 5–8 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.De Valk, H. A. & Liefbroer, A. C. Parental influence on union formation preferences among Turkish, Moroccan, and Dutch adolescents in the Netherlands. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.38 (4), 487–505 (2007). [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ezeanolue, E. E. et al. Effect of a congregation-based intervention on uptake of HIV testing and linkage to care in pregnant women in Nigeria (Baby Shower): a cluster randomised trial. Lancet Global Health. 3 (11), e692–e700 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ezenwaka, U. et al. Exploring factors constraining utilization of contraceptive services among adolescents in Southeast Nigeria: an application of the socio-ecological model. BMC Public. Health. 20 (1), 1–11 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hunnicutt, G. Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: resurrecting patriarchy as a theoretical tool. Violence against Women. 15 (5), 553–573 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Tam, K-P. Understanding intergenerational cultural transmission through the role of perceived norms. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.46 (10), 1260–1266 (2015). [Google Scholar]
- 23.Agu, I. C. et al. Gender norms and ideologies about adolescent sexuality: A mixed-method study of adolescents in communities, south-eastern, Nigeria. Front. Sociol. 7 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 24.Taiwo, M. O., Oyekenu, O. & Hussaini, R. Understanding how social norms influence access to and utilization of adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in Northern Nigeria. Front. Sociol.8, 865499 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.National Bureau of Statistics. Demographic statistics bulletin. In. Edited by Demographic Statistics Division (National Bureau of Statistics, 2022).
- 26.ICF International. Demographic and Health Survey Sampling and Household Listing Manual (ICF International, 2012).
- 27.Singh, K., Verma, R. & Barker, G. Making Women Count: an Annual Publication on Gender and Evaluation by UN Women Multi Country Office for India, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives (UN Women, 2013).
- 28.Nanda, G. Compendium of Gender Scales (FHI 360/C-Change. In., 2011).
- 29.Perales, F., Hoffmann, H., King, T., Vidal, S. & Baxter, J. Mothers, fathers and the intergenerational transmission of gender ideology. Soc. Sci. Res.99, 102597 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Sepahvand, M. H. & Shahbazian, R. Intergenerational transmission of risk attitudes in Burkina Faso. Empir. Econ.61, 503–527 (2021). [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wolff, F-C. The intergenerational transmission of risk attitudes: evidence from Burkina Faso. Rev. Econ. Househ.18 (1), 181–206 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 32.Karver, T. S., Sorhaindo, A., Wilson, K. S. & Contreras, X. Exploring intergenerational changes in perceptions of gender roles and sexuality among Indigenous women in Oaxaca. Cult. Health. Sex.18 (8), 845–859 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Fagot, I., Beverly, Rodgers, C. & Leinbach, M. D. Theories of gender socialization. In: The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, 79–104 (Psychology, 2012).
- 34.Maccoby, E. E. Historical overview of socialization research and theory. Handb. Socialization: Theory Res.1, 13–41 (2007). [Google Scholar]
- 35.Benebo, F. O., Schumann, B. & Vaezghasemi, M. Intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria: a multilevel study investigating the effect of women’s status and community norms. BMC Women’s Health. 18 (1), 1–17 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Desrosiers, A. et al. A systematic review of sexual and reproductive health interventions for young people in humanitarian and lower-and-middle-income country settings. BMC Public. Health. 20 (1), 1–21 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Akers, R. L. & Jennings, W. G. Social learning theory. Handb. Criminological Theory2015, 230–240 (2015).
- 38.Hinchliff, S. et al. Talking about sex with friends: perspectives of older adults from the sex, age & me study in Australia. Cult. Health. Sex.23 (3), 367–382 (2021). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Abu Aleon, T., Weinstock, M., Manago, A. M. & Greenfield, P. M. Social change and intergenerational value differences in a bedouin community in Israel. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol.50 (5), 708–727 (2019). [Google Scholar]
- 40.Whiten, A., Hinde, R. A., Laland, K. N. & Stringer, C. B. Culture evolves, 366, 938–948 (The Royal Society, 2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data sets can be made available on request by the corresponding author.