AI 中文总结
研究巴基斯坦近亲婚姻与女性对亲密伴侣暴力接受度的关系，认为近亲婚姻强化亲属网络影响女性，用调查数据和匹配方法发现近亲婚姻独立增加女性接受暴力可能性，还给出相关解释及预防建议。
AI 中文摘要
我们研究了巴基斯坦近亲婚姻与女性对亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）接受度之间的关系。我们认为近亲婚姻强化了重叠的亲属网络，加强了对女性行动和身体自主权的监督，且这种机制具有选择性。我们还解释了女性对IPV接受度的特定情景规范等级。研究发现近亲婚姻独立增加女性接受IPV的可能性，还给出预防建议。
英文摘要
Women in Pakistan report greater acceptance of intimate partner violence (IPV) than men in several domestic situations. This study examines whether marital kinship structures are associated with women's attitudes toward IPV. Although consanguineous marriage is widespread in Pakistan, its relationship with women's acceptance of IPV remains poorly understood. We investigate whether marriage between blood relatives is associated with women's justification of IPV and whether this association varies between situations involving challenges to patriarchal authority and routine domestic responsibilities. Using nationally representative data on 15,065 ever-married women aged 15-49 from the 2017-18 Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey, we estimate binary and ordered logistic regression models. We also use propensity-score matching, inverse probability weighting, kernel matching, radius matching, and Mahalanobis-distance matching to improve comparability between women in consanguineous and non-kin marriages based on observed characteristics. Consanguineous marriage is associated with greater acceptance of IPV in four of the five scenarios examined: going out without permission, refusing sexual intercourse, neglecting children, and arguing with a husband. No statistically significant association is found for burning food. Alternative matching methods produce similar patterns across the four scenarios. Education, household wealth, and participation in household decision-making are associated with lower acceptance of IPV, whereas prior experience of violence is associated with greater acceptance. Significant regional differences also suggest that local institutional and normative contexts shape attitudes toward IPV. Because the data are cross-sectional and matching addresses only observed differences, the findings should be interpreted as conditional associations rather than causal effects.
