DOI: 10.3886/icpsr26041.v1
title: Effects of Intimate Partner Violence on the Workplace in the United States, 2005-2008
title: Version 1

description: This research, which was conducted in two phases, explored the effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) on the workplace between 2005 and 2008. Phase One (Dataset 1, Phase One Data) examined the prevalence of IPV among employed individuals, how IPV affects the personal and professional well-being of employees, and its costs for employers. Researchers focused on two research questions:Does IPV affect employees, and, if so, how?What is the impact of IPV on organizations? Phase Two (Dataset 2, Phase Two Data) focused more specifically on the interactions between employed IPV victims and their coworkers, focusing on the following questions:Does work-related social support have positive effects on the well-being, attitudes, and behaviors of employed IPV victims?How and when will coworkers provide assistance to IPV victims at work?When and to whom will IPB victims disclose their victimization at work?What organizational conditions are associated with stronger feelings of hopefulness on the part of employed IPB victims?
description: The purpose of this study was to research the effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) on the workplace. Phase One examined the prevalence of IPV among employed individuals, how IPV affects the personal and professional well-being of employees, and its costs for employers. Phase Two focused more specifically on the interactions between employed IPV victims and their coworkers.
description: For Phase One (Dataset 1, Phase One Data), a company executive sent an email to all employees, asking them to complete a web-based survey with questions regarding work-family issues. A link to the survey website was embedded in the email. Respondents could request a paper survey if desired. Participation was voluntary, no compensation was given, and respondents did not identify themselves. Due to the sensitive nature of intimate partner violence (IPV) questions, respondents who reported IPV were queried at several points in the survey about their comfort level. If respondents indicated discomfort, they were given the option of ending their participation and were directed to IPV counseling services. Respondents were instructed to complete the survey at work, on company time. Most respondents completed the survey in less than 20 minutes.For Phase Two (Dataset 2, Phase Two Data), a company executive sent an email to all employees explaining that they would receive an inquiry from researchers at the University of Arkansas requesting their participating in a study on work-family issues. Two days later, researchers sent an email to employees explaining the purpose of the study, their freedom to participate or not, their anonymity if they chose to participate, and a link to the web-based survey. Respondents could request a paper survey if desired. No compensation was given to participants. Respondents were instructed to complete the survey at work, on company time. Most respondents completed the survey in less than 20 minutes. As in the Phase One survey, respondents who reported IPV were queried at several points in the survey about their comfort level. If respondents indicated discomfort, they were given the option of ending their participation and were directed to IPV counseling services. Seventeen respondents exited the survey after the IPV questions in Phase Two.
description: Phase One (Dataset 1, Phase One Data) includes demographic variables of marital status, respondent education, spouse education, age, gender, race, salary, and number of children. Variables ask respondents about their own current and lifetime experiences with physical, emotional and sexual abuse, if they know of coworkers who have experienced physical, emotional or sexual abuse, and effects on workplace measures of job performance, attendance, and feelings of safety at work. Other variables ask about the utilization of available resources, such as, support groups, alcohol or drug treatment, legal aid services, shelters or safe houses, paid or unpaid time off of work, and referrals to other resources.Phase Two (Dataset 2, Phase Two Data) includes the same demographic variables as Phase One. There are more detailed variables on the type of abuse the respondent may have experienced and if the abuse ever occurred at the workplace. Other variables ask about how the respondent may have reacted to a coworker's abusive situation and its impact on the workplace.
description: Response Rates: The response rates for Phase One (Dataset 1) ranged from 29 to 36 percent.The overall response rate for Phase Two (Dataset 2) was 58 percent.
description: The sample for Phase One (Dataset 1, Phase One Data) was composed of 1,588 women and 838 men who worked in three midsized business organizations headquartered in a southern state. The first organization, an insurance provider, employed a primarily female workforce. The second organization, a transportation company, employed a primarily male workforce. The third organization, which had a balanced workforce, was a university in which staff members were surveyed. Although all three organizations were headquartered in one state, they also had operations in 38 other states. Overall, 26 percent of the respondents in the sample were from states other than the headquarter state.The sample for Phase Two (Dataset 2, Phase Two Data) was composed of 2,063 women and 688 men who worked in a midsized financial services institution headquartered in a southern state.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Phase One Data DS2: Phase Two Data
description: For dataset 1 (Phase One Data) the universe was all employees who worked in three midsized business organizations headquartered in a southern state between 2005 and 2008. For dataset 2 (Phase Two Data) the universe was all employees who worked in a midsized financial services institution headquartered in a southern state between 2005 and 2008. Smallest Geographic Unit: state
description: paper and pencil interview (PAPI); web-based surveyAccording to the Final Report, Phase Two should include 2,751 cases. However, the data file includes 2,750 cases.