# 3. Impact of armed conflict on IPV: Conceptual framework and evidence

How does armed conflict translate into increased risk of violence perpetrated by an intimate partner? The ecological framework (Heise 1998) has been widely adopted to understand the origins of gender-based violence. This section applies the framework to the evidence on the impacts of BH insurgency on individuals and communities to identify potential causal pathways.

The ecological framework conceptualizes violence as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, based on the complex interplay between factors related to violence against women at different levels of the social ecology. The social ecology consists of personal history, the microsystem, the exosystem and the macrosystem. Personal history refers to individual experiences that determine one’s response to microsystem and exosystem stressors. The microsystem explains the subjective meanings assigned to interactions in which a person directly engages with another. While the exosystem refers to both formal and informal social structures that affect one’s environment and influences what happens there.

Conflict triggers changes in the social ecology at the individual level (microsystem) and in formal and informal social structures (exosystem). At the individual level, evidence suggests that men and women respond differently to the high levels of psychological stress experienced due to conflict. For example, a study on conflict-affected areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) found that men tend to cope with extreme stress and trauma using strategies that seek to avoid and reduce feelings of vulnerability, including alcohol and substance abuse, behaviors commonly associated with increased perpetration of IPV, while women more frequently seek some form of help or turn to religion (Slegh et al. 2014).

In the case of Boko Haram, conflict can also affect individual relationships through their influence on marriage practices. Increased rates of child and early marriage to Boko Haram insurgents result in some women and girls having little choice about marrying a potentially violent partner and often they have no option but to remain in the marriage (IRC 2012; Wirtz et al. 2014). Conflict can also alter individual behaviors. Personal violence outside the home may spill over into relationships with intimate partners, as disputes and disagreement often escalate into violence and abuse— potential triggers for increased rates of IPV (Kiss et al. 2015). The breakdown of law and order, or social support and safety systems such as the extended family or village groups (exosystem factors) may also reduce protective factors that, at the individual level, allow intervention and prevention of IPV (Clark et al. 2010; Horn 2010).

The different consequences of stress related to unemployment and income loss for men and women is another potential driver of increased rates of male perpetration of IPV. Frequently conflict creates barriers to employment and so men may find it difficult to fulfill the traditional role of male breadwinner and protect the family. As a corollary, women’s labor market participation often increases in conflict settings and the income they generate becomes more important for family welfare (Buvinic et al. 2013; Justino 2018). In some conflict settings, men face higher barriers to employment than women, as evidenced by research on the Palestinian Israeli conflict which suggests that the localization of economic activities resulting from conflict is more likely to adversely impact the labor market opportunities for men than women (Institute for Women’s Studies 2008). These changes in the gender division of labor can threaten masculinity and are often associated with increased use of violence by men. For example, a study of DRC found that for men, work and income are central to their identities, and the loss of either seems to have serious 8