What are the differences in male perpetration rates between countries and cultures?
Executive summary
Cross-national research shows large variation in male perpetration rates of intimate partner and other forms of violence: population surveys in Asia and the Pacific found lifetime physical or sexual IPV perpetration by men ranging roughly from 25% to 80% across sites (rural Indonesia to Bougainville, Papua New Guinea) , while focused comparisons of English‑speaking samples and meta‑analyses document both lower aggregate estimates and important exceptions depending on measure, context, and study design . Differences reflect measurement choices, cultural norms (including patriarchal attitudes), substance use patterns, and social structures rather than any single biological explanation [1].
1. Large measured gaps across countries, not a single global rate
Standardised population studies show striking site‑to‑site variation: the UN Multi‑Country Study reported prevalence of male physical or sexual IPV perpetration varying between about 25.4% and 80.0% across nine sites in Asia and the Pacific, demonstrating that “male perpetration” cannot be summarized by a single global percentage .
2. Cultural norms and patriarchy shape who and how many men perpetrate violence
Cross‑cultural comparisons and university‑sample research link endorsement of patriarchal values, dominance, and violence‑approval to higher rates of severe physical and psychological aggression by men; one comparative analysis found Asian men scored higher than European men on dominance and violence approval, which predicted greater perpetration in dating samples .
3. Contexts matter: alcohol, settings and types of violence change the picture
Differences in where violence occurs and the role of intoxication explain national contrasts: a UK–China comparison found no significant difference in violence toward friends but showed far more alcohol‑related outdoor and bar violence among British men, pointing to substance use and public‑space cultures as major drivers of between‑country differences .
4. Measurement, sampling and definitions create apparent differences
Many surveys are cross‑sectional and use different questions, populations, and time frames, limiting temporal conclusions and comparability; public health researchers warn that survey design and which forms of violence are measured (emotional, physical, sexual, lifetime vs. past‑year) strongly affect estimated perpetration rates [1].
5. Aggregate gender patterns—but not uniformity—favor male perpetration on many metrics
Large reviews and theory note that men are disproportionately represented among perpetrators of the most severe forms of violence and have higher exposure to several risk factors (substance misuse, certain forms of risk‑taking), yet pooled prevalence studies have found mixed patterns for less severe acts—one pooled review reported somewhat higher pooled prevalence of female-perpetrated physical IPV in some samples, illustrating that type and severity of violence matter .
6. Migrant, cohort and institutional contexts produce distinct patterns
Research on migrants and specific institutional groups finds elevated perpetration associated with acculturation stress, exposure to violence, and mental‑health or substance‑use disorders; military, sports, and fraternity contexts show higher perpetration rates linked to institutional norms that reward dominance and silence dissent .
7. What this means for interpretation and prevention
Observed national and cultural differences point to social and structural drivers—gender norms, community supports, legal systems, alcohol availability—rather than immutable differences between men; thus prevention strategies must be locally tailored, evidence‑based, and address the social ecology of violence, while researchers must harmonize measures to allow fair cross‑national comparisons [1].