I understand you are planning to measure against another show as a control. Which makes a lot of sense, but raises some questions: Have you accounted for a possibility that control treatment itself has effect on gender norms related to IPV? There is at least some evidence that exposure to media ( e.g. Jensen/Oster in India) has effect on gender norms and views on women autonomy. If control has positive effect, you would need to be comparing two potentially beneficial interventions, not your show vs. no program. Have you costed the control show? Also, you intention is to change attitudes to IPV, if you rely on self reports, how will you distinguish actual change in violence from treatment-induced change in reporting rates? I could see how change in attitudes may both increase the rates it is disclosed because the behavior is seen as more objectionable, or decrease them because there is now more stigma attached to the behavior.
On the control condition: yes, in principle the control programme could itself affect gender norms or related outcomes. We tried to minimise that risk by choosing a control programme with no gender, relationship or violence content at all (it’s about how to declare taxes mostly).
On reporting: our primary IPV measures reduce this problem by asking about specific acts within a defined window rather than asking whether someone experienced or perpetrated “abuse” or “violence.” That is the standard approach in the field, and it makes responses much less dependent on how people label the behaviour.
Even so, treatment-induced changes in reporting remain possible, as they do for any violence-prevention programme measured by self-report. Behaviourally specific items remove some forms of reporting bias but not all of them. So we will read the IPV results alongside attitudes, controlling behaviours, communication and other secondary outcomes.
I understand you are planning to measure against another show as a control. Which makes a lot of sense, but raises some questions: Have you accounted for a possibility that control treatment itself has effect on gender norms related to IPV? There is at least some evidence that exposure to media ( e.g. Jensen/Oster in India) has effect on gender norms and views on women autonomy. If control has positive effect, you would need to be comparing two potentially beneficial interventions, not your show vs. no program. Have you costed the control show?
Also, you intention is to change attitudes to IPV, if you rely on self reports, how will you distinguish actual change in violence from treatment-induced change in reporting rates? I could see how change in attitudes may both increase the rates it is disclosed because the behavior is seen as more objectionable, or decrease them because there is now more stigma attached to the behavior.
Thanks Alex, both good points.
On the control condition: yes, in principle the control programme could itself affect gender norms or related outcomes. We tried to minimise that risk by choosing a control programme with no gender, relationship or violence content at all (it’s about how to declare taxes mostly).
On reporting: our primary IPV measures reduce this problem by asking about specific acts within a defined window rather than asking whether someone experienced or perpetrated “abuse” or “violence.” That is the standard approach in the field, and it makes responses much less dependent on how people label the behaviour.
Even so, treatment-induced changes in reporting remain possible, as they do for any violence-prevention programme measured by self-report. Behaviourally specific items remove some forms of reporting bias but not all of them. So we will read the IPV results alongside attitudes, controlling behaviours, communication and other secondary outcomes.