Domestic Violence and its Behavioural Drivers, Societal Costs, and Prevention Strategies

Domestic violence remains one of the most persistent public health and social policy failures across developed and developing nations. Global evidence indicates that approximately one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, primarily perpetrated by intimate partners [1]. Despite decades of legislative reform, crisis services, and criminal justice responses, prevalence rates remain largely unchanged.

Figure 1

Women aged 18 years and over, Prevalence of partner violence and abuse in the last two years, By whether experienced household cash flow problems

The ongoing burden of domestic violence reflects a systemic focus on response rather than prevention. Governments continue to allocate the majority of funding towards emergency intervention, policing, health treatment, and legal processes, while underinvesting in the behavioural, educational, and environmental strategies required to reduce incidence at scale.

Through recent studies, we understand domestic violence not as an individual pathology but as a socially learned and reinforced behaviour embedded within cultural norms, power structures, and institutional responses [2]; [3]; [4]. Without policy frameworks that address these structural drivers, violence continues to regenerate across generations.

Academic literature identifies domestic violence as a learned behaviour shaped by early exposure to violence, reinforcement through social institutions, and acceptance of coercive control within intimate relationships [2].

Children raised in households where violence occurs are significantly more likely to experience or perpetrate abuse in adulthood, indicating a clear pathway of intergenerational transmission [5]. This learning process is further reinforced by community norms that minimise abuse, legal systems that historically treated domestic violence as a private matter, and media representations that normalise aggression [4];[6].

Gendered power relations remain central. While violence occurs across relationship types, the majority of reported domestic violence involves male perpetrators and female victims [7]. Research consistently demonstrates that male violence in heterosexual relationships is primarily driven by efforts to exert control rather than by situational conflict [8]; [9].

Figure 2

Reasons police not contacted after most recent incident of sexual assault by a male perpetrator, females, 2021-22

Public perception studies reveal widespread misattribution of domestic violence to stress, substance use, and interpersonal disagreement rather than to behavioural learning and power dynamics [10]. These misconceptions shape public tolerance and weaken political pressure for structural prevention investment.

Alcohol and drug use are frequently cited within policy discussions as causal drivers. However, evidence shows that substance use does not generate the patterned coercive behaviour characteristic of domestic violence[11];[12]. Many individuals consume alcohol without engaging in abuse, while perpetrators typically display consistent violent behaviour irrespective of intoxication.

Economic stress, unemployment, and household pressures function as situational triggers rather than root causes [10]. Focusing policy primarily on these surface-level factors diverts attention from the behavioural and social systems that sustain violence.

Domestic violence imposes extensive costs across health systems, education sectors, social services, and national economies. In Australia, the total economic cost of gender-based violence (including domestic and family violence) is widely cited at approximately $26 billion per year, reflecting direct and indirect impacts across healthcare, justice, housing, lost productivity, and long-term social harm. [13]

Victims experience higher rates of mental illness, chronic health conditions, workforce disengagement, and substance misuse [5]. Children exposed to violence face long-term educational disadvantage, emotional trauma, and increased risk of future violence involvement [14].

Economic analyses highlight the scale of fiscal impact. In Vietnam, combined productivity losses and direct expenditures linked to domestic violence exceeded three per cent of GDP [15]. Comparable studies across multiple countries demonstrate sustained public spending across emergency healthcare, legal systems, housing services, and income support.

These costs represent ongoing consequences of policy frameworks that prioritise crisis management over prevention. Without reducing incidence, governments remain locked into escalating expenditure cycles.

Legislative reform, policing strategies, and victim support services remain essential for safety and accountability. However, decades of reliance on reactive frameworks have failed to significantly reduce prevalence.

Public attitudes continue to reflect victim-blaming narratives and overestimation of individuals’ capacity to exit abusive relationships without systemic support [10]. These perceptions influence political priorities, often framing domestic violence as a private issue rather than a structural public health concern.

Perpetrator rehabilitation programs demonstrate inconsistent outcomes when delivered without broader social norm change. Behavioural patterns reinforced by community acceptance and institutional gaps frequently re-emerge following individual interventions. The persistence of domestic violence indicates that current policy models treat symptoms rather than underlying causes.

Evidence from behavioural science supports early intervention strategies targeting learned norms, relationship behaviours, and community-level reinforcement.

Educational programs addressing emotional regulation, gender equality, and non-violent conflict resolution during adolescence have demonstrated sustained improvements in attitudes and behaviours.

Community-wide interventions that consistently challenge coercive norms reduce social tolerance of abuse and increase accountability.

Environmental communication strategies further reinforce prevention by embedding behavioural messaging into everyday public spaces. Repeated exposure strengthens cognitive associations around acceptable behaviour and available support pathways [2].

Effective prevention requires coordinated policy frameworks spanning education, health promotion, community infrastructure, and media regulation. Fragmented or short-term funding models limit long-term impact.

The CHOICES youth anti-violence program was developed as a preventative intervention designed by our sister company, Utility Creative. Created to disrupt the behavioural learning pathways associated with violence before patterns become entrenched in adulthood and delivered across Victorian secondary schools and community organisations, the program targeted adolescents identified as being at heightened risk of engagement in violent behaviour, including disengaged young men, young women in vulnerable settings, and Aboriginal youth cohorts.

The program focused on decision-making processes that precede violent incidents, using facilitated discussion, real-life scenarios, and peer role models to reinforce three core behavioural mechanisms: consideration of consequences, withdrawal from escalating conflict, and rejection of weapon carrying.

Evaluation data across the CHOICES, Live No Fear, and Koori CHOICES streams demonstrated measurable attitudinal shifts following participation. Among male participants, the proportion who reported considering the consequences of their actions increased from 56% prior to participation to 80% in longer-term follow-up surveys. The proportion who identified walking away from violent situations as the preferred response increased from 63% to 70% in post-session follow-up. Attitudes supporting weapon carrying decreased by 29% several months after program delivery.

Among young women participating in the Live No Fear stream, consideration of consequences increased from 67% to 85% in longer-term follow-up, while endorsement of walking away from violent situations increased from 74% to 86%. Participants also reported increased feelings of personal agency and confidence in decision-making.

For Aboriginal youth cohorts, immediate post-session evaluations showed a 58% increase in participants who reported consistently considering consequences before acting, an 86% reduction in positive attitudes towards weapon carrying, and a 21% increase in endorsement of walking away from violent situations.

Teacher and community stakeholder evaluations consistently reported high levels of participant engagement, improved behavioural awareness, and reductions in school-based conflict following program delivery. Facilitators’ ability to establish trust, present relatable scenarios, and encourage open discussion was identified as a central mechanism for behavioural impact.

The CHOICES program aligns with behavioural science frameworks that conceptualise violence as a learned response shaped by social reinforcement and cognitive processing of risk and consequence. By intervening during adolescence, the program directly addressed the developmental stage in which behavioural norms and coping strategies are formed.

Rather than responding after harm had occurred, CHOICES functioned as an upstream prevention mechanism, reducing tolerance for violence, strengthening non-violent conflict responses, and weakening behavioural drivers associated with coercion and escalation.

The sustained attitudinal changes observed across participant cohorts demonstrate the capacity of structured early intervention to alter pathways linked to later domestic and interpersonal violence. These outcomes support broader public health evidence that prevention strategies focused on behavioural learning and social norm reinforcement yield longer-term reductions in violence prevalence compared to reactive justice-based responses.

Domestic violence persists not because of individual failure, but because social systems continue to reinforce harmful behavioural norms while policy responses remain overwhelmingly reactive. The evidence demonstrates that domestic violence is learned, socially sustained, and economically costly. Crisis intervention alone cannot disrupt intergenerational transmission or reduce incidence at scale.

Prevention-focused policy reform represents the most effective long-term investment for reducing harm, controlling public expenditure, and improving population health outcomes. Shifting government priorities toward early intervention, behavioural education, and community-level norm change is essential for achieving measurable reductions in domestic violence.

Without systemic prevention, domestic violence will continue to reproduce across generations, placing ongoing strain on public institutions and communities.