What one thinks, what one says and what one does: Male justifications and practices of gender-based violence in Mali

Gender-based violence (GBV) is widespread across the world. While the majority of the literature focuses on women as the victims of GBV, this paper studies men’s justifications for and perpetration of GBV in Mali, one of the countries with the highest GBV prevalence rates in the world. We elicit the prevalence of eight GBV-related opinions and behaviors among men in Bamako, the capital city, by administering a set of list experiments that we compare to a set of direct questions to estimate response biases. We find large support for GBV: nearly one respondent in two supports female genital mutilation or intimate partner violence. Besides, one in four has already physically hit an adult woman. Our results also show that several questions suffer from significant response biases when asked directly. Support for female genital mutilation is overreported, with actual approval being lower than openly stated. Conversely, justification of intimate partner violence is underreported, likely due to social pressure against it. While response bias varies little with respondent characteristics, prevalence rates are systematically lower among men with a secondary level of education. Our results are in line with response bias being shaped by the legal framework addressing GBV as well as prevailing social norms, highlighting the need for caution when using data collected through direct questioning. • We use List Experiments (LEs) to elicit GBV-related outcomes among men in Bamako. • About 50% support Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). • We find large response biases affecting direct questions on attitudes. • Men overreport their support for FGM but underreport their support for IPV. • Our results call for caution in using declarative data about GBV-related attitudes.