Characteristics of the study sample
Of the total 425 youth included in the baseline AYAZAZI survey, 164/253 young women and 87/172 young men completed the SRPS at 6-month follow-up when the scale was added to the questionnaire, and 163/239 young women and 73/153 young men responded to the scale at 12-month follow-up. We were able to recruit 21 young women and 17 young men who had previously participated in AYAZAZI (aged 21-30) to participate in follow-up qualitative CIs. In Durban, approximately 32% of the 173 participants called (83% of Durban cohort followed up at 12 months) were reached however, this differed by gender. Only 14% of young men were reached vs. 48% of young women. Of the participants reached 42% of young men and 23% of young women completed the Cls, 12% of young women relocated (prior to telephonic interviews), 15% of young women and 17% of young men were unavailable, and 7% of young women scheduled an appointment to be interviewed but then never answered the interviewers calls at the time of interview. In Soweto, 102 participants were called (55% of Soweto cohort followed up at 12 months) and 31% of called participants were reached. Of the 32 participants reached, 100% of young women and 33.3% of young men participated in the CIs. Of the 14 young men who were contacted who did not participate, 57% agreed to participate, but then did not answer when the interviewer called to conduct the interview, 7% refused to participate, and 36% were unavailable to participate.
Table 1 describes basic demographics of CI participants by gender. Overall, median age of participants was 24 (quartile 1, quartile 3 [Q1, Q3] = 23-26), 7.9% Lesbian, gay or bisexual, and 60.5% isiZulu speaking). Of the 38 interviews we have information on the relationship length of 31 participants, of which 12.9% (n=4) were not in a relationship at the time of interview, 29.0% (n=9) had been in their relationship <2 years, and 58.1% for ≥2 years. All participants who were not in a relationship at the time of interview were young women, 21.1% of women were in a relationship for less than 2 years vs. 41.7% of men, and a similar proportion of women and men were in a relationship for 2 or more years (57.9% vs. 58.3%, respectively). Of the participants who discussed the age of their partner (n=26), 57.7% (n=15) were in an age similar relationship (within 5 years of each other), 26.9% (n=7) were in a relationship with someone ≥5 years older than them, and 15.4% (n=4) were not in a relationship. All young men were in age similar relationships (n=10) vs. 31.3% of women. A quarter of women were not in a relationship (n=4), and 43.7% were in a relationship with someone ≥5 years older than them (n=7). Mean (SD) and median (q1, q3) SRPS scores among women were higher than men (women mean = 3.03 (0.55) and median=3.15 (2.92, 3.38); men mean= 2.62(3.7) and median= 2.50(2.38,2.92)) with higher scores indicating higher relationship power equity.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Qualitative SRP overall and by gender (n=38)
| Overall N (%) | Women (n=21) N (%) | Men (n=17) N (%) |
Site | | | |
Durban | 18 (47.4) | 10 (47.6) | 10 (58.8) |
Soweto | 20 (52.6) | 11 (52.4) | 7 (41.2) |
Sexual Orientation | | | |
Heterosexual | 35 (92.1) | 18 (85.7) | 17 (100.0) |
Lesbian, gay, or bisexual | 3 (7.9) | 3 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) |
Language | | | |
IsiZulu | 23 (60.5) | 13 (61.9) | 10 (58.8) |
Other | 15 (39.5) | 8 (38.1) | 7 (41.2) |
Relationship Length | | | |
Not in a relationship | 4 (12.9) | 4 (21.0) | 0 |
<2 years | 9 (29.0) | 4 (21.1) | 5 (41.7) |
≥2 years | 18 (58.1) | 11 (57.9) | 7 (58.3) |
Missing | 7 | 2 | 5 |
Partner age difference | | | |
Not in a relationship | 4 (15.4) | 4 (25.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Age similar (within 5 years of age from each other) | 15 (57.7) | 5 (31.3) | 10 (100.0) |
≥5 years older | 7 (26.9) | 7 (43.7) | 0 (0.0) |
Missing | 12 | 5 | 7 |
SRPS mean (SD) | - | 3.03(0.55) | 2.62(0.37) |
SRPS median, Q1, Q3 | - | 3.15(2.92, 3.38) | 2.50(2.38, 2.92) |
Table 2 compares differences between the SRPS scores during the cognitive interviews and at the 12-month AYAZAZI follow-up by gender. Women had SRPS scores higher (p=0.04), while men had scores lower (p=0.08), than those measured during the 12-month AYAZAZI questionnaire (14). SRPS scores from this study were similar to other studies investigating SRP among youth in South Africa (48, 49), and scores among women in our study were higher than a study done among young women in Kenya (50).
Table 2
Comparing SRPS scores from cognitive interviews with scores from the 12-month AYAZAZI questionnaire
Females | Cognitive Interview Participant (n=21) | All AYAZAZI females with 12-month SRPS scores (n=163) | P-value |
SRPS mean score, SD, 95%CI | 3.03(0.55): 2.78-3.28 | 2.77(0.24): 2.74-2.81 | 0.04 |
Males | Cognitive Interview Participant (n=17) | All AYAZAZI males with 12-month SRPS scores (n=73) | |
SRPS mean score, SD, 95%CI | 2.62(0.37): 2.43-2.81 | 2.80(0.33): 2.72-2.88 | 0.08 |
Females | Cognitive Interview Participant (n=21) | All Cognitive Interview females with 12-month SRPS scores (n=18) | P-value |
SRPS mean score, SD, 95%CI | 3.03(0.55): 2.78-3.28 | 2.71(0.22): 2.60-2.81 | 0.02 |
Males | Cognitive Interview Participant (n=17) | All Cognitive Interview males with 12-month SRPS scores (n=7) | |
SRPS mean score, SD, 95%CI | 2.62(0.37): 2.43-2.81 | 2.92(0.31): 2.64-3.21 | 0.06 |
*Note: Cognitive Interviews took place from October 2019 to March 2021 and 12-month survey took place from October 2015-March 2017 |
p-value calculated using two-sample t test with unequal variances
Item Appraisal Results
While most young women and men understood the items in the scale and felt that they accurately capture power dynamics in relationships, several important issues regarding the scale were identified. Issues for each item are presented for women and men respectively in Tables 3 and 4. Below we highlight some examples of issues with items in the SRPS, noting that for many items there were both cognitive and question feature problems.
Table 3
Item appraisal among females who participated in the cognitive interviews and recommendations for adaptations for the use of the SRPS among South African young women (n=21)
SRPS Scale Item | Response breakdown | Cognitive Process Coding | Question Feature Coding | Recommendations for adaptation |
| Comprehension | Response Process | Judgements related to items | Clarity of items (wording, vague) | Logical problems in assumptions (inappropriate assumptions, double-barreled questions) | |
1. My partner is quite comfortable when I greet men I know | 70% Strongly agreed/Agreed 30% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | | | Item assumes heterosexuality and that it would be only an issue if participant was greeting men on the street | Revise wording in order to be more gender neutral so as to allow for the inclusion of gender diverse individuals and participants in non-heterosexual relationships |
2. My partner expects me to be at home when he comes to check on me | 50% Strongly agreed/Agreed 50% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | At times was interpreted as if the participant and her partner made plans first | | | Unclear whether the to interpret based on whether participants made plans, called in advance, or if their partner was just showing up unannounced | | Clarify whether plans have been made in advance, or consider revising to be more contemporary understanding that young people are more connected than when the scale was originally developed |
3. My partner becomes jealous when I wear things that make me look too beautiful | 50% Strongly agreed/Agreed 50% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | Participants at times responded ‘sometimes’ to this item | The term beautiful was left up for interpretation | This item was also a bit unclear what “too beautiful” meant | Often interpreted both as beauty in whichever way the participant interpreted beauty to mean, but also interpreted as wearing revealing clothing | Revise item so that there is less ambiguity to what the item is asking. Could be revised to ask about whether partner ever gets jealous when you dress in certain clothing |
4. My partner has more to say than I do about important decisions that affect us | 35% Strongly agreed/Agreed 65% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | Participants at times indicated “it depends” and seemingly wanted an option to acknowledge equal decision-making | | | | The response options for this item could be revised so that they can reflect and allow participants to distinguish between partner having more control, them having more control, or having equal control |
5. My partner never tells me who I can spend time with | 90% Strongly agreed/Agreed 10% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | At times the word never was not considered in the participants’ responses | | Some participants spoke of how they felt the item was not applicable to them as they chose not to have friends | | | Negatively worded items should be removed as they tend to confuse participants |
6. I could leave our relationship any time I wanted to. | 80% Strongly agreed/Agreed 20% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | | | | |
7. My partner does what he wants, even if I don’t want him to | 35% Strongly agreed/Agreed 65% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | Participants thought this item could have been worded in a simpler manner | | Potentially two interpretations about one’s partner going out and doing things you don’t want as well as doing things to you (e.g. sexually) that are unwanted | Revising item so that it is more specific |
8. When my partner and I disagree, he gets his way most of the time | 25% Strongly agreed/Agreed 75% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | Some participants wanted to respond “it depends” and often highlighted how they both get their way | | | | Some items could potentially have different response options that allow for a wider range in responses. For example having response options of Always, frequently, sometimes, rarely, and never |
9. My partner always wants to know where I am | 65% Strongly agreed/Agreed 35% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | Item was often interpreted as a sign of caring and that this was quite common and desired in the context of high rates of violence against women | | | | Measuring both the level of care partner has for safety and heightened surveillance of whereabouts | Revising item to be more specific in order to capture an unhealthy level of surveillance versus general concern for safety |
10. My partner expects me to do everything for him | 21% Strongly agreed/Agreed 79% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | Some judgements about this item being for married people | “everything” was vague and many young women asked what was meant by this | | Revise item to be more specific. Consider modifying item so that it reflects the common ways in which young women and men in South Africa have relationships |
11. Because my partner buys me things, he expects me to please him | 5% Strongly agreed/Agreed 95% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | | Lack of clarity in what was meant by “please him” | | Revise item to be more specific Given the lack of agreement to this item, future scales may want to revise this item so it is not interpreted as participating in transactional sex or sex work as |
12. My partner lets me know that I am not his only girlfriend | 15% Strongly agreed/Agreed 85% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | This item was often interpreted as ‘does your partner cheat on you’ and participants spoke of finding out their partner cheated through seeing messages on his phone | | | | This item assumes monogamy, and some participants talked about being in an open relationship | Consider removing or modifying in order to ensure the item is more understandable and inclusive of different types of relationships |
13. My partner expects me to sleep over whenever he chooses | 30% Strongly agreed/Agreed 70% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | | | Item assumes that participants have started sleeping together and are able to have sleep overs | Consider adding some clarity regarding whether participants are able to have sleep overs |
Table 4
Item appraisal among young men participating in Cognitive interviews (n=17)
| Response breakdown | Cognitive Process Coding | Question Feature Coding | Recommendations for adaptations |
| | Comprehension | Response Process | Judgements related to items | Clarity of items (wording, vague) | Logical problems in assumptions (inappropriate assumptions, double-barreled questions) | |
1. I am quite comfortable when my partner greets men, she knows | 81% Strongly agreed/Agreed 19% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | Why would she only ever be greeting men? | | Participants expressed being comfortable with partner greeting men as long as she is not flirting | Lacking clarity in what “greets” was referring to. Not specific enough about which men she is greeting | | Include more specific language so as to avoid confusion |
2. I like my partner to be at home when I come to check her, it bothers me if she is not there | 69% Strongly agreed/Agreed 31% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | Often item was interpreted as participants had already made plans in advance | At times participants responded “it depends” to this question | | Young men often assumed this was in the context of them having had made plans with their partner and feeling that they would be upset based on wasting time, thus more context was needed | | Include more specific language so as to avoid confusion |
3. I become jealous when my partner wears things that make her look too beautiful | 31% Strongly agreed/Agreed 69% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | Some young men were unable to comprehend how someone could get jealous if their partner looked beautiful | Some participants responded “somewhat agree” | | | Young men sometimes felt that the item was asking both about beauty and how this beauty represented them, which they appreciated but also that wearing revealing clothes was different and would make them jealous | Include more specific language so as to avoid confusion. For example specify whether participant is jealous of partner wearing revealing clothes versus the broad concept of beauty |
4. I have more to say than my partner does about important decisions that affect us. | 60% Strongly agreed/Agreed 40% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | “No, she has more.” “I am” | | | | Responses for this item should consider whether it would be better to understand who in the relationship makes most of the decisions and then providing response options of you, your partner, or both equally |
5. I never tell my partner who she can see or spend time with. | 69% Strongly agreed/Agreed 31% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | “never” was often overlooked in the comprehension of this item | | | | | Avoid using negatively worded items that create complicated double negative cognitive processes |
6. It might make me sad but my partner is free to leave our relationship any time she wants to | 79% Strongly agreed/Agreed 21% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | Interpretation was often based on young men’s desire to not breakup more than forcing partner to stay in relationship | Some participants responded they weren’t sure not because they wanted to force their partner to stay in the relationship but because they have tried to breakup and it hasn’t worked | | | | Make item more specific to ensure the scale is capturing control and being forced to stay Future scales may want to consider adding items related to love and building healthy relationships |
7. I like to do what I want, even if my partner doesn’t want me to. | 31% Strongly agreed/Agreed 69% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | | | | | |
8. When my partner and I disagree, I get my way most of the time. | 31% Strongly agreed/Agreed 69% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | Participants often wanted to answer items with yes or no | | | | |
9. I like to know where my partner is most of the time | 87% Strongly agreed/Agreed 13% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | This item was often interpreted as showing care in the context of high rates of violence against women | | | | Both about safety and making sure partner wasn’t with other men | Revising item to be more specific in order to capture an unhealthy level of surveillance versus general concern for safety |
10. I expect my partner to do things for me like my ironing and cooking | 62% Strongly agreed/Agreed 38% Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed | | Participants often wanted to answer items with yes or no | This item was often stated by participants as not applicable because the participant was not married or hadn’t paid lobolo | | | Specifying whether asking about current situation in young men’s relationship or expectations in the future if they get married |
11. Because I buy my partner things, I expect her to please me | 25% Strongly agreed/Agreed 75% Strongly Disagreed/ Disagreed | Some young men interpreted this item as whether they are able to provide for their partners | | | | | Future scales may want to consider adding items about young men’s perceived obligation to provide for their partners |
12. I let my partner know that she is not the only girlfriend I have or could have | 19% Strongly agreed/Agreed 81% Strongly Disagreed/ Disagreed | For some this item seemed implausible (because it would surely end the relationship) Item was interpreted as being honest or that by not telling their partner they have “side chicks” they are protecting her | | | | Assumes that participant is in a monogamous relationship and does not consider potential for open relationships | Item should be revised to better capture whether or not young men are using threats of relationships with other woman as a means to cont |
13. When I want my partner to sleep over, I expect her to agree | 40% Strongly agreed/Agreed 60% Strongly Disagreed/ Disagreed | Some young men interpreted this item as wanting to spend quality bonding time with their partner and thus having the expectation | | | | Item assumes that participants have started sleeping together and are able to have sleep overs | Future scales should consider adding items about expectations for quality time as well as sex with their partners |
Cognitive processes coding
Comprehension
Many participants lacked comprehension regarding scale item 5. This was particularly prevalent among young men who seemed to overlook the word ‘never’ in the phrase ‘I never tell my partner who she can spend time with’.
This item was the only item in the scale that was negatively worded. Agreeing to this item would have resulted in greater SRPS scores, as the scale was coded so that higher scores reflected greater SRP equity. While negative items are often placed in scales in order to avoid automatic processing (51), critics of this approach have raised concern about whether or not positively and negatively worded items are measuring the same construct (52). In our prior work with the SRPS (14), factor analyses among young men found that this item loaded negatively on the factor. At the time this seemed counter intuitive, however cognitive interview results highlight how this was likely due to confusion and oversight of the negative wording of this item, especially for young men.
Some items were seen as so implausible in young people’s relationships that participants felt they could not even answer the question. For example, in relation to item; “I let my partner know are not the only partner I have or could have” one young man from Durban stated:
“Eeeh, it is the one that you asked me that if I cheat on her, will I tell her that. It does not make any sense at all. That is why I couldn’t answer that one.” – Participant 41
Some items were not interpreted as originally intended. For example, although most young men agreed to item 6 “Although it might make me sad, my partner is free to leave the relationship anytime she wants”– those that disagreed described wanting to figure out why their partner wants to leave instead of just letting the relationship fall apart. For example, one young man in Soweto stated:
“No, I have not come across that, that one of breaking up, to break up, [no] it would just be conflicts and we would solve them solve, you see? […] I will not just let her, I need to ask why she is leaving, what happened to [us].” -Participant 48
These differences in interpretation by young people highlight the lack of research, particularly in contexts where HIV and gender-based violence is high, focused on how young people perceive and enact love and problem solving within their relationships (53).
Judgements Related to the items
One common judgement towards scale items raised by young women and young men was regarding how some items were not applicable to their current relationships as they seemed to be for married couples. For example, when responding to item 10 “My partner expects me to do everything for him”, one young woman from Durban stated
“We are not married people, married people do that. He has not even paid for lobolo, so no. […] No, he must not expect me to…Yo! I have a lot of things to do and now I must leave them and attend to his needs? […] No, ha, never. He is not my husband. I do all of that if I want to.”- Participant 165
Even among the 38% who disagreed to this item, discussions of future expectations after paying lobola (bride price) were common.
Finally, several young women discussed how they felt item 7 “my partner never tells me who I can spend time with” was not applicable to their lives because they chose to not have friends and thus their partner telling them who to spend time with was not an issue. Future research should explore the implications and potential consequences of young women having few to no connections with peers outside of their relationship with their partner.
Question feature coding
Clarity of the items (e.g., wording, whether the question is vague)
Numerous items lacked clarity. For example, item one “I am quite comfortable when my partner greets men she knows” raised discussion among some young men regarding the interpretability of the word “comfortable”, with some young men suggesting the item could be worded as “ok” instead of comfortable. For example, one young man in Durban described some of the issues he found with this item
“Ahhh, okay, it is not that clear because it just mentions “greet”, it does not mention uhm, “talking to”, because greeting and talking to someone is two different things. When she greets someone and does not talk to them, it makes me a bit suspicious. So, it is better if you phrase this question like this rather than saying “talking to” someone because if she talked to someone, she would have an explanation for talking to them, expect for just greeting them, she could make just any excuse and just be like “No, it is a friend”, when it is actually a side person or someone else.” – Participant 13
Issues with this item highlight the subtle differences that are important to understand as they could have different interpretations.
Item 2 which for young men stated “I like my partner to be home when I come to check her, it bothers me if she is not there” lacked clarity, which is well explained by one young man from Durban who stated:
“Eeh, this one I, my understanding with it is that, It want to know how I feel when I alerted my partner that I will meet her at her place, and then when I do come and then she is not there, uhhhm then my thought about the question is, yes I agree with the question because I will like my partner to be at her place when I come to check her, because if, because I only come to visit her when I have informed her that on a particular day and time I will come and check you at your place, and then when o eventually do come and then she is not there, then it became problematic for me, because now she is wasting my time, wasted money to travel from my place to her place, only for me not to find her at her place, so that become problematic.” – Participant 67
Young women also were confused by this question and would at times ask the interviewer for more context. Thus, while 69% of young men and 50% of young women agreed to this item, the majority agreed because they felt their partner would be upset if they had made plans and then they were not at home when they came to follow through with prior plans. The lack of clarity in this item raises important consideration regarding the ways in which young people communicate through social media and using smart phones and location sharing. This should be considered in more contemporary versions of this scale for use among young people.
For women, item 10 stated; “my partner expects me to do everything for him”, which led to a lack of clarity for example one young woman from Soweto questioned:
“When you say everything, you mean like house chores eh, laundry, financially?”- Participant 135
Another item which lacked clarity for some young women was item 11; “because your partner buys you things, he expects you to please him”. Participants were at times unclear what was meant by “pleasing him”. Suggesting that this and many other items in the SRPS could be revised to be more specific to avoid confusion and improve comprehensiveness.
Logical problems in assumptions (e.g., inappropriate assumptions, assumptions of constant behaviour, and double-barreled questions)
Inappropriate Assumptions And Assumptions Of Constant Behaviour:
Most of the items in the scale were heteronormative, asking young women about their male partners and young men about their female partners. While only one participant described how this raised some issues in responding to the scale, being that she was in a same-sex relationship, future research is needed to understand how power and control functions in non-heterosexual relationships, and how the SRPS could be adapted to better capture diversity in the relationships of young people.
Item 13 which for young woman stated, “my partner expects me to sleep over whenever he chooses”, assumes that young people can have sleep overs, or that they have started having sex. Some of the young women discussed how they hadn’t started having sleepovers or that they aren’t able to have sleep overs because of family dynamics whereby at least one person in the relationship may still be living with their parents, thus making sleepovers challenging to navigate. For example, one young woman in Durban stated:
“No, I cannot be, I live with my parents and I cannot sleep over. […] He knows that my parents are very strict parents and so, he knows that I cannot sleep over whenever he wants me to.” – Participant 195
Future studies may want to consider adapting this item to reflect differing family dynamics, abilities for young people to navigate sleepovers while staying at home with their parents, and for sexually active and inactive youth.
Double-barreled Questions:
A few of the items seemed to be capturing multiple important elements in young people’s relationships and thus were left to interpretation. For example, item 3 which for young men stated “I get jealous if my partner wears clothes that make her look too beautiful” was at times understood to be that the men’s partners dressed nice and represented them which they appreciated, while some young men interpreted this item to mean that their partner wore revealing clothing and this brought attention from other men, which led to jealousy. One young man from Durban expressed:
“So, in my understanding, if she wears something that make her look beautiful, I am okay with it, but if she wears something that exposes her. I am not quite happy with that. So, I answered this question based on my understanding of beautiful rather than the society’s.” -Participant 13
Discussions raised from this item, brought insight into different interpretations of beauty and the role and importance of female beauty, and how young women must navigate the fine line between being beautiful and attractive to their partners while at the same time ensuring they aren’t dressing too provocatively as to upset their male partners. For example, one young woman from Soweto describes her interpretations of what beautiful means to her in the context of the scale and what the item is trying to measure:
“Not really, ehm, I guess it’s something it’s an issue that I always had like from growing up, I never liked short things [revealing clothes], so I feel like they are uncomfortable, so that’s why I always avoid wearing them, like if you appear wearing short things it can mean a lot of things, like putting a lot of makeup, your weaves on like, from being simple, from having like a natural hair to relaxing your hair which will make you maybe more beautiful or wearing wigs, so ja, no, but in this question mostly, I would say maybe it’s wearing short, for me, it’s wearing short [clothing] ‘cause I don’t apply as well a lot of make-up.” – Participant 11
For this young woman, even though the issue of her partner being jealous if she looks “too beautiful” was not relevant in her relationship, it clearly shows how there are multiple societal pressures for young Black women in South Africa to look and dress a certain way to be perceived as beautiful. The importance of beauty and attractiveness has not been widely investigated within the relationships of young people, thus future research is needed to explore the role of beauty and beauty standards in the relationships of young South African.
Young women also raised concerns around multiple interpretations of item 7 “My partner does what he wants even if I don’t want him to”. For example, one young woman from Soweto stated:
“Are you saying that’s what he wants, in which sense, like him maybe going out to watch soccer or is it when I say, I don’t want you to touch me when he touches me or do you mean?” – Participant 116
This highlights the potential dual interpretation of this item that could be about one’s partner going out and doing things that you don’t want them to do or that they are doing sexual things to you that you don’t want them to do. These are two distinct and important relationship issues, that future scales may wish to measure both concepts as separate items.
Finally, as highlighted in the title of this paper, both young men and women felt that item 9 which for young women stated, “My partner always wants to know where I am”, captured both elements of caring and over-surveying or controlling behaviour. One young woman from Durban captured this issue with double-barreled interpretations when she stated:
“Uhm…Jah, I feel like there is a twist somewhere, somehow […] I feel like it is asking if he is a stalker… […] But I also feel like it is asking if he cares.”- Participant 129
Young men from both sites also discussed how in the context of South Africa where there are high rates of violence this item could be interpreted as caring and trying to protect partner from violence. For example, one young man from Soweto stated:
“If I know where she is and I am not with her, I become so free to say, okay, my partner is at a certain place, she is doing 1, 2, 3, even though I don’t see her […] but I have peace that I mustn’t worry too much about her. If she does not tell me where she went, I will be worried, worse, if I call and she does not take my call, then I will think that eish since these days, there is human trafficking.” -Participant 49
In South Africa, a woman is killed every 3 hours, and femicide rates are 5 times higher than the global average (54). Under this backdrop, it is no surprise that 65% of young women and 87% of young men agreed to this item, which although originally aimed to capture surveillance and controlling behaviour by male partners in relationships, was interpreted by many young women and men, not as sign of control, but one of care, concern, and protection.
Suggestions For Revisions And Adaptions
Young women and men had lots of suggestions for how to improve the scale, including advice on being more specific, rewording items, adding additional questions about power and control, including questions that were more general about relationship dynamics and questions about health, sexual behaviour and violence and abuse.
To address some of the issues raised by participants about items in the SRPS, participants brought up suggestions for making items more specific. For example, one young woman from Soweto stated:
“Maybe if we can just…, when you ask the question, maybe add more details so that I know that when I respond I will give you the answer that is appropriate ‘cause now it’s open-ended you know I can say yes, I agree with just everything but then you find that another person perceives it differently, so ja” – Participant 11
One specific example from another young woman in Soweto regarding item 1 “My partner is comfortable when I greet men I know”:
“I think that’s how it should be, like more specific whether in public or in private space.”-Participant 111
Also, given that the scale was asked about young women’s partner’s behaviour, some young women suggested that items be added to also assess their own behaviours.
Both young women and men brought up several suggestions for items that they felt would be important to include to measure power and control in relationships. This included asking participants if they believe in gender equality, if you go out with friends, and if you allow your partner to have a say about decisions in the relationship. For example, one young man from Durban stated:
“I will speak in a manner we usually speak with the guys here in Durban, I will say hey my brother how do you feel about the 50/50 thing?”- Participant 41
This also highlights how some of the items could be reworded to better reflect the ways in which young people talk about gender equality and relationships in South Africa.
Specific questions about relationship dynamics were of interest to participants including whether your partner takes you on dates, questions about intimacy, and plans to have children together in the future, as well as emotional wellbeing in your relationship, for example one young woman from Durban stated,
“The emotional wellbeing of a person in that relationship. How are you fitting in emotionally? Because some people can be like. Yes, he understands me but there is that emotional part of them where they are breaking. Where they are not happy emotionally. But in other things they can defend their partner and say yesss he is a good person but emotionally the soul is the important thing,” – Participant 123
These suggestions call for increased attention to strength-based measures of gender equity that focus on positive assets of relationships and deeper connections that young people have with each other in relationships.
This desire to explore in greater detail the intricacies of young people’s relationships came up through suggestions to ask more about the details of young people’s sexual relationships as a marker for relationship satisfactions. For example, one young man from Durban stated:
“Like how, how often do you have sex with your partner or how much sex should one have with her partner per month or per week or, ya, those kinds of questions. […] Well, it also depends on how active, how sexually active you are. If you are very sexually active and your partner is not around, the chances are high that you will find sexual pleasure from someone else, other than your partner.” – Participant 67
Several suggestions came up around sexual health and sexual violence and abuse such as whether you would ever force your partner to have sex with you, if your partner was abusing you, and asking about who in the relationship might have more physical power. Concerns about cheating and the consequences of cheating were important for understanding power dynamics in young people’s relationships. This included suggestions to ask questions about whether participants ever got an “infection” (STI or HIV) from a partner and what they did about it. Other questions about health were suggested including asking whether participants ever went to get tested for HIV with their partner.
Questions about employment and how economic inequities and societal gender roles may impact relationships were also suggested by participants. For example, one young man from Durban stated:
“Maybe what can it be, ooh maybe it can be a job. Maybe if someone have a better job, does that affect the relationship. If I as a male work better and earn better, would it make me not to respect my partner during that period.” – Participant 58
This recommendation highlights the intersecting nature of sexual relationship power inequities and ‘gender role strain/stress’ or men’s stress related to inability to achieve hegemonic forms of masculinity including the ability to provide for one’s family through work (55–57). This construct has been measured and explored among South African men using the gender role scale to better understand how multiple forms of masculine identities are formed in response to gender role strain, and how in turn these identities and beliefs about gender roles influence import sexual and relationship behaviours and outcomes (58–60). While quantitative validity evidence has been established among young men in South Africa, future research should consider how both young men and young women perceive existing measures of gender role strain (60).
Finally, both young men and women spoke about adding questions about technology and looking at each other’s phones in relationships.