VILLAGE TOLERANCE OF ABUSE, WOMEN’S STATUS, AND THE ECOLOGY OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN RURAL UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA Elizabeth Mogford* Western Washington University Christopher J. Lyons University of New Mexico We explore the multilevel determinants of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. We focus on village tolerance of abuse and its ability to regulate the effects of individual and village-level women’s status and social capital. Using individual and village data from the 1998 to 1999 India National Family Health Survey, we find that village tol- erance and women’s status at individual and village levels help explain the risk of IPV. Village tolerance of abuse also moderates the ability of village-level women’s status and social capital to protect women from IPV. Results underscore the need to understand processes that sustain and/or challenge violence-legitimating norms. Intimate partner violence (IPV), and in particular wife abuse by husbands, is a human rights and public health concern throughout the world. A multi-country study by the World Health Organization estimates the lifetime prevalence of domestic violence against women to vary from 15 to 71 percent in 15 sites across 10 countries (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005). IPV in South Asia has received special attention because of both its prevalence and severity (Segal 1999; Ahmed-Ghosh 2004; Sharma 2005). Various studies report prevalence of IPV in India in the 40-percent range (Kumar et al. 2005; Kishor and Gupta 2009). With a lifetime prevalence of 41.4 percent, accord- ing to the most recent National Family Health Survey, the central and most populous state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) has one of the highest rates of IPV in India (Kishor and Gupta 2009). A growing community of researchers from multiple disciplines is working to better understand the dynamics of IPV against women. Much research focuses on individual and household determinants, especially women’s status, a multidimensional concept that includes factors such as education, women’s employment, permission to leave the home, decision making, and control over resources (Mason 1986; Jejeebhoy 2002; Malhotra, Schuler, and Boender 2002; Koenig etal. 2003; Yodanis 2004; Basu and Koolwal 2005; Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005; Archer 2006; Rocca et al. 2009; Mogford *Direct all correspondence to Elizabeth Mogford, Department of Sociology, Western Washington Univer- sity, 516 High Street, Bellingham, WA 98225; e-mail: liz.mogford@wwu.edu doi: 10.1111/tsq.12067 The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253 The Sociological Quarterly 55 (2014) 705–731 © 2014 Midwest Sociological Society 705