Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

IJERPHInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

15 October 2026

9 Pages

Polygyny and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Tanzania

Department of Public Health, Keimyung University, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2026, 23(10), 1320;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23101320
This article belongs to the Section Global Health
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Highlights

Public health relevance—How does this work relate to a public health issue?
  • Polygyny, a form of marriage in which a man has multiple wives, is associated with adverse health outcomes for women, including an increased risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), a major global public health issue. However, the relationship between polygyny and IPV in Tanzania remains underexplored, and the available evidence is limited.
Public health significance—Why is this work of significance to public health?
  • Polygyny, an enduring family structure embedded in Tanzania’s cultural and religious traditions, is significantly associated with intimate partner violence, affecting the health and wellbeing of women.
Public health implications—What are the key implications or messages for practitioners, policy makers and/or researchers in public health?
  • Government agencies, civil societies, and communities should recognize the unique vulnerability of the women in such unions and implement targeted strategies to prevent IPV and promote the safety and wellbeing of women.

Abstract

Polygyny, a marriage in which a man has multiple wives, has been linked to numerous adverse health outcomes for women. However, the association between polygyny and IPV in Tanzania remains underexplored, and the available evidence is limited. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association between polygyny and IPV, and the relationship between co-wife rank and the number of co-wives and IPV. A nationally representative cross-sectional sample of married or partnered women (n = 3033) was used. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to the data. Results showed that 14.2% of women were in polygynous marriages. More than one-quarter (27.5%), nearly one-quarter (23.0%), and approximately one in ten (9.1%) reported experiencing physical, emotional, and sexual violence, respectively. Women in polygynous marriages were significantly more likely to experience physical violence (AOR = 1.76, 95% CI [1.30, 2.38]), emotional violence (AOR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.12, 2.18]), and sexual abuse (AOR = 1.63, 95% CI [1.07, 2.50]) than women in non-polygynous marriages. No significant association was found between co-wife rank or the number of co-wives and IPV. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that polygyny was associated with a higher likelihood of intimate partner violence among women in Tanzania.

1. Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an issue of public health concern and a widespread cross-cultural behavior that refers to violence or abuse that takes place in a romantic relationship and can happen to former or current partners/spouses and cause the victims physical, psychological, or sexual harm [1]. According to WHO estimates, approximately one in three women worldwide have experienced IPV or sexual violence at some point in their lives [2]. Experiencing IPV can lead to harm, disability, and even death, long after the violence has stopped, as its aftereffects may persist, including anxiety and depressive symptoms, suicidal thoughts, and social challenges. Unhealthy coping mechanisms such as smoking, drinking, or drugs are often used to deal with the trauma [3]. Women in sub-Saharan Africa are disproportionately affected by IPV with an average IPV lifetime prevalence of 33% [4,5]. Correspondingly, women in Tanzania also face significant levels of IPV even though the level of the most common form of IPV (physical violence) has decreased from 40% in 2015 to 27% in 2022 [6]. Additionally, according to a recent study, 39% of Tanzanian women who have ever been in a relationship reported having been the victim of sexual, emotional, or physical abuse [6]. Injuries resulting from physical or sexual violence perpetrated by their current or former spouse or intimate partner were reported by 41% of women who have ever experienced such violence [6].
Polygyny is the form of marital structure in which a man has multiple wives [7]. It is the most prevalent type of polygamy and historically present in 80% of human societies [8] but only 2% of people in the world currently live in polygynous households [9]. This family structure is, however, widely prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and in some Asian countries, although the practice is now in decline [9,10]. In most of these regions, polygyny is legal but not commonly practiced, except in regions in West and Central Africa, known as ‘the polygamy belt,’ where polygyny is widespread and legal [9,11,12].
Several theories have been proposed to explain why individuals engage in polygamy. Sexual selection theory posits that men and women adopt distinct reproductive strategies. Men with greater access to economic resources are more likely to pursue multiple wives to maximize their reproductive success. Conversely, women may prefer wealthier men in polygynous unions over poorer monogamous partners, particularly in resource-constrained environments [13,14]. On the other hand, social exchange theory, which emerged in the 1960s, posits that human behavior—including participation in polygynous unions—is based on the exchange of resources. Individuals are more likely to enter and remain in relationships when the perceived benefits outweigh the associated costs [15]. When applied to polygyny, men may gain benefits such as increased household labor and larger numbers of children, while women may obtain financial support, social protection, and access to resources. This dynamic is particularly relevant in contexts where women have limited economic opportunities [13,14] and in situations aimed at protecting widows and orphans by integrating them into existing families and providing financial and emotional support [16].
Nonetheless, polygyny has been associated with a number of detrimental health outcomes. Compared to women in non-polygynous marriages, women in polygynous marriages are more likely to experience IPV [17,18,19]. Polygyny was also linked to more mental health problems, including negative emotions, anger, despair, and sadness [20,21], higher risk of sexually transmitted infections, lower use of maternal health services [11,22] and under-5 mortalities [23]. As well, women in such marriages often encounter jealousy among co-wives, deprivation of material and emotional support, and difficulties in accessing health care services [24]. On the other hand, several benefits of polygynous marriages have also been documented. For instance, in northern Tanzania, Lawson et al. [25] reported that polygynous households headed by men had better food security, owned more livestock, and farmed more land. Additionally, the labor of a second wife can be materially beneficial to the household in most cultures as they make substantial contributions to the household’s wealth [7]. However, the association between polygyny and IPV in Tanzania remains insufficiently researched, and evidence in the literature is limited. In particular, little is known about how wives’ rank within polygynous unions relates to the risk of IPV in the Tanzanian context. Thus, this study aimed to examine the association between polygyny, as well as wives’ ranking (the chronological order of the marriage) or number of co-wives, and IPV among Tanzanian women. It is hypothesized that polygyny, the number of co-wives and their rankings are significantly associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) among women in Tanzania.

2. Methodology

2.1. Design

The data used in this study were obtained from the 2022 Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey (TDHS-MIS). The sample was chosen by using a two-stage stratified approach. The initial step involved choosing 629 clusters or enumeration areas (EAs) that were stratified into rural and urban regions. In the second stage, 26 families were chosen from each cluster. For the present study, a nationally representative cross-sectional sample (n = 3033) of married/partnered women was used. However, due to missing data, a small number of observations were excluded from the analysis, resulting in minor discrepancies in the sample size, as is common in survey studies. The sampling method and design were detailed in the report by the Tanzania Ministry of Health [6]. The Medical Research Council of Tanzania and the Zanzibar Health Research Institute and ICF International gave their approval to the questionnaires and survey procedures, including administration of the questionnaires [6].

2.2. Measurements

Women’s experiences of IPV were assessed from responses of women who were married/partnered and experienced IPV (physical, emotional, and sexual violence) from their most recent husband/partner. Items used to assess IPV variables are presented in Table 1. IPV was measured using a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) [26]. Respondents who reported experiencing any of the specific acts included in the scale were classified as having experienced the corresponding form of intimate partner violence. For example, women who responded to have never experienced IPV were coded as ‘0’ and the rest were coded ‘1’, meaning that they have experienced IPV, including the response ‘yes’ but not in the last 12 months. The primary independent variables were marriage type (polygynous vs. non-polygynous) and wives’ ranking based on the chronological order of the marriage (women whose marriage occurred earliest would be ranked first, the next earliest ranked second, and so forth) and the number of co-wives.
Table 1. Items used to assess IPV.

2.3. Data Analysis

A module for complex survey design in SPSS 29.0 was utilized. Before the data was analyzed, effects of survey design pertaining to strata and clusters were considered, and sample weight for domestic violence was applied which had been described in the report by the Tanzania Ministry of Health [6]. The IPV levels were obtained from the output of the descriptive statistics. To examine the association between IPV and the main independent variables, multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to the data. IBM SPSS Complex Samples uses Taylor series linearization (Taylor linearization) to estimate variances for complex survey data. Variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance were used to assess multicollinearity. VIF for independent variables ranged between 1.083 and 2.073 while measure for tolerance was 0.842–0.923. The models controlled for behavioral, sociodemographic, physical and social factors, including age, household wealth, residence type, education, work status, and alcohol consumption. These variables were included because they may be associated with the risk of IPV and could confound the observed relationship. For example, age and residence may reflect differences in marital patterns and social norms; education, employment, and household wealth capture socioeconomic conditions that may influence women’s vulnerability to violence. Alcohol consumption is an established behavioral factor associated with IPV risk, while attitudes toward wife-beating reflect the normative acceptance of violence. Women’s decision-making autonomy represents household power dynamics that may influence women’s exposure to IPV. Statistical significance was determined with a p-value below 0.05.

3. Results

Fourteen percent (14.2% 95% CI [12.3%, 16.3%]) of women were in polygynous marriages. The vast majority (84.3% 95% CI [79.2%, 88.3%]) of women had one co-wife while 51.5% 95% CI [45.0%, 57.9%]) were ranked as second wives and 40.1% 95% CI [33.4%, 47.1%]) were first wives. The results also showed that 27.5% (95% CI [25.4%, 29.6%]) of women have ever experienced physical violence, and 23% (95% CI [20.8%, 25.1%]) and 9.1% (95%CI [7.8%, 10.6%]) have experienced emotional and sexual abuse, respectively (Table 2). The results of the multivariate analysis (Table 3) showed that women in polygynous marriages were more likely to experience physical violence, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse (AOR = 1.76 (95% CI [1.30, 2.38]), AOR = 1.57 (95% CI [1.12, 2.18]), and AOR = 1.63 (95% CI [1.07, 2.50])) than women in non-polygynous marriages. No association between chronological order of the co-wives’ marriages (co-wives’ rank) or number of co-wives and IPV variables were found (Table 4).
Table 2. Polygyny prevalence and intimate partner violence (IPV) among married/partnered women in Tanzania.
Table 3. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs): Polygyny and intimate partner violence (IPV) among Tanzanian women.
Table 4. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs): Number of co-wives and women’s rank among co-wives and intimate partner violence (IPV) among Tanzanian women.

4. Discussion

The results showed that one in seven (14.2%) marriages in Tanzania were polygynous, indicating that the practice remains a significant part of the family structure in the country and consistent with a recent report [6]. Although the prevalence is lower than what reported for several West African countries, including Burkina Faso (36%), Mali (34%), Gambia (30%), Niger (29%), and Nigeria (28%) [9], it nonetheless represents a family arrangement that is integral to the cultural fabric of Tanzanian societies. Similarly, more than one-fourth (27.5%), nearly one in four (23.0%), and one in ten (9.1%) women reported experiencing physical, emotional, and sexual violence, respectively, showing that Tanzanian women continue to face significant levels of IPV. These findings tracked well with a previous report from Tanzania [6] and were comparable with findings reported from sub-Saharan Africa countries [25].
The study also revealed that women in polygynous marriages had higher odds of reporting physical violence, emotional violence and sexual violence by their intimate partners than women in non-polygynous relationships. The results corroborate prior reports from Asia and sub-Saharan Africa countries [27,28,29]. Several explanations have been advanced for the increased vulnerability of women in polygynous unions to IPV. Polygynous family structures are inherently prone to tensions and conflicts, often manifested through rivalry, jealousy, and competition for resources and spousal attention among co-wives [18,30,31]. Furthermore, women in polygynous unions have been reported to experience lower self-esteem, higher levels of depression and anxiety, and a range of other mental health challenges compared with women in monogamous unions [32,33,34,35]. Also, men in polygynous families have been reported to experience more psychological problems than men in monogamous families [36]. Additionally, in settings where polygyny is a common practice, poverty, financial insecurity, and economic burden associated with supporting multiple households may exacerbate household stress and contribute to the occurrence of IPV [37]. Collectively, these psychological, economic, and interpersonal stressors may increase women’s vulnerability to IPV in polygynous families. The association between polygyny and intimate partner violence (IPV) may reflect the wider social, economic, gender-power, household, and community contexts in which such relationships are embedded. Thus, polygyny and its association with IPV may not imply that it directly causes violence, because it may be influenced by differences in household resources, women’s socioeconomic status, decision-making, and gender norms.
Neither the number of co-wives nor a woman’s rank among co-wives, determined by the order in which the marriage occurred (senior versus junior wife), was associated with the experience of IPV. The lack of significant association between the number of co-wives and women’s IPV experience may reflect limited statistical power as evidenced by large confidence intervals. However, Jansen and Agadjanian [18] reported that among Mozambican women, the prevalence of IPV did not differ significantly between women in polygynous and monogamous unions; however, senior wives experienced higher levels of IPV than junior wives. The authors also found that polygynous women who resided separately from their co-wives were more vulnerable to IPV. Similarly, Owoo, Agadjanian, and Chama-Chiliba [37] reported that senior wives in Nigeria were more likely to experience IPV than junior wives, although the strength of the association varied with women’s religious affiliation. As well, in Middle Eastern cultural contexts, senior wives often experience greater psychological distress and poorer mental health outcomes than junior wives [32]. The lack of significant association between wife’s rank and IPV in the present study was in contrast to previous studies that reported higher risk of IPV for senior wives [18,38] suggesting that the relationship between co-wives’ rank and IPV is not universal, but context dependent. For instance, one possible explanation may be that senior wives in Tanzania are traditionally accorded considerable respect and may exercise greater authority over junior co-wives, particularly with regard to the allocation of household labor, domestic responsibilities, and access to family resources [39]. As well, polygynous families in Tanzania are characterized by hierarchical social structures in which seniority among co-wives plays a central role in fostering alliances and shaping access to household resources [40]. Although traditional and religious norms require husbands in polygynous unions to treat their wives equally, men may nonetheless favor junior wives because of their greater reproductive potential and the power dynamics inherent in such marriages [41,42]. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that polygyny was associated with a higher likelihood of intimate partner violence among women in Tanzania, while the association between IPV measures and women’s rank within polygynous marriages or the number of co-wives were not statistically significant. Future studies should employ longitudinal designs to examine the temporal relationship between polygyny and intimate partner violence and provide stronger evidence regarding the association between marital structure and IPV.

5. Conclusions

In Tanzania, approximately one in seven marriages (14.2%) is polygynous, reflecting the enduring nature of polygyny as part of the cultural and religious practices. As legally recognized unions, polygynous marriages afford rights and protections to all parties involved. However, the findings of the present study indicate that polygyny was associated with a higher likelihood of intimate partner violence among women in Tanzania. Thus, government agencies, civil societies, and communities should recognize the unique vulnerability associated with these unions and implement targeted strategies to mitigate IPV risks when promoting the safety and wellbeing of women.

Limitations and Strengths

The study has several strengths. First, it is based on a nationally representative sample and employed rigorous data quality control procedures, enhancing the reliability of the findings and supporting their generalizability to the broader population. However, the study has limitations common to cross-sectional studies. For example, in the cross-sectional design IPV and polygyny were measured at a single point in time, making it difficult to establish temporal relationships and limiting the ability to draw causal conclusions. Additionally, recall bias cannot be discounted as participants were asked about their past experiences. As well, social desirability bias may also occur as IPV is a sensitive topic and an intimate experience for women, which could potentially lead to underreporting. In the analysis, several potential confounding factors were considered; however, residual confounding may remain because of unmeasured variables.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Publicly available and de-identified secondary data owned by Demographic and Health Survey was used and thus an IRB statement was not required.

Data Availability Statement

The data is owned by Demographic and Health Survey and can be accessed from their website.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Intimate Partner Violence. 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html (accessed on 12 August 2026).
  2. World Health Organization. Lifetime Toll: 840 Million Women Faced Partner or Sexual Violence. 2025. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/19-11-2025-lifetime-toll--840-million-women-faced-partner-or-sexual-violence (accessed on 15 August 2026).
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate Partner Violence Prevention. 2023. Available online: https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/main/prevention-information/intimate-partner-violence/ (accessed on 23 August 2026).
  4. Sardinha, L.; Maheu-Giroux, M.; Stöckl, H.; Meyer, S.R.; García-Moreno, C. Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. Lancet 2022, 399, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  5. World Health Organization. Global Fact Sheet: Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/341604/WHO-SRH-21.6-eng.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2026).
  6. Ministry of Health (Tanzania Mainland); Ministry of Health (Zanzibar); National Bureau of Statistics; Office of the Chief Government Statistician; ICF. Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey 2022 Final Report. 2022. Available online: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR382/FR382.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2026).
  7. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Polygyny. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/polygyny-marriage (accessed on 28 August 2026).
  8. Bergstrom, T. On the Economics of Polygyny; University of California: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1994; Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6kr536bv (accessed on 31 July 2026).
  9. Kramer, S. Pew Research Center. 2020. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/07/polygamy-is-rare-around-the-world-and-mostly-confined-to-a-few-regions/ (accessed on 29 August 2026).
  10. Chae, S.; Agadjanian, V. The transformation of polygyny in sub-Saharan Africa. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2022, 48, 1125–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  11. Bove, R.; Valeggia, C. Polygyny and women’s health in sub-Saharan Africa. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  12. Hamdan, S.; Auerbach, J.; Apter, A. Polygamy and mental health of adolescents. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2009, 18, 755–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  13. Buss, D.M. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, 7th ed.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ihara, Y.; Aoki, K. Sexual selection by male choice in monogamous and polygynous human populations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1999, 55, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  15. Miller, S.P. Social Exchange Theory. EBSCO Research Starters. 2024. Available online: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/social-exchange-theory (accessed on 18 July 2026).
  16. Hassouneh-Phillips, D. Polygamy and wife abuse: A qualitative study of Muslim women in America. Health Care Women Int. 2001, 22, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Tsala Dimbuene, Z.; Opoku Ahinkorah, B.; Amugsi, D.A. Polygyny and intimate partner violence among married women: Sub-national estimates from a cross-sectional study in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. PLoS Glob. Public Health 2025, 5, e0001645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  18. Jansen, N.; Agadjanian, V. Polygyny and intimate partner violence in Mozambique. J. Fam. Issues 2020, 41, 338–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  19. Nagarajan, R.; Sahoo, H. Polygyny and spousal violence in India: Findings from the 2019–2021. Natl. Fam. Health Surv. Int. J. Popul. Stud. 2022, 7, 108–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Gadban, F.; Goldner, L. “I have no hope”: The experience of mothers in polygamous families as manifested in drawings and narratives. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 608577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  21. Shepard, L.D. The impact of polygamy on women’s mental health: A systematic review. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2013, 22, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  22. Kumbeni, M.T.; Alem, J.N.; Ziba, F.A.; Afaya, A.; Apanga, P.A. The practice of polygyny on the utilization of reproductive health services among married women in Ghana. J. Biosoc. Sci. 2024, 56, 784–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  23. Yaya, S.; Anjorin, S.S.; Adedini, S.A. Intimate partner violence, contextual factors and under-5 mortality: A multilevel analysis of cross-sectional surveys from 20 sub-Saharan African countries. BMJ Glob. Health 2020, 5, e003531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  24. Lawson, D.W.; James, S.; Ngadaya, E.; Ngowi, B.; Mfinanga, S.G.; Borgerhoff Mulder, M. No evidence that polygynous marriage is a harmful cultural practice in northern Tanzania. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 13827–13832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  25. Mossie, T.B.; Mekonnen, F.; Tadesse, M.; Tadele, A. Mapping the disparities in intimate partner violence prevalence and determinants across sub-Saharan Africa. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1188718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  26. Kishor, S. Domestic violence measurement in the demographic and health surveys: The history and the challenges. “Violence against women: A statistical overview, challenges and gaps in data collection and methodology and approaches for overcoming them” expert group meeting organized by: UN division for the advancement of women in collaboration with: Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and World Health Organization (WHO) 11–14 April 2005 Geneva Switzerland. 2005. Available online: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw-stat-2005/docs/expert-papers/Kishor.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2026).
  27. Akbary, M.F.; Taqaddausi, M.T.; Han, L.; Jiang, Q. Polygyny and intimate partner violence: The moderated mediation roles of women’s autonomy, women’s asset ownership, and media access. J. Interpers. Violence 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  28. Ebrahim, N.B.; Atteraya, M.S. Polygyny and intimate partner violence among Ethiopian women. Glob. Soc. Welf. 2021, 8, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Sonthon, P.; Janma, N.; Wichaidit, W. Variations in the association between polygyny and experience of intimate partner violence by husband’s alcohol consumption: A cross-sectional study among postpartum women in Thailand. BMC Public Health 2024, 24, 2735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Jankowiak, W.; Sudakov, M.; Wilreker, B.C. Co-wife conflict and co-operation. Ethnology 2005, 44, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Abudulai, F.; Pichon, M.; Buller, A.M.; Scott, J.; Sharma, V. Displacement, polygyny, romantic jealousy, and intimate partner violence: A qualitative study among Somali refugees in Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  32. Al-Krenawi, A. Mental health and polygamy: The Syrian case. World J. Psychiatry 2013, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  33. Al-Krenawi, A.; Kanat-Maymon, Y. Psychological symptomatology, self-esteem and life satisfactions of women from polygamous and monogamous marriages in Syria. Int. Soc. Work 2017, 60, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Bahari, S.I.; Norhayati, M.N.; Nik Hazlina, N.H.; Mohamad Shahirul Aiman, C.A.A.; Nik Muhammad Arif, N.A. Psychological impact of polygamous marriage on women and children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021, 21, 823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  35. Barut, A.; Mohamud, S.A. The psychosexual and psychosocial impacts of polygamous marriages: A cross-sectional study among Somali women. BMC Women’s Health 2023, 23, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  36. Al-Krenawi, A.; Slonim-Nevo, V.; Graham, J.R. Polygyny and its impact on the psychosocial well-being of husbands. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 2006, 37, 173–189. [Google Scholar]
  37. Heath, R.; Hidrobo, M.; Roy, S. Cash transfers, polygamy, and intimate partner violence: Experimental evidence from Mali. J. Dev. Econ. 2020, 143, 102410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Owoo, N.S.; Agadjanian, V.; Chama-Chiliba, C. Revisiting the polygyny and intimate partner violence connection: The role of religion and wife’s rank in Nigeria. J. Marriage Fam. 2021, 83, 1310–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  39. Mushi, F. Assessment of the protection of matrimonial property rights of non-divorcing co-wives in Tanzania. SSRN Electron. J. 2023. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4525842 (accessed on 13 August 2026).
  40. Tomori, C.; Francisco, L.V.; Kennedy, C.E.; Kajula-Maonga, L.; Likindikoki, S.; Babalola, S.O.; Kerrigan, D.L. The changing cultural and economic dynamics of polygyny and concurrent sexual partnerships in Iringa, Tanzania. Glob. Public Health 2013, 8, 857–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  41. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Marriage in the Tanzanian Pimbwe. Hum. Nat. 2009, 20, 130–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  42. Herrera-Almanza, C.; Seitz McCarthy, A. Strategic responses to disparities in spousal desired fertility: Experimental evidence from rural Tanzania. J. Popul. Econ. 2025, 38, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Six- and 12-Month Post-Intervention Outcomes of a Nurse Practitioner-Led Interdisciplinary Obesity Clinic for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Rural Australia: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Previous
Correction: Javed et al. The Potential Impact of Smog Spell on Humans’ Health Amid COVID-19 Rages. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11408
Next