The Role of Gender in the Perception of Different Forms of Psychological Violence in Young Couples

Abstract

The objective of the present study has been to assess the influence that the sex of the aggressor and the sex of participant have on the perception of three types of psychological violence in young couples. A total of 693 young people, ranging from 17 years to 25 years, were randomly assigned six different scenarios in which situations of psychological violence between young heterosexual couples were described and where the sex of the aggressor and the types of psychological violence varied. The results of our research revealed that differences in the perception of violence are observed based on the sex of the aggressor, the sex of the participant, and the type of psychological violence, independently, as well as in the interaction of the three variables. This result is relevant as it points to the need for further in-depth study into situations that could contribute to justifying violence.

Keywords

attitudes psychological violence young couples dating violence

Introduction

Psychological violence is one of the most common types of abuse that occurs in the relationships of young couples (Fernández-Fuertes & Fuertes, 2010; Ferrer et al., 2008; Moreno et al., 2014; Perles et al., 2019; Sears et al., 2007; Shook et al., 2000). Williams et al. (2012) refer to psychological violence in couple relationships as attempts to control one’s partner or relationship, wield power, or damage the victim’s sense of self. They have stressed the need to identify psychological abuse in young couples as a social problem on par with physical violence (Blázquez, 2010) because of its very negative effects on the physical and mental well-being of the victims (Basow et al., 2007; Seff et al., 2008; Stark, 2006). Psychological violence in couples has been highlighted as a predictor of physical violence in young couples (O’Leary & Slep, 2003; White et al., 2001). This type of violence is more difficult to identify by the couple themselves, which could lead to some psychological abuse being considered a normal practice in the couple’s relationship (Hird, 2000). Several studies reveal that adolescents and young people tend to minimize experiences of violence in intimate relationships (Chung, 2007; Edwards et al., 2012). Studies conducted with Spanish adolescents concluded that adolescents perceived certain aggressive violent behavior (e.g., pushing, provocations, threats) as a normalized and acceptable interactive style of solving conflicts in their relationships (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2007, 2011b). In addition, other studies found that Spanish adolescents downplayed some indicators of violence such as abuse of control, domination, and jealousy/possession (De la Peña et al., 2011).

Attitudes of acceptance of violence in couples have been pointed to as a key risk factor for couple violence, which can vary throughout different countries and cultures (Kerig et al., 2010). The need to modify attitudes justifying violence in couples in order to prevent future violent behavior in the couple has been specifically tackled in studies regarding intimate partner violence against women (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Capezza & Arriaga, 2008a; Ferrer & Bosch, 2014; Gracia & Lila, 2015). At the same time, they have, likewise, highlighted the importance of intervention in attitudes that justify aggressions in violence prevention programs during courtship (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2011a). Simon et al. (2010) find a strong link between an attitude of acceptance of violence in courtship and its involvement in violent behavior toward a new partner. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that changes in these attitudes can predict changes in violent behavior toward a partner in the future (Schumacher & Slep, 2004). Different studies have shown that young people justify couple violence in certain situations, such as jealousy or in reaction to an aggression received by the partner (Fernández-González et al., 2017; Foo & Margolin, 1995; Matthews, 1984; Roscoe & Benaske, 1985).

Most of the studies carried out to date have focused on the perception of physical violence, while perceptions of psychological violence have been less studied (Hammock et al., 2015). However, as we observed earlier, this type of aggression is very common in young couples’ relationships, and its effects can be more harmful and lasting than those produced by physical violence (Basow et al., 2007), which is why it is important to further explore this area. Some research has compared the differences in the perception of physical violence and that of psychological violence, finding that in physical aggression, the physical aggression itself as well as the aggressor were more negatively valued than in that of psychological violence, observing the same results in heterosexual couples (Hammock et al., 2015) as in same-sex couples (Hammock et al., 2017). On the other hand, Capezza and Arriaga (2008a, 2008b) evaluated the perception of different levels of physical and psychological aggression in heterosexual couples, finding that, when solely comparing different levels of psychological aggression, the participants viewed the most serious psychological aggressions as being the most grave and unacceptable; however, upon introducing physical violence in the assessments, on one hand, differences were not perceived among the different levels of psychological aggression, and on the other, fewer cases of physical aggression were perceived more harshly than was any degree of a psychological aggression. These studies find that the participants perceived physical aggression as the least acceptable, rating it more aggressive, abusive, and more negative than psychological aggression. Other studies have also evaluated the perception of sexual violence, with physical violence being considered more abusive, followed by sexual violence, and psychological violence (Dardis et al., 2017).

Most previous research evaluated the perception of violence in adult couples but did not study in depth the perception of young couples regarding psychological violence occurring in couples of their same age. Our study seeks to assess the perception of different types of psychological abuse that can be observed in young couples to determine whether differences exist in the perception of the seriousness of said behavior and in the responsibility of the aggressor.

One of the variables studied in relation to the perception of couple violence is the gender of the aggressor, and different studies, carried out on the general population as well as with student population, found that couple violence is perceived differently when it is committed by a male than when it is by a female (Cormier & Woodworth, 2008; Sorenson & Thomas, 2009). In this sense, greater justification for the violence is found when it is committed by a woman than when it is committed by a man (Bethke & DeJoy, 1993; Harris, 1991; O’Keefe, 1997; Price & Byers, 1999), with the abuse being perceived as less threatening when the woman is the aggressor (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). Other studies have observed that physical aggressions committed by men are perceived as less acceptable and more harmful, more aggressive, and more negative than those committed by women on men (Basow et al., 2007; Hammock et al., 2015; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). At the same time, aggressions in couples when the man is the aggressor and the female the victim generally tend to be considered criminal actions, with a tendency to recommend longer jail sentences (Poorman et al., 2003; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). The tendency to consider the episodes more abusive when committed by men, rather than women, is observed when the abuse is physical as well as psychological (DeHart et al., 2010; Hammock et al., 2017). However, in a study carried out by Basow et al. (2007), it was found that men were perceived more negatively when they engaged in physical abuse, while women were judged more negatively than the males when the abuse was psychological.

Most previous work has dealt with the differences in the perception of violence in heterosexual couples; nevertheless, studies that have included perception of violence in same-sex couples find that violent episodes are perceived more negatively when the aggressor is male and the victim is female than when female-male, male-male, or female-female, being taken as extremely serious and advising the victims to press charges (Harris & Cook, 1994; Home, 1994; Poorman et al., 2003; Seelau & Seealu, 2005). Other studies have found that when the man is the aggressor, the incident, the aggressor, and victim’s emotions are all scored more negatively (Hammock et al., 2017).

Studies carried out with adolescents reveal that they perceive a double standard with respect to the response of adults to abusive behavior in young men and young women, with violent behavior being punished more when it is committed by boys than when it is committed by girls (Sears et al., 2007). Reevers and Orpinas (2012) find that, in general, high school students reject physical violence, but that the few who justified it did so twice as much in the case of girls than that of boys. However, the authors pointed out that this result seems to indicate a rejection or persecution of violence committed by boys rather than an acceptance of violence in girls.

This differential perception of violence in accordance with the sex of the aggressor has been explained on the basis of gender role stereotypes, where men are viewed as less vulnerable than women (Gerber, 1991), which influences in the violence being perceived as more serious when it is carried out by a man and the perpetrator is considered more aggressive when the victim is a woman (Seelau & Seelau, 2005). These stereotypes are also observed in the perception of the victims in intimate couple violence. Women are viewed as weaker and having a greater need for protection, especially when the man is the aggressor, than when the man is the victim (Basow et al., 2007; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). Some authors have suggested that the influence of gender stereotypes can create a gendered lens for judging the behaviors, resulting in different interpretations of the same behavior, depending on the gender of the person perpetrating it or suffering from it (Hammock et al., 2017). Other studies have revealed that the differences in physical strength between men and women explain the different perceptions of aggressions in couples where the man is the aggressor and the woman the victim (Hamby & Jackson, 2010). Crittenden et al. (2017) highlight the need to examine the influence of gender on perceptions of intimate partner violence in a more complex way, taking into account how views of men and women affect perceptions of intimate partner violence. Thus, studies that have assessed attitudes toward women reveal that people with more negative or conservative attitudes toward women blame victims more when they are female than when they are male (Berkel et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 2012; Yamawaki et al., 2009) and tend to justify more violence in intimate relationships when it is perpetrated by men (Sakalli, 2001; Saunders et al., 1987).

Another of the issues examined by the research is the perception of violence in function of the sex of the perceiver, with different studies revealing a greater tendency for men to blame women for violence they have suffered, and women attributing greater responsibility for such acts to the abusers, perceiving violent incidents to be more serious (Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Hamby & Jackson, 2010), and viewing psychological abuse more seriously than men (Follingstad et al., 2004). Other studies, carried out with undergraduates, have observed that women perceive the incidents more negatively than do men (Hammock et al., 2015, 2017); likewise, young women consider physical, sexual, and psychological violence as more abusive than ones considered by men (Dardis et al., 2017). Regarding opinions in the responses to violent episodes, it was found that women tend to be more in favor of system interventions than do men when confronting violent situations, such as calling the police or victim helplines, while men tend to recommend more individual interventions, such as speaking to the couple or doing nothing (Seelau & Seelau, 2005). Studies undertaken with adolescents suggest that boys display attitudes involving a greater acceptance of violence than do girls (Fernández-González et al., 2017; Josephson & Proulx, 2008; Karlsson et al., 2016), and that these attitudes correlate most strongly with couple violence in the boys (Torres et al., 2012).

It is necessary to examine in depth the situational variables that lead to certain behavior being perceived as nonviolent and even justifying the abuse. The present study’s main objective is to assess the influence of the aggressor’s sex and the type of psychological violence carried out on the perception of the seriousness of the abuse and aggressor’s responsibility, as well as gender differences in the perception of these variables.

Objectives and Hypothesis

The aim of our study is to evaluate the perception that young people have on three types of psychological violence in young heterosexual couples according to the sex of the participant, the sex of the aggressor, and the type of psychological violence carried out.

We expect to find higher scores in the perception of the seriousness of the event, aggressor responsibility, and the likelihood of the incident occurring again in the three different types of psychological violence (insulting and attempting to impose oneself; controlling or ignoring one’s partner; ridiculing one’s partner in the presence of friends) when the aggressor is a man than when it is a woman (hypothesis 1). We expect to find lower scores in the perception of the relationship’s stability in the three types of psychological violence when the man is the aggressor than when it is a woman (hypothesis 1a).

We expect to find higher scores in the perception of the seriousness of the episode, the aggressor’s responsibility, and the likelihood that the episode will occur again for the female participants than for the male participants in this study for the three types of psychological violence (hypothesis 2). We expect to find lower scores in the perception of the relationship’s stability for the three types of psychological violence in the female participants in the study than for the male participants (hypothesis 2a).

Finally, we attempt to explore the differences in the perception of the serious nature of the episode, aggressor’s responsibility, likelihood of the incident occurring again, and the perception of the relationship’s stability for the different forms of psychological violence assessed and their interaction with the sex of the aggressor and the sex of the participant.

Method

Participants

Six hundred and ninety-three young people whose ages ranged from 17 years to 25 years participated in this study (Med = 20.5 years, SD = 2.2), with 57.7% females and 42.38% males. A total of 95.5% were born in Spain, and the remaining 5.4% were of diverse nationalities from Europe, Latin America, China, and the United States. A total of 78.5% of the participants were students, while 21.5% were working. Among the students, the majority were pursuing university studies in more than 30 different fields (72.7%), while other educational levels were also included, such as secondary education (13.8%), graduate studies (8.2%), doctoral degrees (1.8%), and other studies (2.5%). A total of 57% were in a relationship at the time of the study, while 43% where not in a relationship. Of those participants not currently in a relationship, 85.3% had been involved in some type of relationship previously. A total of 90.2% of the participants indicated that their sexual orientation was heterosexual, 3.2% homosexual, and 4.6% bisexual, while 2% responded that they did not know.

Instrument and Scenarios

Sociodemographic variables and information on the couple’s relationships

At the beginning of the survey, a series of questions were posed related to the sex, age, nationality, studies attained, if working, socioeconomic level, and other similar items. Also included were questions as to whether they were in a relationship or had been so in the past and questions referring to the importance of these relationships and time spent with their partner.

Each participant was randomly assigned one of six scenarios, adapted from Harris and Cook (1994), where a situation is described in which a young heterosexual couple argue resulting in verbal aggression. In our study, we manipulate the sex of the aggressor and three types of aggression. To evaluate different forms of psychological abuse, different behaviors extracted from the survey on psychological abuse during courtship were incorporated (Psychological Dating Violence Questionnaire [PDV-Q], Ureña et al., 2015). In psychological violence 1, abusive behaviors were included: Insulting and attempting to impose oneself; in psychological violence 2: Controlling and ignoring one’s partner; and in the third type of psychological violence: Humiliating one’s partner in the presence of friends. In the first two types of violence, the couple, the argument, and the abuse occurred while they were alone, while in the third type, it occurred in the presence of others. In each scenario, the description of the situation is exactly the same, with only the masculine or female name of the aggressor and victim and the type of aggression varying. The participants were randomly assigned to each condition with the cell size oscillating between 111 and 119 for the interaction between the sex of aggressor x by the type of psychological violence. The cell size, upon introducing the sex of the participant as a factor, oscillated between 42 and 70.

After having read the scenario, each participant responded to a series of questions, adapted from Harris and Cook (1994), that referred to the degree of seriousness and violence of the situation, the perception of responsibility and the provocation of the aggressor and the victim, the degree of psychological harm suffered by the victim, the likelihood of the incident occurring again, and the perception of the relationship’s stability. Each question was responded to on a scale of 1–7. A principal factor analysis with a Varimax rotation was carried out by incorporating questions about the scenarios. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure for sampling adequacy is 0.71, which indicates a sufficient sampling size, with the Bartlett spherecity test being significant (p = 0.000). A four-factor solution—all with eigenvalues over 1.0—was produced. Together, the four factors accounted for 71% of the variance. Three items loaded on Factor 1 (24.18% of the variance) were termed “Incident seriousness”: “What is the incident’s degree of seriousness? “(0.81), “To what degree do you consider the incident violent?” (0.82), “What degree of psychological harm has the victim suffered (name of victim)” (0.75). The coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha for the items of this factor was α = 0. 75. Factor 2 (23.33% of the variance), termed “Responsibility of aggressor,” was composed of four items: “What degree of responsibility does (name of the aggressor) hold for the incident?” (−0.53), “(Name of the aggressor) has provoked the incident” (−0.71), “What degree of responsibility does (name of the victim) have for the incident?” (0.78), and “(Name of the victim) has provoked the incident)” (0.83). The coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha for the items of the factor was α = 0. 70. Factor 3 (12.6% of the variance) was composed of the item “To what degree do you consider it likely that the incident will happen again?” (0.96). Factor 4 (11.27% of the variance) was composed of the item “To what degree do you consider the relationship between (name of the victim) and (name of the aggressor) to be stable?” (0.95).

Results

Table 1 shows the mean scores for the seriousness of the incident variables; aggressor responsibility; likelihood of the episode occurring again; the stability of the relationship in the total sample; and according to the sex of the participant, the sex of the aggressor, and the type of psychological violence.

Table 1.

Means (and standard deviations) for the Scenario Variables for Total Sample, According to the Participant’s Sex, Perpetrator’s Sex, and Type of Psychological Violence.

Variables	Total (n = 692)	Participant		Aggressor		Psychological Violence
		Female	Male	Female	Male	Type 1	Type 2	Type 3
		(n = 399)	(n = 293)	(n = 345)	(n = 347)	(n = 233)	(n = 226)	(n = 233)
Seriousness of incident	4.62 (1.3)	4.8 (1.2)	4.37 (1.3)**	4.41 (1.2)	4.83 (1.3)**	4.64 (1.2)	4.5 (1.3)	4.72 (1.3)
Responsibility of aggressor	5.47 (1.1)	5.49 (1.1)	5.43 (1.2)	5.4 (1.1)	5.54 (1.1)	5.34 (1.1)	5.19 (1.1)	5.87 (1.1)**
Likelihood to occur again	5.9 (1.2)	6.1 (1.1)	5.7 (1.3)**	5.9 (1.1)	6 (1.3)	5.9 (1.1)	6.3 (1)	5.5 (1.4)**
Stability of relationship	3.2(1.4)	3.1 (1.4)	3.2 (1.3)	3.2 (1.3)	3.1(1.4)	3.2(1.3)	3.2 (1.4)	3.1 (1.3)

Note. **p < 0.01. All measures were assessed on seven-point scales.

We perform a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) among the subjects with three factors (sex of aggressor x type of psychological violence x sex of participant). The principal effect of the sex of aggressor was significant for the seriousness of the incident, with the score being higher when the man was the aggressor than when it was the woman (F (1.679) = 19.04, p < 0.001), with no effect being observed on the rest of the variables. Interaction of a second order for sex of aggressor x type of psychological violence was significant for the seriousness of the incident (p < 0.005) (Figure 1) and for the responsibility of the aggressor (p < 0.005) (Figure 2). The responsibility of the aggressor was greater when the man was the aggressor in type 1 violence (F(2.678) = 6.99, p < 0.005). The seriousness of the incident was greater when the man was the aggressor in types 1 and 2 violence (F(2. 679) = 5.95, p < 0.001). These results partially support hypothesis 1, where it was posed that the scores in the degree of seriousness of the incident, the responsibility of the aggressor, and the likelihood for the incident to occur again would be higher when the sex of the aggressor was male than when it was female in the three types of psychological violence. No differences were observed according to the sex of the aggressor in the perception of the stability of the relationship; thus, hypothesis 1a is not supported.

Figure 1.

Interaction of perpetrator’s sex and type of psychological violence on the seriousness of incident.

Figure 2.

Interaction of perpetrator’s sex and type of psychological violence on the aggressor responsibility.

The results of MANOVA revealed a significant principal effect of the sex of the participant on the seriousness of the incident (p < 0.001) and on the likelihood of the incident occurring again (p < 0.001). The female participants perceived a greater degree of seriousness of the incident than did the males (F(1.679) = 21.32, p < 0.001), as well as a higher likelihood of the incident occurring again (F(1.680) = 15.8, p < 0.001). This partially supports hypothesis 2, as higher scores were found for female participants than for male participants in perceived seriousness of the incident and the likelihood of the incident occurring again, but not finding differences in the perception of the responsibility of the aggressor. No differences were observed according to the sex of the participant in the perceived stability of the relationship; thus, hypothesis 2a is not supported.

The principal effect of the type of psychological violence has been significant for responsibility of aggressor (p < 0.001) and for the likelihood of the incident occurring again. After multiple comparisons with the Scheffé procedure, it was observed that the differences in the responsibility of aggressor occurred between violence 1 (insulting/pressuring) and 3 (ridiculing) and violence 2 (control) and 3, but not between types of violence 1 and 2, with the mean scores being lower in type 1 violence in comparison with 3, and in 2 in comparison with 3. As for the likelihood of the incident occurring again, differences were found in the three types of violence, with the score highest for violence 3, followed by violence 1, with the lowest score for violence 2. The second-order interaction of type of violence x sex of the participant was only significant for the perception of the stability of the relationship (Figure 3). Further analysis revealed that the scores were higher for type 1 violence for women than for men, with no significant differences observed in types 2 and 3 violence. The three-way interaction of sex of the aggressor x type of psychological violence x sex of the participant was significant for the perceived seriousness of the incident (F(2.676) = 3.81, p < 0.05) (Figure 4). Further analysis demonstrated that the male participants rated the seriousness of the incident higher when the aggressor was a man than when it was a woman in type 1 violence. The female participants rated the perceived seriousness of the incident higher when the aggressor was a man than when it was a woman in types 1 and 2 violence.

Figure 3.

Interaction of participant’s sex and type of psychological violence on the stability of the relationship.

Figure 4.

Interaction of perpetrator’s sex, type of psychological violence, and participant’s sex on the incident’s seriousness.

Discussion

The main objective of the present study has been to assess the perception of young people regarding different types of psychological violence in young couples. The results of our study reflect that, in general, incidents of psychological violence are perceived negatively, observing differences in these perceptions according to the sex of the aggressor, the type of psychological violence employed, and the sex of the participant.

A first objective was to assess differences in the perception of violence according to the sex of the aggressor in three types of psychological violence. We found higher scores in the seriousness of the incident when the male is the aggressor and the victim is a woman as opposed to situations where the woman is the aggressor and the man is the victim; no differences were found in the rest of the variables assessed. Regarding the three types of psychological violence evaluated, we found that the responsibility of the aggressor was perceived to be higher when the man was the aggressor only in violence type 1 (insulting or attempting to impose oneself)), and the seriousness of the incident was considered greater when the aggressor was a man than when it was a woman in types 1 and in 2 violence (controlling or ignoring a partner) but not in type 3 (ridiculing a partner in front of friends). This result indicates that the perception of young people regarding the responsibility of the aggressor and the seriousness of the incident when the man is the aggressor varies according to the type of psychological violence employed. Previous research has shown that violent incidents as well as the aggressors are perceived more negatively when the man is the aggressor (Basow et al., 2007; Hammock et al., 2015; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005), in physical as well as psychological aggressions (DeHart et al., 2010; Hammock et al., 2017). Our results reflect that the type of psychological violence engaged in can influence this perception. This study has found results consistent with previous research with regard to the most negative perception of couple violence occurring when it is carried out by the man against the woman, but it has also been shown that certain forms of psychological abuse are perceived as equally important independent of the gender of the partner engaging in the violence and the partner suffering from it. In this sense, it is possible that certain types of abuse are more related to gender stereotypes. This issue must be explored in future research in order to further examine gender differences when perceiving different types of psychological abuse and the variables, which explain these attitudinal differences

Another of the variables examined in our study relating to the perception of psychological violence in young couples was the sex of the participant, finding that women perceived psychological violence as being more serious than did the men. At the same time, the women perceived a greater likelihood of the incident occurring again than did the men. This result partially supports our predictions, since we also expected to find higher scores in the responsibility of the aggressor and lower scores in the stability of the relationship. Previous studies have found that women tend to blame the aggressors more and consider the violent episodes to be more serious (Follingstad et al., 2004; Hamby & Jackson, 2010). The results of our study corroborate those found in previous research showing that women score higher in the perception of the seriousness of the violence, which is relevant and indicates that women reject couple violence more than men (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008a; Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). Our results indicate that women recognize better than do men the seriousness of the three types of psychological abuse evaluated and furthermore view such incidents as likely to occur again. These differences in the perception of the degree of seriousness of psychological abuse could lead to situations in which certain abusive behavior is downplayed along with the reactions to assist the victim of such abuse. It is of essence to incorporate educational and awareness-raising programs targeting adolescents and young people that enhance sensitivity to such behavior and the serious nature of the same, and which contribute to a proper perception of the presence of abusive behavior in intimate relationships.

Lastly, the main objective of our work has been to explore the influence of the interaction between the sex of the aggressor, the sex of the participant, and the three types of psychological violence on the perception of violent episodes. We have found a significant interaction of these three variables in the perception of the seriousness of the incident. Accordingly, the men in our sample consider the act of insulting to be more serious when engaged in by a man toward a woman, while no differences in the seriousness of the incident are perceived according to the sex of the aggressor in violence involving controlling and ridiculing. Female participants, on one hand, consider violence involving insulting and controlling to be more serious when carried out by a man, whereas they do not perceive differences in the seriousness of the episode according to the sex of the aggressor when the violence involved is that of ridiculing one’s partner. These results reflect differences in the perception of the seriousness of the incident between men and women, with the latter tending to consider the different forms of psychological abuse more serious, especially when the male is the aggressor.

It is possible that the perception of the different types of psychological violence assessed in this study is influenced by the perception of gender violence and the degree of awareness about this issue. Along these lines, some authors assert that the results of several studies point to a gender bias and recognition that violence against women in intimate relationships is a much more significant social problem (Hamel et al., 2007; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). In the last few decades, Spanish society has developed a process of visualization and incorporation of programs on violence against women in the public agenda (De Miguel, 2005; Ferrer & Bosch, 2006; Medina-Ariza & Barberet, 2003). This has influenced the attitude of the Spanish population, which mostly regards partner violence against women as a social problem and clearly rejects it, as has been shown by population survey data (Sociological Research Centre, 2012). These results are similar to those found in surveys conducted with people from the European Union (European Commission, 2010). The foregoing could influence certain types of psychological abuse related to gender violence, such as domination and control, being perceived as more serious, especially when carried out by a man against a woman.

Our study’s results reveal the existence of differences between young women and men in the perception of different forms of psychological violence. Attitudes of acceptance toward violent behavior are considered a risk factor for engaging in violent behavior in intimate relationships (Kerig et al., 2010) and could be related to a greater tolerance when witnessing violence among couples engaged in relationships, as well as influencing the behavior for direct or indirect intervention when confronting these violent episodes.

Among the study’s limitations, we cite the characteristics of our sample, which, although heterogeneous, contains a higher proportion of college students. In this sense, it is necessary to delve into the perceptions of other groups within the young population. Second, our article has focused on the perception of violence in heterosexual couples, and, as such, it would be necessary to include perception of violence in couples of different sexual orientations in future studies. As for the different types of psychological violence evaluated, future studies should include other types of psychological violence, which could be very useful for determining the differences in the perceptions of the seriousness of different types of psychological abuse and the designing of intervention programs that are geared up to modify attitudes that minimize violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Fabiola Perles

References

Archer

Graham-Kevan

(2003). Do beliefs about aggression predict physical aggression of partner? Aggressive Behavior, 29, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10029

Basow

S. A.

Cahill

K. F.

Phelan

J. E.

Longshore

McGillicuddy-DeLisi

(2007). Perceptions of relational andphysical aggression among college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 85–95.

Berkel

L. A.

Vandiver

B. J.

Bahner

A. D.

(2004). Gender role attitudes, religion, and spirituality as predictors of domestic violence attitudes in white college students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0019

Bethke

T. M.

DeJoy

D. M.

(1993). An experimental study of factors influencing the acceptability of dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 36–51.

Blázquez

(2010). Psychological abuse in couples and the importance of emotional intelligence. A study of the coactive interaction in intimate relationships between universitu students. (Unpublished doctoral sissertation). Universidad de Extremadura.

Bryant

Spencer

(2003). University students’ attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1023/A.102605817132

Capezza

Arriaga

(2008a). Factors associated with acceptance of psychological aggression against women. Violence Against Women, 14, 612–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208319004

Capezza

Arriaga

(2008b). You can degrade but you can’t hit: Differences in perceptions of psychological versus physical aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25, 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507087957

Chung

(2007). Making meaning of relationships: Young women’s experiences and understandings of dating violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 1274–1295.

10.

Cormier

Woodworth

(2008). Do you see what isee? The influence of gender stereotypes on student and Royal Canadian Mounted Police perceptions of violent same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 17, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770802463446.

11.

Crittenden

C. A.

Policastro

Eigenberg

H. M.

(2017). Attitudes toward dating violence: How does sexual identity influence perceptions among college students? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 26(7), 804–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1328473

12.

Dardis

Edwards

Kelley

Gidycz

(2017). Perception of dating violence and associated correlates: A study of college young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 3245–3271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515597439

13.

De la Peña

Ramos

Luzón

Recio

(2011). Andalucía detecta: Sexismo violencia de género en la juventud [Andalusia detects: Sexism and gender violence in youth]. Instituto Andaluz de la Mujer, Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social, Junta de Andalucía.

14.

De Miguel

. (2005). La construcción de un marco feminista de interpretación: la violencia de género. [The construction of a feminist framework: Gender violence]. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 18, 231–248.

15.

DeHart

Follingstad

Fields

(2010). Does context matter in determining psychological abuse? Effects of pattern, harm, relationship, and norms. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 461–474. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10896-010-9307-7

16.

Edwards

Murphy

Tansill

Myrick

Probst

Corsa

Gidycz

(2012). A qualitative analysis of college women’s leaving processes in abusive relationships. Journal of American College Health, 60, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.586387

17.

European Commission. (2010). Domestic violence against women. Special Eurobarometer 73.2. TNS Opinion & Social. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_en.pdf

18.

Fernández-Fuertes

Fuertes

(2010). Physical and psychological aggression in dating relationships of Spanish adolescents: Motives and consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.01.002

19.

Fernández-González

Calvete

Orue

(2017). The acceptance of dating violence scale (ADV): Psychometric properties of the Spanish versión. Psicothema, 29, 241–246. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.229

20.

Ferrer

Bosch

(2006). El papel del movimiento feminista en la consideración social de la violencia contra las mujeres: El caso de España [The role of feminist movement in social consideration about gender violence: The case of Spain]. Labrys, 10. http://wwwtanianavarroswain.com.br/labrys/labrys10/espanha/vitoria.htm

21.

Ferrer

Bosch

(2014). Gender violence as a social problem in Spain. Sex Roles, 70, 506–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0322-z

22.

Ferrer

Bosch

Navarro

Ramis

García

(2008). El concepto de amor en España (The concept of love in Spain). Psicothema, 20, 589–595.

23.

Follingstad

D. R.

Helff

C. M.

Binford

R. V.

Runge

M. M.

White

J. D.

(2004). Lay persons’ versus psychologists’ judgments of psychologically aggressive actions by a husband and wife. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 916–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504266229

24.

Foo

Margolin

(1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 351–377. https://doi.org/0885-7482/95/1200-035157.50

25.

Gerber

(1991). Gender stereotypes and power: Perceptions of the roles in violent marriages. Sex Roles, 35, 507–519. https://doi.org/0360-0025/91/0400-0439506.50/

26.

Gracia

Lila

(2015). Attitudes towards violence against women in the EU. Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2838/045438

27.

Hamby

Jackson

(2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9816-0

28.

Hamel

Desmarais

Nicholls

(2007). Perceptions of motives in intimate partner violence: Expressive versus coercive violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007782312113

29.

Hammock

Richardson

Lamm

Taylor

Verlaque

(2017). The effect of gender of perpetrator and victim on perceptions of psychological and physical intimate partner aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9850-y

30.

Hammock

Richardson

William

Janit

(2015). Perceptions of psychological and physical aggression between heterosexual partners. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9645-y

31.

Harris

(1991). Effects of sex of aggressor, sex of target, and relationship on evaluation of physical aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006002003

32.

Harris

Cook

(1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565. https://doi.org/0360-0025/94/0400-0553507.00

33.

Hird

(2000). An empirical study of adolescent dating aggression in the U.K. Journal of Adolescence, 23(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0292

34.

Home

(1994). Attributing responsibility and assessing gravity in wife abuse situations: A comparative study of police and social workers. Journal of Social Service Research, 19, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v19n01_04

35.

Josephson

Proulx

(2008). Violence in young adolescents’ relationships: A path model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309340

36.

Karlsson

M. E.

Temple

J. R.

Weston

V. D.

(2016). Witnessing interparental violence and acceptance of dating violence as predictors for teen dating violence victimization. Violence Against Women, 22, 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215605920

37.

Kerig

P. K.

Volz

A. R.

Moeddel

M. A.

Cuellar

R. E.

(2010). Implementing dating violence prevention programs with fl exibility, fi delity, and sensitivity to diversity: Lessons learned from Expect Respect. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 661–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.502079

38.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9628-2

39.

Matthews

(1984). Violence in college couples. College Students Journal, 18, 150–158.

40.

Medina-Ariza

Barberet

(2003). Intimate partner violence in Spain: Findings from a National Survey. Violence Against Women, 9, 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801202250073

41.

Moreno

Blázquez

García-Bahamonte

Guerrero

Pozuelo

(2014). Gender as an explanatory factor of psichological abuse in dating couples. Journal of Social Service Research, 40, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.842951

42.

Muñoz-Rivas

Gámez

Fernández

González

(2011a) Validation of the Attitudes About Aggression in Dating Situations (AADS) and the Justification of Verbal/Coercive Tactics Scale (JVCT) in Spanish adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 575–584.

43.

Muñoz-Rivas

Graña

González

(2011b). Abuso psicológico en parejas jóvenes [Psychological abuse in young couples]. Psicología Conductual, 19, 117–131.

44.

Muñoz-Rivas

M. J.

Graña

J. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

González

M. P.

(2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137

45.

O’Keefe

(1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546–568. https://doi.org/101177/088626097012004005

46.

O’Leary

Slep

(2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01

47.

Perles

San Martín

Canto

(2019). Gender and conflict resolution strategies in Spanish teen couples: Their relationship with jealousy and emotional dependency. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 1461–1486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516651316

48.

Poorman

Seelau

(2003). Perceptions of domestic abuse in same-sex relationships and implications for criminal justice and mental health responses. Violence and Victims, 19, 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.6.659

49.

Price

E. L.

Byers

E. S.

(1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 351–375.

50.

Prospero

Vohra-Gupta

(2007). Gender differences in the relationship between intímate partner violence victimization and the perception of dating situations among college students. Violence and Victims, 22, 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007781553928

51.

Reevers

Orpinas

(2012). Dating norms and dating violence among ninth graders in northeast Georgia: Reports from student surveys and focus groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1677–1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511430386

52.

Roscoe

Benaske

(1985). Courtship violence experienced by abused wives: Similarities in patterns of abuse. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 34, 419–424. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/583582

53.

Sakalli

(2001) Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effect of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(9–10), 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012295109711

54.

Saunders

D. G.

Lynch

A. B.

Grayson

Linz

(1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2(1), 39–57.

55.

Schumacher

J. A.

Slep

A. M.

(2004). Attitudes and dating aggression: A cognitive dissonance approach. Prevention Science, 5, 231–243.

56.

Sears

H. A.

Byers

E. S.

Price

E. L.

(2007). The co-occurrence of adolescent boys’ and girls’ use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviours in their dating relationships. Journal of adolescence, 30, 487–504.

57.

Seelau

Seealu

(2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-7798-4

58.

Seff

Beaulaurier

Newman

(2008). Nonphysical abuse: Findings in domestic violence against older women study. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8, 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926790802278933

59.

Shook

N. J.

Gerrity

D. A.

Jurich

Segrist

A. E.

(2000). Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1–22. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1023/A:1007532718917

60.

Simon

Miller

Gorman-Smith

Orpinas

Sullivan

(2010). Physical dating violence norms and behavior among sixth-grade students from four U.S. sites. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609333301

61.

Sociological Research Centre. (2012). Barometer data entered into the data bank. http://www.cis.es/cis/opencm/EN/once_barometros/depositados.jsp

62.

Sorenson

S. B.

Taylor

C. A.

(2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.2005.00170.x

63.

Sorenson

S. B.

Thomas

K. A.

(2009). Views of intimate partner violence in same- and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00602.x

64.

Stark

(2006). Reply to Michael P. Johnson’s conflict and control: Gender symmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1019–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293329

65.

Stewart

Moore

Crone

DeFreitas

S. C.

Rhatigan

(2012). Who gets blamed for intimate partner violence? The relative contributions of perpetrator sex category, victim confrontation, and observer attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(18), 3739–3754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512447571

66.

Torres

J. G.

Schumm

J. A.

Weatherill

R. P.

Taft

C. T.

Cunningham

K. C.

Murphy

C. M.

(2012). Attitudinal correlates of physical and psychological aggression perpetration and victimization in dating relationships. Partner Abuse, 3, 76–88. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1891/1946-6560.3.1.76

67.

Ureña

Romera

Casas

Viejo

Ortega-Ruiz

(2015). Psychometrics properties of psychological dating violence questionnaire: A study with young couples. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 1, 52−60. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.07.002

68.

White

Merrill

Koss

(2001). Predictors of premilitary courtship violence in a Navy recruit sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 910–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016009004

69.

Williams

Richardson

D. S.

Hammock

G. S.

Janit

A. S.

(2012). Perceptions of physical and psychological aggression in close relationships: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 489–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.005

70.

Yamawaki

Ostenson

Brown

C. R.

(2009). The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students. Violence Against Women, 15(9), 1126–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209340758