Gendered Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Normality: An Experimental Study

Abstract

Knowledge on young adults’ perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV) is important as these are the ages at which most people form their first serious intimate relationships and begin to develop norms about how to communicate within a relationship. This study uses an experimental vignette design to examine whether the type of violence employed and the gender dynamics within the couple (male perpetrator and female victim vs. female perpetrator and male victim) affect young adults’ perceptions of IPV normality. Gender differences in these perceptions are assessed and moreover, we explore whether these differences can be attributed to respondents’ prior IPV experiences. Young adults (N = 599) were recruited from various schools and universities throughout the Netherlands. They were randomly assigned to one of 10 experimental vignettes. Findings demonstrate that, generally, scenarios describing more serious types of IPV as well as those describing a male perpetrator and a female victim received lower ratings of normality. Gender differences in perceptions were found and, moreover, the direction of these gender differences appeared to depend on the actual gender dynamics described in the IPV scenario. Prior IPV experiences increased perceptions of IPV normality among female respondents in particular. Moreover, the suggestion that respondents’ prior IPV experiences may better explain respondents’ IPV perceptions than respondents’ gender, was only partly supported. Our findings suggest that this is true for respondents’ prior psychological, but not physical IPV experiences and for the manipulations of the gender dynamics within the couple, but not so much for the type of violence employed. Implications of these findings are discussed. From a prevention perspective, greater insight into these perceptions is relevant as they have been shown to be related to help-seeking and reporting behavior in the case of experiencing or witnessing IPV.

Keywords

intimate partner violence gender differences gender dynamics perceptions of young adults experimental vignette study

Introduction

What is defined as interpersonal violence, or in other words, what “counts” as violence is socially constructed and varies over time (Muehlenhard & Kimes, 1999). Over the last several decades, definitions of interpersonal violence have generally become broader and more inclusive. Certain types of violence may be included in some, but not in other definitions of interpersonal violence. For instance, the World Health Organization recognizes psychologically abusive behaviors as part of the definition of interpersonal violence (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002) yet these behaviors may not be defined as crimes in criminal codes (Kilpatrick, 2004). Not only is the definition of interpersonal violence socially constructed; definitions of who the victims and offenders are time- and context-specific as well. According to Christie (1986), the receipt of the status of a legitimate, unambiguous, “ideal” victim is related to a number of criteria. These criteria include the presence of clear power differences between victims (e.g., weak) and offenders (e.g., big and bad), the victim acting virtuously and being blameless for what happened, and the victim and offender being unacquainted.

An area in which the debate on definitions, victims, and offenders has been a particular focus of attention is intimate partner violence (IPV). Within the international IPV literature, two main schools of thought can be distinguished—the feminist perspective and the family violence perspective—each taking a different perspective on the perpetration of IPV by men and women. The classical feminist perspective supports the idea of a gender asymmetry in the perpetration of IPV: Men are considered to be the typical offenders and women the typical victims of relationship violence (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992).¹ Motives for this unidirectional male-perpetrated violence are related to the domination and control of the female partner (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Walker, 2009). In contrast, the family violence perspective suggests gender symmetry and argues that IPV is initiated and perpetrated by both men and women to an approximately equal extent (Archer, 2000; Dutton, 2008). This bidirectional couple violence occurs as a result of everyday conflicts that get out of hand and oftentimes includes milder forms of IPV. Here, victim and offender roles frequently overlap and the designations of “ideal” victims and offenders apply less easily.

The current study focuses on perceptions of IPV and examines how these are affected by the type of violence employed (i.e., five types including mild and severe forms of psychological and physical IPV as well as IPV injury) and by the gender dynamics within the couple (male perpetrator and female victim vs. female perpetrator and male victim). Individual respondent characteristics—respondents’ gender and respondents’ prior IPV experiences—are examined for their effect on IPV perceptions as well, to address inconsistent findings as reported by the literature discussed below.

Factors Associated With Perceptions of IPV

In general, factors relevant to shaping respondents’ perceptions of IPV fall in three broad categories: (a) variables related to the IPV incident itself, such as the type of violence employed; (b) variables related to the individuals involved in the IPV incident, such as the gender of the victim and the offender; and (c) variables related to those asked for their perceptions of the IPV incident, such as the gender of the respondents and their prior IPV experiences (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005).

With regard to the type of violence employed, the literature on IPV perceptions is rather consistent. Acts of partner violence that are considered more severe or serious are judged more negatively. For instance, studies report that acts of physical and sexual IPV are perceived more negatively than psychological IPV (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005; Sorenson & Thomas, 2009). It is important to note that there remains a relative dearth of empirical literature examining and comparing the effects of psychological and physical IPV in varying degrees of severity on IPV perceptions. In terms of the effects of gender dynamics, the literature consistently demonstrates that partner violence perpetrated by men against women is perceived more negatively than partner violence perpetrated by women against men. For instance, Harris and Cook (1994), using an experimental vignette design, reported that a scenario in which a husband battered his wife was rated as being more violent and having a greater need for criminal justice intervention than the same scenario in which the wife was the aggressor and the husband the victim. Moreover, a greater responsibility for the violence and more general dislike was attributed to the batterer when the batterer was male compared with female (Harris & Cook, 1994). Similar findings have been reported in more recent studies, showing that male-perpetrated partner violence against female victims is perceived as more serious, and that more responsibility and blame are attributed to male perpetrators than in reverse scenarios in which the perpetrator is female (Cormier & Woodworth, 2008; Rhatigan, Stewart, & Moore, 2011; Seelau & Seelau, 2005; Sorenson & Thomas, 2009). Apparently, female partner violence is generally more tolerated, despite indications from literature that female partner violence may occur as frequently or even more frequently (Archer, 2000) and can have similar negative consequences for its victims when compared with male partner violence (see, for example, Coker et al., 2002).

Gender Differences in IPV Perceptions

The literature is not conclusive on how respondents’ gender shapes IPV perceptions. Some studies suggest that male respondents are generally more tolerant of violent behaviors between partners and tend to attribute more blame to IPV victims than female respondents (e.g., Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Locke & Richman, 1999; Nayak, Byrne, Martin, & Abraham, 2003; Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos, & Swindler, 2012). More specifically, in scenarios describing an IPV incident, women were more likely to report greater violence severity and a greater necessity for intervention (e.g., by calling the police or the victim leaving the perpetrator for good) than men (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Harris & Cook, 1994). On the contrary, a divergent body of findings suggests that women report higher rates of IPV justification. A review of the literature concluded that IPV was justifiable as a reaction to certain failures on the part of the woman and interestingly, women tended to justify IPV as a response to these situations more than men (Waltermaurer, 2012). Finally, a small body of research has failed to detect gender differences in perceptions of IPV (e.g., Lehmann & Santilli, 1996). According to Rhatigan et al. (2011), these inconsistent findings “. . . are commonly explained via the suggestion that other variables, such as prior experiences with violence may better predict and explain both genders’ attributions for violent events” (p. 877). Based on their empirical study they report that both respondents’ gender and prior IPV experiences affected respondents’ attributions of responsibility and blame. More specifically, female respondents attributed more blame and responsibility to perpetrators in the IPV scenarios when compared with male respondents. In addition, respondents who reported perpetrating partner violence (resulting in injuries) attributed significantly less blame and responsibility for the violence to fellow perpetrators, whereas victims of partner violence (who had sustained injuries) attributed significantly more blame and responsibility to perpetrators. Yet, other studies report no associations between respondents’ prior IPV experiences and their perceptions of partner violence (e.g., Bethke & DeJoy, 1993). The role of respondents’ gender and prior IPV experiences in shaping their perceptions of partner violence has thus far only been examined simultaneously for attributions of blame and responsibility, but not for other IPV-related perceptions.

The Current Study

The current study examines context-specific perceptions of couple conflicts by assessing which types of conflicts described in a vignette are defined as being about IPV, legitimate IPV victims, and offenders. We specifically focus on respondents’ perceptions of the normality of IPV, which provides more insight in the extent to which respondents perceive a variety of IPV scenarios—including several types of violence and gender dynamics within the couple—as “normative” or “acceptable.” The current study fills a gap in the literature in two important ways. First, it includes several gradations of psychological and physical IPV and compares the effects of these varying forms of violence on respondents’ perceptions of IPV normality. Given the relative dearth of empirical literature comparing gradations of physical and psychological IPV for their effect on respondents’ perceptions of IPV normality, our study makes a relevant contribution in this way. Second, by assessing gender differences in perceptions of IPV normality and moreover, examining how these differences change after taking into account respondents’ prior IPV experiences, this study fills another gap in the literature. Our empirical analyses build on prior work by Rhatigan et al. (2011) and provide additional insight in whether respondents’ prior IPV experiences are more relevant in explaining respondents’ IPV perceptions than respondents’ gender. Thus far, this has only been examined for attributions of blame and responsibility, but not for perceptions related to IPV normality.

More knowledge about how definitions of IPV, legitimate victims, and offenders are shaped is relevant from an intervention perspective as attitudes and perceptions of behavior are predictive of actual behaviors (see Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). If individuals witness or experience certain types of relationship violence but do not define it as such, they may not take any further action such as trying to intervene or reporting the incident to the authorities. Indeed, prior research indicates that misconceptions about partner violence, especially those related to the normality, tolerance, and acceptability of violence within relationships forms a significant barrier to reporting and women’s help-seeking behavior (Acevedo, 2000; Lewis, West, Bautista, Greenberg, & Done-Perez, 2005).

The current study focuses on perceptions of the normality of partner violence among a Dutch sample of young adults attending college (at an intermediate vocational education level, a higher vocational education level, and a university level). Generating more knowledge on young adults’ perceptions of IPV is important as these are the ages at which most people form their first serious intimate relationships and begin to develop norms and ideas about how to communicate and behave within a relationship. Therefore, this stage of young adulthood is an appropriate moment to adjust or intervene on their perceptions if needed.

The current study tests six hypotheses that are based on the literature discussed above:

Hypothesis 1: Vignettes describing severe psychological IPV and several forms of physical IPV (mild, severe, injurious) will be perceived as significantly less normal than vignettes describing a mild type of psychological aggression.

Hypothesis 2: Vignettes describing a female perpetrator and male victim of IPV will be perceived as significantly more normal than vignettes describing a male perpetrator and female victim.

Hypothesis 3: Female respondents will rate all types of violence as less normal than male respondents, with the most pronounced differences at the relatively milder forms of IPV.

Hypothesis 3 focuses on differences between women’s and men’s ratings of IPV normality for varying degrees of violence employed. Although the literature reports inconsistent findings on the extent to which there are gender differences in IPV perceptions, we expect—in line with studies suggesting that male respondents are generally more tolerant of violent behaviors between partners—that women will perceive all types of violence as less normal compared with men. The most pronounced differences are expected at the relatively milder forms of IPV as these seem to be more of a gray area with more inconsistency in as to whether those milder forms should all be seen as IPV or not (cf. Kilpatrick, 2004).

Hypothesis 4: Male respondents will rate vignettes describing a female perpetrator and male victim as well as vignettes describing a male perpetrator and female victim as more normal compared with female respondents, with the most pronounced gender differences at the first.

Hypothesis 4 again focuses on differences between women’s and men’s ratings of IPV normality but this time for scenarios describing varying gender dynamics within the couple. In line with studies reporting greater male acceptance of IPV compared with females discussed above, we expect male respondents to rate scenarios with female perpetrators and male victims as well as male perpetrators and female victims as more normal than female respondents. The most pronounced differences are expected at the scenarios with female perpetrators and male victims as there seems to be more inconsistency in how female-perpetrated IPV should be perceived. There has been considerable debate in the literature regarding the extent to which female-perpetrated IPV should be viewed as similar to or different from male-perpetrated IPV, for instance in terms of motivations such as self-defense, dominance, and control (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010).

Hypothesis 5: Respondents who report (a greater variety of) prior IPV experiences (i.e., IPV victimization and perpetration) will perceive the IPV scenario described in the vignettes as more normal than respondents who do not report such experiences.

Respondents’ experiences in terms of prior IPV perpetration and prior IPV victimization are likely to increase perceptions of IPV normality, albeit for different reasons. Prior perpetrators may minimize relationship conflict while prior victims may be desensitized to such conflict (Ehrensaft & Vivian, 1999; Scott & Straus, 2007). Therefore, we include separate measures for IPV perpetration and victimization while remaining cognizant that both will operate similarly in the empirical models.

Hypothesis 6: Gender differences in IPV perceptions will become smaller when taking respondents’ IPV experiences into account.

This hypothesis is based on the suggestion proposed by Rhatigan et al. (2011), indicating that respondents’ prior IPV experiences may better predict their perceptions and thus, we expect that after adding these variables to the statistical models, gender differences will diminish.

Method

Procedure and Participants

Participants were recruited from various intermediate (n = 20)² and higher vocational education schools (n = 13) and various universities (n = 6)³ throughout the Netherlands.⁴ An extensive list of potential schools and universities was composed, using Internet searches to retrieve their contact details. These schools and universities were then contacted by phone and email to ask for their participation in the current study, which formed part of a larger study into motivations for and perceptions of partner violence. If the educational institute decided to participate, students were approached through email, digital newsletters, or a general announcement on learning management websites such as Blackboard. The announcement started with a short introduction of the study, a note on the average time spent to fill in the questionnaire (20 min) and on the voluntary nature of participation, followed by the link to the digital questionnaire. In a few cases, the online version of the questionnaire was administered during class time; however, the vast majority filled in the questionnaire outside the classroom in their own time. In total, 761 students agreed to participate and completed the questionnaire. Data were collected from November 2011 until June 2012.

Measures

Demographics

Information from participants was elicited on a range of demographic factors, including gender, age, country of birth, educational level, current and past relationship involvement, and length of relationship.

Vignettes

All vignettes in our study described an incident of IPV between a young man (named Jeroen) and woman (named Lisa) who had been involved in a relationship for a few months. The introduction was the same in all vignettes; however, the type of violence employed and the gender of the perpetrator and victim were manipulated. There were five different types of violence described in the vignettes, based on the various subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996): a form of minor psychological aggression (shouting and swearing), a form of severe psychological aggression (threatening to throw something that could hurt), a form of minor physical assault (throwing something that could hurt), a form of severe physical assault (hitting with something that could hurt), and a form of severe physical assault with injury (hitting with bunch of keys on the head, which resulted in bleeding). For each of five types of partner violence, there were two versions of the vignette: one with a male perpetrator and a female victim, and one with a female perpetrator and a male victim. This resulted in a total of 10 different vignettes. Every respondent in our study only had to read and score one of these 10 vignettes. Respondents were first split in two groups based on their sex, and subsequently the vignettes were assigned randomly to respondents within these groups. The introductory text and different versions of the vignettes are described below.

Introduction

[Perpetrator] and [victim] are 20 and 19 years old and are involved in a relationship for a few months. They do not live together, but see each other often. It is Saturday and [perpetrator] wants to go out with [victim] that night. [Victim] says he/she can’t because he/she already agreed to go out with friends. [Perpetrator] gets angry and they get into an argument.

Vignette 1: Minor psychological aggression

[Perpetrator] shouts and yells at [victim]. [Perpetrator] turns around and walks out of the room.

Vignette 2: Severe psychological aggression

During the argument, [perpetrator] takes his/her bunch of keys off the table and threatens to throw it at [victim]. [Victim] holds his/her hands up on his/her head. [Perpetrator] turns around and walks out of the room.

Vignette 3: Minor physical assault

During the argument, [perpetrator] takes his/her bunch of keys off the table and throws it at [victim]. [Victim] holds his/her hands up on his/her head. [Perpetrator] turns around and walks out of the room.

Vignette 4: Severe physical assault

During the argument, [perpetrator] takes his/her bunch of keys off the table and hits [victim] with his/her bunch of keys on the head. [Victim] grabs his/her head in pain. [Perpetrator] turns around and walks out of the room.

Vignette 5: Severe physical assault with injury

During the argument, [perpetrator] hits [victim] with his/her bunch of keys on the head. [Victim] grabs his/her head in pain. His/her fingers get covered in blood. [Perpetrator] turns around and walks out of the room.

Normality of IPV

A principal factors analysis with a Direct Oblimin rotation demonstrated that eight items loaded on this factor. Loadings can be found in parentheses. The items are as follows: “I think it is normal for partners to sometimes behave like [perpetrator] and [victim]” (.73), “I can imagine that I would behave like [victim] in the future” (.73), “I can imagine that I would behave like [perpetrator] in the future” (.71), “I identify myself with [victim]” (.68), “I identify myself with [perpetrator]” (.58), “In a relationship, partners sometimes behave like [perpetrator] and [victim]” (.54), “If [victim] behaves like this, [perpetrator] is allowed to behave like he/she did” (.47), “If [perpetrator] behaves like this, [victim] is allowed to reciprocate the same behavior” (.46). All these items refer to normality of, identification with, and condonation of violent behavior within romantic relationships. Therefore, we labeled the scale that was created with these items “Normality of IPV.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .81 for female respondents and .87 for male respondents, representing a high reliability. A sum score was created to use in subsequent analyses.

Respondents’ prior IPV perpetration and victimization experiences

To measure respondents’ prior personal experiences in terms of perpetration and victimization of IPV, the psychological aggression (eight items) and physical assault subscales (12 items) of the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) were administered. Both victimization and perpetration of psychological and physical IPV were measured by these subscales, as a question concerning respondents’ own violent behavior was followed by a question about whether a partner used that particular type of violent behavior against the respondent. Sample items for psychological aggression included the following: “I did something to spite my partner/My partner did something to spite me” (mild) and “I called my partner fat or ugly/My partner called me fat or ugly” (severe). Sample items for physical assault are as follows: “I grabbed my partner/My partner grabbed me” (mild) and “I kicked my partner/My partner kicked me” (severe). Originally, the CTS2 is scored using an 8-point ordinal scale indicating the frequency of occurrence of conflict tactics in the past 12 months. Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Callahan, Tolman, & Saunders, 2003; Nocentini, Menesini, & Pastorelli, 2010; Noland, Liller, McDermott, Coulter, & Seraphine, 2004), we aimed to make answering simpler for respondents and slightly modified it into a 6-point ordinal scale (i.e., once, twice, 3 to 5 times, more than 5 times, not in the past year but it happened before, never happened). The 12-month reference period was maintained.

Severity of violence is often measured by frequency scores; however, variety scores have proven to be an adequate alternative (Moffitt et al., 1997). For the current study, respondents’ answers on the 6-point ordinal scale were therefore dichotomized into “yes” (indicating that the violent act had happened once or more before) and “no” (indicating that the violent act never happened). Subsequently, two variety score variables were created assessing (a) the variety of psychologically aggressive behaviors respondents ever perpetrated against their partner (α = .72 for women, α = .77 for men), and (b) the variety of psychologically aggressive behaviors (perpetrated by their partner) by which respondents had ever been victimized (α = .75 for women, α = .78 for men). Scores range from 0 to 8. Close inspection of respondents’ scores for the perpetration of (α = .81 for women, α = .91 for men) and victimization by physical partner assault (α = .87 for women, α = .89 for men) demonstrated severely right-skewed distributions with a majority of respondents reporting never having experienced any form of physical IPV (i.e., 75.5% of women and 82.5% of men never perpetrated physical IPV, 76.9% of women and 77.7% of men were never victimized by physical IPV). Therefore, we decided to create two dichotomous variables instead, assessing (a) any physically assaultive behaviors respondents ever perpetrated against their partner and (b) any physically assaultive behaviors (perpetrated by their partner) by which respondents had ever been victimized.

Statistical Analyses

To test the main effects of the manipulations of the gender dynamics and the type of violence employed in the vignettes (Hypotheses 1 and 2), as well as the main effects of respondents prior IPV experiences (Hypothesis 5), a series of linear regression analyses were performed. The variable on the gender dynamics within the violent couple described in the vignettes is a dichotomous variable (0 = male perpetrator and female victim, 1 = female perpetrator and male victim). For the type of violence employed in the vignettes, a series of dummy variables were created with mild psychological aggression serving as the reference category in the regression analyses.

To test for the gender differences described in Hypotheses 3 and 4, and the changes in gender differences described in Hypothesis 6, Clogg tests were performed. A Clogg test calculates a t ratio by using the following formula:

t = $\frac{B_{1} - B_{2}}{\sqrt{(S E_{1} - S E_{2} / 2)}}$ , where B₁ and B₂ are the B coefficients for female and male respondents, respectively, and SE₁ and SE₂ are the corresponding standard errors. If the t ratio is greater than 1.64 (one-tailed, because all of the current study’s hypotheses state a clear direction), the difference in regression slopes or, in more general terms, the effect of the predictor on the outcome, is significantly different between female and male respondents.

Results

Sample Characteristics

From the total sample of 761 students who completed the study’s questionnaire, 162 respondents were excluded because they reported never having been involved in a romantic relationship and therefore did not fill in the questions concerning prior IPV perpetration and victimization experiences (i.e., the CTS2 items). This resulted in a total analytic sample of 599 respondents. Of these respondents, 27.7% were men (n = 166) and 72.3% were women (n = 433). Their mean age was 20.99 years (SD = 3.19, range = 16-37). The vast majority of respondents was born in the Netherlands (95.2%, n = 570). Somewhat more than a quarter were attending intermediate vocational education (28.4%, n = 170), 29.2% (n = 175) higher vocational education, and 41.7% (n = 250) an education at university level. Most respondents were involved in a relationship at the time they participated in our study (68.61%, n = 411), whereas 31.38% (n = 188) was not involved in a relationship at that moment, but had been in the past. For those currently involved, the average length of the relationship was 2.41 years (SD = 2.05). For those who had a relationship in the past, this was somewhat shorter: 1.26 years (SD = 1.31).

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for respondents’ prior IPV experiences and the perceived normality of IPV are presented separately for women and men in Table 1. On average, women report perpetrating a variety of over two types (i.e., 2.20) of psychological partner aggression and fewer than one type (i.e., 0.59) of physical partner assault, versus fewer than two types (i.e., 1.67) of psychological aggression and fewer than one type (i.e., 0.52) of physical assault among men. In addition, analyses show that 76.7% and 24.5% of women and 59.6% and 17.5% of men reported having perpetrated one or more types of psychological and physical partner violence, respectively, in their lives. The results for victimization experiences were quite similar to reports of IPV perpetration. On average, women reported being victimized by a variety of close to two types (i.e., 1.91) of psychological partner aggression and fewer than one (i.e., 0.66) type of physical partner assault, versus 1.75 (psychological) and 0.67 (physical) types for men. In addition, 69.1% and 23.1% of women and 60.8% and 22.3% of men reported to have ever been victimized by one or more types of psychological and physical partner violence, respectively. Distributions for both IPV perpetration and victimization were right-skewed, showing that the majority of respondents who had ever been in a relationship had limited or no experiences with IPV, whereas relatively fewer respondents reported variety scores of three or more IPV types, especially for physically assaultive behaviors.⁵

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	Women (n = 433)			Men (n = 166)
Variables	% or M (SD)	Mean Variety Score (SD)	Response Scale	% or M (SD)	Mean Variety Score (SD)	Response Scale
Respondents’ prior IPV experiences
Ever perpetrated psychological IPV	76.7%	2.20 (1.85)	0-8	59.6%	1.67 (1.89)	0-8
Ever perpetrated physical IPV	24.5%	0.59 (1.44)	0-12	17.5%	0.52 (1.70)	0-12
Ever victimized by psychological IPV	69.1%	1.91 (1.86)	0-8	60.8%	1.75 (1.96)	0-8
Ever victimized by physical IPV	23.1%	0.66 (1.72)	0-12	22.3%	0.67 (1.84)	0-12
Dependent variable
Normality of IPV	15.61 (5.73)	—	8-40	16.37 (7.02)	—	8-40

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

For the dependent variable on normality of IPV, we see that respondents on average feel that the partner violence described in the vignettes is not normal: The overall mean score is 15.61 for women and 16.37 for men (t = 1.36, NS) on a scale ranging from 8 to 40 where higher scores represent more normality of IPV.

Main Effects of Type of Violence Employed and Gender Dynamics Within the Couple

Table 2 presents the results of the multiple regression models examining the role of type of violence and gender dynamics on perceptions of IPV normality for female respondents. The findings reported in Model 1 suggest that vignettes describing severe psychological aggression and several forms of physical IPV (mild, severe, injurious) are perceived as significantly less normal than vignettes describing a mild type of psychological aggression (the reference category). Thus, we find evidence confirming Hypothesis 1 among women. In addition, Model 1 indicates that scenarios describing a female perpetrator and a male victim are perceived as significantly more normal than those describing a male perpetrator and a female victim, confirming Hypothesis 2 among women as well.

Table 2.

Effects of Manipulations and Prior IPV Experiences on Female Respondents’ Vignette Ratings of IPV Normality (n = 433).

Predictors	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
Predictors	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β
Constant	18.52 (0.57)	—	17.28 (0.64)	—	18.11 (0.58)	—	17.60 (0.62)	—	18.07 (0.58)	—
Severe psychological aggression	−3.21 (0.76)	−.23***	−3.20 (0.75)	−.23***	−3.35 (0.75)	−.24***	−3.29 (0.75)	−.23***	−3.44 (0.75)	−.24***
Mild physical assault	−1.92 (0.78)	−.13*	−1.93 (0.76)	−.13*	−1.93 (0.77)	−.13*	−1.96 (0.77)	−.13*	−1.96 (0.77)	−.13*
Severe physical assault	−5.74 (0.77)	−.40***	−5.78 (0.76)	−.40***	−5.83 (0.76)	−.41***	−5.68 (0.76)	−.40***	−5.84 (0.76)	−.41***
Severe physical assault with injury	−7.03 (0.78)	−.48***	−7.07 (0.76)	−.48***	−7.09 (0.77)	−.49***	−7.10 (0.77)	−.49***	−6.97 (0.77)	−.48***
Gender perpetrator/victim (in vig.)^a	1.17 (0.50)	.10*	1.27 (0.49)	.11**	1.24 (0.49)	.11*	1.26 (0.49)	.11*	1.27 (0.49)	.11**
Ever perpetrated psychological IPV^b	—	—	0.55 (0.13)	.18***	—	—	—	—	—	—
Ever perpetrated physical IPV^c	—	—	—	—	1.79 (0.57)	.13**	—	—	—	—
Ever victimized by psychological IPV^b	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.47 (0.13)	.15***	—	—
Ever victimized by physical IPV^c	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2.01 (0.58)	.15***

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

0 = male perpetrator and female victim, 1 = female perpetrator and male victim.

These are continuous variables representing variety scores ranging from 0 to 8 as explained in the “Measures” section of this article.

These are dichotomous variables (0 = no; 1 = yes). Model 1 R² = .21, Model 2 R² = .24, Model 3 R² = .22, Model 4 R² = .23, Model 5 R² = .23.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 presents the parameter estimates from the same models for male respondents.⁶ Departing slightly from women, the findings reported in the first model (Table 3, Model 1) suggest that, among men, only vignettes describing severe physical assault and severe physical assault with injury were rated as significantly less normal than mild psychological aggression; the other two types of violence—severe psychological aggression and mild physical assault—were not. Similar to women, Model 1 (Table 3) reports that, among men, scenarios with a female perpetrator and a male victim are perceived as more normal than the reverse. Evidence thus suggests partial support for Hypothesis 1 and full support for Hypothesis 2 among men.

Table 3.

Effects of Manipulations and Prior IPV Experiences on Male Respondents’ Vignette Ratings of IPV Normality (n = 166).

Predictors	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4		Model 5
Predictors	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β	B (SE)	β
Constant	17.60 (1.24)	—	16.70 (1.26)	—	17.17 (1.25)	—	16.96 (1.28)	—	17.29 (1.26)	—
Severe psychological aggression	−1.74 (1.64)	−.10	−1.88 (1.62)	−.10	−1.69 (1.63)	−.09	−1.87 (1.63)	−.10	−1.72 (1.64)	−.10
Mild physical assault	−2.09 (1.67)	−.11	−1.86 (1.64)	−.10	−1.91 (1.67)	−.10	−1.85 (1.67)	−.10	−2.04 (1.67)	−.11
Severe physical assault	−3.74 (1.57)	−.22*	−4.05 (1.55)	−.24**	−3.76 (1.57)	−.22*	−3.93 (1.57)	−.23*	−3.86 (1.57)	−.23*
Severe physical assault with injury	−5.06 (1.59)	−.29**	−5.22 (1.56)	−.30**	−5.11 (1.58)	−.29**	−5.20 (1.58)	−.30**	−5.10 (1.59)	−.29**
Gender perpetrator/victim (in vig.)^a	2.76 (1.06)	.20**	2.32 (1.05)	.17*	2.78 (1.05)	.20**	2.41 (1.07)	.17*	2.72 (1.05)	.19*
Ever perpetrated psychological IPV^b	—	—	0.72 (0.28)	.19*	—	—	—	—	—	—
Ever perpetrated physical IPV^c	—	—	—	—	2.32 (1.37)	.13^†	—	—	—	—
Ever victimized by psychological IPV^b	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.49 (0.27)	.14^†	—	—
Ever victimized by physical IPV^c	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.60 (1.25)	.10

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

0 = male perpetrator and female victim, 1 = female perpetrator and male victim.

These are continuous variables representing variety scores ranging from 0 to 8 as explained in the “Measures” section of this article.

These are dichotomous variables (0 = no, 1 = yes). Model 1 R² = .12, Model 2 R² = .15, Model 3 R² = .13, Model 4 R² = .13, Model 5 R² = .12.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Moderating Effects of Respondent Gender

Table 4 compares the parameter estimates from the models presented in Tables 2 and 3 to examine gender differences in how the type of violence employed and the gender dynamics within the violent couple described in the vignettes affect young adults’ perceptions of IPV normality. Although, as hypothesized, female respondents rate some types of violence as less normal than male respondents, these tend to reflect the severe forms (i.e., severe psychological aggression, severe physical assault, and severe physical assault with injury; based on the predicted values [not shown]). The results of the Clogg tests (Model 1, Table 4) suggest that the most pronounced and significant differences between women’s and men’s ratings are at the relatively more severe forms of IPV, being severe physical assault and severe physical assault with injury (p < .05, one-tailed). This means that Hypothesis 3 is not supported by our findings.

Table 4.

Gender Differences in Perceptions of IPV Normality Before and After Adding Respondents’ Prior IPV Experiences to the Model.

Predictors	Model 1		Clogg Test	Model 2		Clogg Test	Model 3		Clogg Test	Model 4		Clogg Test	Model 5		Clogg Test
	Women	Men	Clogg Test	Women	Men	Clogg Test	Women	Men	Clogg Test	Women	Men	Clogg Test	Women	Men	Clogg Test
	B	B	t	B	B	t	B	B	t	B	B	t	B	B	t
Mild psychological aggression	18.52	17.60	0.96	17.28	16.70	0.60	18.11	17.17	0.98	17.60	16.96	0.67	18.07	17.29	0.81
Severe psychological aggression	−3.21	−1.74	−1.35	−3.20	−1.88	−1.21	−3.35	−1.69	−1.52	−3.29	−1.87	−1.30	−3.44	−1.72	−1.57
Mild physical assault	−1.92	−2.09	0.15	−1.93	−1.86	−0.06	−1.93	−1.91	−0.02	−1.96	−1.85	−0.11	−1.96	−2.04	0.07
Severe physical assault	−5.74	−3.74	−1.85*	−5.78	−4.05	−1.61	−5.83	−3.76	−1.91*	−5.68	−3.93	−1.63	−5.84	−3.86	−1.83*
Severe physical assault with injury	−7.03	−5.06	−1.81*	−7.07	−5.22	−1.71*	−7.09	−5.11	−1.83*	−7.10	−5.20	−1.75*	−6.97	−5.10	−1.72*
Gender perpetrator/victim (in vig.)^a	1.17	2.76	−1.81*	1.27	2.32	−1.20	1.24	2.78	−1.76*	1.26	2.41	−1.30	1.27	2.72	−1.65*
Ever perpetrated psychological IPV^b	—	—	—	0.55	0.72	−0.38	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Ever perpetrated physical IPV^b	—	—	—	—	—	—	1.79	2.32	−0.54	—	—	—	—	—	—
Ever victimized by psychological IPV^b	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.47	0.49	−0.05	—	—	—
Ever victimized by physical IPV^b	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2.01	1.60	0.43

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

0 = male perpetrator and female victim, 1 = female perpetrator and male victim.

These are continuous variables representing variety scores as explained in the “Measures” section of this article.

p < .05 (one-tailed).

With regard to gender dynamics, the significant Clogg test indicates that male respondents rated scenarios describing a female perpetrator and male victim as significantly more normal than female respondents (p < .05, one-tailed; Table 4, Model 1). Yet, as Figure 1 shows, they rated the reverse scenario as less normal compared with female respondents. Hypothesis 4 is thus only partly confirmed by our data. Figure 1 further demonstrates that within the group of male respondents, the difference in the ratings of IPV normality between both scenarios was much larger compared with female respondents although the “ranking” of the scenarios was similar between men and women: both rated the scenario with the female perpetrator and male victim as more normal than the reverse scenario with a male perpetrator and female victim.

Figure 1.

Respondents’ perceptions of IPV normality (Model 1).

The Role of Respondents’ Prior IPV Experiences

In Models 2 through 5 of Tables 2 and 3, respondents’ prior IPV experiences are added to the multiple regression models. The findings in Table 2 suggest that the greater the prior experience with the perpetration of and victimization by psychologically aggressive acts, the more normal the IPV scenarios were rated by female respondents. Similarly, female respondents who reported having experienced any perpetration of and victimization by prior physical IPV rated the IPV scenario as significantly more normal than those who did not report these experiences.

For male respondents, a slightly different pattern emerged (see Table 3, Models 2 through 5). Only male respondents’ experiences with prior psychological IPV perpetration appeared to increase their ratings of IPV normality. Men’s experiences in terms of their prior physical IPV victimization were not significant and the two other variables related to their prior IPV experiences coefficients only bordered, but did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (i.e., .05 < p < .10). As such, our findings seem to partly support Hypothesis 5 with the support being stronger for women compared with men.

Models 2 through 5 of Table 4 compare the parameter estimates from the Models 2 through 5 presented in Tables 2 and 3 to examine whether the gender differences found in Model 1 change after taking into account respondents’ prior IPV experiences. Differences between female and male respondents’ ratings of IPV normality diminished significantly in terms of the gender dynamics within the violent couple but not for most of the types of violence employed in the vignettes. Moreover, this only seemed to occur when respondents’ prior experiences with psychological, but not physical, IPV were entered into the model. Our findings thus suggest partial support for Hypothesis 6.

Most importantly, the significant gender differences in IPV normality ratings for the two variations of gender dynamics within the violent couple diminished and became nonsignificant after adding respondents’ prior psychological IPV perpetration and victimization experiences to the model (see Table 4—Clogg tests Models 2 and 4). More specifically, after controlling for respondents’ prior psychological IPV experiences, the differences between the IPV normality rating of scenarios with (a) a male perpetrator and a female victim versus (b) a female perpetrator and a male victim increased within the female sample⁷ but diminished even stronger within the male sample⁸ to the point that the relative differences between women and men diminished and became nonsignificant (see Table 4, compare Model 1 to Models 2 and 4). In terms of absolute ratings, the predicted values (not shown) demonstrate that when taking respondents’ prior psychological IPV experiences into account, both female as well as male respondents’ ratings of IPV normality decrease; they rate both vignettes with a male perpetrator and a female victim as well as the reverse scenarios with a female perpetrator and a male victim as less normal. Moreover, for vignettes describing a male perpetrator and a female victim, male respondents’ absolute ratings of IPV normality decrease less than those of female respondents. Conversely, for vignettes describing a female perpetrator and a male victim, male respondents’ absolute ratings of IPV normality decrease more than those of female respondents.

Differences between female and male respondents’ ratings of IPV normality did not change significantly in terms of most, but not all of the types of violence employed in the vignettes after controlling for respondents’ prior IPV experiences. For three out of the five types of violence (mild and severe psychological aggression and mild physical assault), there were no significant differences in the IPV normality ratings between women and men in the initial model and this remained the case after controlling for respondents prior physical and psychological IPV experiences (Table 4). For severe physical assault with injury, the significant gender differences remained significant after taking into account respondents’ prior physical and psychological IPV experiences, with women consistently rating this type of violence as significantly less normal than men (Table 4).

The only exception was severe physical assault. For this type of violence, the significant gender differences diminished and became nonsignificant after controlling for respondents’ prior psychological IPV experiences, but not prior physical IPV experiences. More specifically, after controlling for respondents’ prior psychological IPV perpetration experiences, the differences between the IPV normality rating of scenarios with (a) mild psychological aggression (i.e., the reference category) versus (b) severe physical assault diminished slightly within the female sample and diminished even more within the male sample⁹ to the point that the relative differences between women and men diminished and became nonsignificant (see Table 4, compare Model 1 with Model 2). Yet, after controlling for respondents’ prior victimization experiences with psychological IPV, the differences between the IPV normality rating of the two scenarios increased within the female sample and diminished to a larger degree within the male sample,¹⁰ again to the point that the relative differences between women and men became nonsignificant (see Table 4, compare Model 1 with Model 4). In terms of absolute ratings, the predicted values (not shown) demonstrate that when taking respondents’ prior psychological IPV experiences into account, both female as well as male respondents’ ratings of IPV normality decrease; they rate both scenarios describing mild psychological aggression (i.e., the reference category) as well as severe physical assault as less normal. Although both decrease, female respondents’ absolute ratings decrease more than those of male respondents.

In conclusion, the effects of respondents’ prior psychological IPV experiences on gender differences in perceptions of IPV normality seem to be limited and mixed for the type of violence, whereas for gender dynamics a clearer pattern emerged. Respondents’ prior physical IPV experiences had no substantial effect on gender differences in IPV normality.

Discussion

The current study focused on gendered perceptions of IPV and examined how these perceptions are affected by the type of violence employed (i.e., five types including mild and severe forms of psychological and physical IPV as well as IPV injury) and by the gender dynamics within the couple (male perpetrator and female victim vs. female perpetrator and male victim). In terms of the hypothesized main effects, our findings demonstrate that the type of violence employed and the gender dynamics within the couple affect respondents’ perceptions of the normality of IPV. Generally speaking, our findings are consistent with the literature, indicating that more severe or serious acts of IPV, such as physical forms of partner abuse, are judged more negatively compared with relatively milder forms, such as psychological or emotional partner abuse (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005; Sorenson & Thomas, 2009). Specifically, for female respondents, all four types of violence were rated as significantly less normal compared with mild psychological aggression. Yet, for male respondents, this was only true for the two most severe forms of violence (i.e., severe physical assault and severe physical assault with injury). The fact that forms of physical partner violence occur less frequently than psychologically violent behaviors (e.g., Dutton & Starzomski, 1993; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980) may contribute to the lower normalization of physical violence. Our findings also lend support to the idea that male victims seem to be perceived as less legitimate—or, in other words, less “worthy” (cf. Sorenson & Thomas, 2009)—victims than female victims, as scenarios with male victims and female perpetrators were consistently rated as more normal than scenarios describing female victims and male perpetrators by both female and male respondents. These findings are in line with research showing male violence to be generally considered as more severe, more injurious, and more serious (Archer, 2000; Harris & Cook, 1994; Swan, Gambone, Caldwell, Sullivan, & Snow, 2008).

In terms of the moderating effects of respondent gender, findings indicate that perceptions of IPV normality differ between men and women for (a) different types of violence and (b) different gender dynamics within the couple. Although this was true in slightly different ways than hypothesized, gender differences in IPV perceptions emerged across models. In terms of absolute ratings, women perceived the severe types of IPV as significantly less normal than men. Moreover, in terms of relative gender differences, women became increasingly harsher in their ratings compared with men as the severity of IPV increased. These findings are in line with a body of literature that indicates that women are less blaming of victims, less tolerant, and more disapproving of IPV than men (e.g., Bryant & Spencer, 2003; Locke & Richman, 1999; Nayak et al., 2003; Yamawaki et al., 2012), but in contrast with evidence that suggests that women report higher rates of IPV justification (Waltermaurer, 2012) or that there are no gender differences in IPV perceptions (e.g., Lehmann & Santilli, 1996).

An interesting and novel finding of our study is that the direction of the gender differences in IPV perceptions of normality seems to depend on the actual gender dynamics described in the IPV scenario. Specifically, male respondents rated scenarios describing a female perpetrator and male victim as significantly more normal than our female participants; yet, they rated the reverse scenario as less normal compared with women. A tentative explanation for this finding may be that in scenarios in which the victim is more similar to the respondent (in this case in terms of gender), respondents identify more with the victim and the victim’s experiences than when the victim is different (i.e., when the victim is of the opposite gender). Our findings indeed indicate that men tend to identify more with IPV incidents involving male victims (as evidenced by their higher ratings of IPV normality for these scenarios compared with women) but less with incidents involving female victims. Similarly, women tend to identify more with scenarios involving female victims (as evidenced by their higher ratings of IPV normality for these scenarios compared with men) but less with male victims.

The current study also measured respondents’ prior IPV experiences. Descriptive statistics demonstrate that women are more likely to report prior IPV experiences than men, both in terms of victimization and perpetration. Given the substantial rates of female (and male) perpetration, our numbers seem to lend more support for the family violence perspective (i.e., mutual IPV) rather than the feminist perspective (i.e., mainly one-sided, male-perpetrated IPV) described in the introduction. However, this does not necessarily mean that all respondents’ prior experiences involve mutual IPV. Based on prior studies comparing different types of samples for their different types of IPV, it seems likely that the college students in our sample mainly experienced mutual “common couple” violence, but in some cases one-sided “intimate terrorism” or “violent resistance” may have occurred (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Johnson, 1995, 2006).

In addition, the current study examined the effects of respondents’ prior IPV experiences on their perceptions of IPV normality. For female respondents, prior experiences with both psychological and physical IPV perpetration and victimization increased their perceptions of IPV normality. For male respondents, this effect was only found for their variety score of psychological IPV perpetration (but not for psychological IPV victimization and their prior physical IPV experiences); the greater the variety, the higher their ratings of IPV normality. Moreover, the suggestion by Rhatigan et al. (2011) that respondents’ prior IPV experiences may better explain respondents’ IPV perceptions than respondents’ gender, was only partly supported. Our findings suggest that this seems to be true for respondents’ prior psychological, but not physical, IPV experiences and for the manipulations of the gender dynamics within the couple, but not so much for the type of violence employed. Specifically, the significant gender differences in IPV normality ratings for the two variations of gender dynamics within the couple (i.e., a male perpetrator and a female victim vs. a female perpetrator and a male victim) disappeared after taking into account respondents’ prior psychological IPV perpetration and victimization reports. This was not the case for respondents’ prior physical IPV experiences. The inclusion of respondents’ prior IPV experiences in the models had little effect on the association between type of violence and either genders’ ratings of IPV normality. The finding that respondents’ prior psychological, but not physical, IPV experiences seem to play a role in shaping perceptions of IPV normality may be related to the fact that among our sample psychological IPV is far more common than physical IPV. However, more research is needed to disentangle the effects of physical and psychological IPV on respondents’ IPV perceptions as this has—to the best of our knowledge—not been empirically examined before.

Limitations

When interpreting these findings, several limitations need to be addressed. First, this study is based on a convenience sample of college students. In case of a convenience sample, one has to take into account possible selectivity issues. For instance, it may be that individuals with more extreme opinions about partner violence relatively more often decided not to participate in the current study. However, based on the data we collected, we do not know whether this is the case. While the issues with the generalizability of findings based on convenience samples are well-documented and reasonable critiques, we found this approach to be a necessary condition to administer a vignette design to a large sample of young adults. Furthermore, although we tried to connect to our respondents by describing individuals in the vignettes that were of their age, we only described one single act of IPV. This may not fully represent reality, as we know that most incidents of IPV are not isolated, but occur simultaneously or in a sequence of relationship violence. As a consequence, our findings regarding young adults’ perceived normality of IPV may not generalize to scenarios including more chronic forms of partner violence. Finally, our study did not examine the full range of possible gender dynamics within couples. The vignettes described IPV within heterosexual couples only, thereby excluding scenarios of IPV occurrence within lesbian and gay couples. As a result, we do not know what the effects of these particular gender dynamics may have been on respondents’ perceived normality of IPV.

Practical Implications

As our findings indicate that the young adults in the current study tend to perceive female-perpetrated IPV as relatively more normal than male-perpetrated IPV, this type of abuse may as a consequence be reported less frequently. Therefore, an increased focus on the negative consequences of this type of abuse is likely needed in prevention campaigns or programs aimed at ending cycles of (mutual) relationship violence. In the IPV literature, there remains a considerable debate on the extent to which female-perpetrated violence should be seen as something similar or different compared with male violence (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). Drawing from the results reported here, we can conclude that among a contemporary generation of Dutch young adults it is perceived as being very different indeed. This might be attributable to the extent of injuries caused by male-perpetrated violence as studies show this to result more often in more severe physical damage compared with female-perpetrated violence (Archer, 2000; Cantos, Neidig, & O’Leary, 1994; Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992). However, the literature also indicates that female partner violence may occur at an equal or even slightly more frequent rate (Archer, 2000; Straus, 2004, 2008) and can have similar negative consequences for victims when compared with male partner violence (see, for example, Coker et al., 2002).

Moreover, the finding that respondents’ prior IPV experiences shape perceptions of IPV normality has important implications. Prior IPV perpetration and victimization experiences had a normalizing effect among our female respondents in particular. Women may be especially vulnerable to experiencing internal processes of IPV desensitization when it comes to victimization experiences and IPV minimization when it comes to acts of perpetration, which, in turn, may lead them to engage in less help-seeking or reporting behaviors. This indicates the importance of public awareness campaigns emphasizing the fact that violence between partners is not normal (such as the past Dutch public service campaign with the motto “Enough is enough”), actively encouraging victims, family members, friends, neighbors, and others to report incidents of domestic violence.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the current study, the following recommendations for future research can be formulated. First, vignettes should be adjusted to examine multiple incidents of violence and perhaps longer relationships to see whether and how the perceived intimacy and duration of conflict influence the findings uncovered here. As prior research indicates that the tolerance of partner violence increases as relationships are perceived as being more serious (Bethke & DeJoy, 1993), we would expect that this adjustment of vignettes may have an effect on respondents’ general perceptions. However, if and in what way this would affect the effects of manipulating the gender dynamics and the type of violence is not obvious and would therefore be relevant to examine to obtain more insight in the generalizability of the current findings. Second, future studies should include comprehensive measures of controlling behaviors—including threats, intimidation, isolation, economic and emotional control (e.g., the Controlling Behaviors Scale; see Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003)—to determine the type of IPV respondents experience and examine how these different types of IPV affect their IPV normality ratings. Johnson (1995, 2006) proposed a typology of domestic violence and introduced the concepts of intimate terrorism and common couple violence. Intimate terrorism concerns systematic violence mainly perpetrated by men with the aim to dominate and control women. Common couple violence is more equally perpetrated by men and women and comes from everyday conflicts that get out of hand and result in noncontrolling violence (Johnson, 1995, 2006). It would be important to examine whether and how the experience of these two different types of violence affect respondents’ ratings of IPV normality. Similarly, it would be relevant to manipulate the type of violence in future vignettes by distinguishing between control-based and non-control-based violence to assess how this may affect respondents’ perceptions of IPV normality. Third, working with different and more general samples is recommended to examine the extent to which these findings generalize to respondents other than young adults. Comparing young adults’ perceptions with those of older generations may also provide insight in the extent to which perceptions of partner violence have changed over the years. It may indicate the extent to which younger people tend to see female-perpetrated violence as more similar or different to male-perpetrated violence and, consequently, the extent to which they may respond differently to it in terms of perceptions of normality. Fourth, in future studies, not only respondents’ experiences with prior IPV, but also their experiences with other types of family violence (such as witnessing interparental violence in the family of origin) may be considered as these may affect their perceptions of the normality of IPV as well.

To summarize, the current study provides a more in-depth insight in perceptions of IPV normality among young adults specifically and showed the significance of not only the type of violence and gender dynamics within the couple, but also respondents’ gender and prior IPV experiences. From a prevention perspective, knowledge on these perceptions is important as studies show that they are related to help-seeking and reporting behavior in the case of experiencing or witnessing partner violence (Acevedo, 2000; Beaulaurier, Seff, Newman, & Dunlop, 2007; Fugate, Landis, Riordan, Naureckas, & Engel, 2005; Lewis et al., 2005).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Matt Vogel, Heidi Grundetjern, and Kyle Thomas for their comments on an earlier draft of this article and Mariska Peeters for her research assistance during the project.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Karlijn F. Kuijpers is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, United States. Her main research interest involves crime victimization, with a particular focus on (the risk for) intimate partner violence. She is also interested in the victim–offender overlap and public perceptions of victims and victimization.

Arjan A. J. Blokland is a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Leiden University, and a senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on the development of criminal behavior over the life course, especially among (emerging) adults, the interdependence of crime and life course transitions, and the effects of formal interventions on criminal career development. He has also published on sexual violence. Together with Patrick Lussier, he is the editor of the book Sex Offenders: A Criminal Career Approach, which was published by Wiley in 2015.

Natalie C. Mercer is a doctoral candidate in the Research Centre Adolescent Development at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Her research interests generally include delinquency, problem behavior, and promoting positive youth development.

References

Acevedo

M. J.

(2000). Battered immigrant Mexican women’s perspectives regarding abuse and help-seeking. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8, 243-282.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 1-33.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Beaulaurier

R. L.

Seff

L. R.

Newman

F. L.

Dunlop

(2007). External barriers to help seeking for older women who experience intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 747-755.

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.

Bryant

S. A.

Spencer

G. A.

(2003). University students’ attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 369-376.

Callahan

M. R.

Tolman

R. M.

Saunders

D. G.

(2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 664-681.

Cantos

A. L.

Neidig

P. H.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1994). Injuries of women and men in a treatment program for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 113-124.

Cascardi

Langhinrichsen

Vivian

(1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184.

10.

Christie

(1986). The ideal victim. In Fattah

E.A.

(Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system (pp. 17-30). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

11.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268.

12.

Cormier

N. S.

Woodworth

M. T.

(2008). Do you see what I see? The influence of gender stereotypes on student and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) perceptions of violent same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17, 478-505.

13.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy (pp. 179-206). New York, NY: Free Press.

14.

Dobash

R. P.

Dobash

R. E.

Wilson

Daly

(1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.

15.

Dutton

D. G.

(2008). My back pages: Reflections on thirty years of domestic violence research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9, 131-143.

16.

Dutton

D. G.

Starzomski

A. J.

(1993). Borderline personality in perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims, 8, 327-337.

17.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Vivian

(1999). Is partner aggression related to appraisals of coercive control by a partner? Journal of Family Violence, 14, 251-266.

18.

Fugate

Landis

Riordan

Naureckas

Engel

(2005). Barriers to domestic violence help seeking: Implications for intervention. Violence against Women, 11, 290-310.

19.

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247-1270.

20.

Hamby

Jackson

(2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324-331.

21.

Harris

R. J.

Cook

C. A.

(1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553-565.

22.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283-294.

23.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.

24.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 289-296.

25.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2004). What is violence against women? Defining and measuring the problem. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1209-1234.

26.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

(Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

27.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193.

28.

Lehmann

Santilli

N. R.

(1996). Sex differences in perceptions of spousal abuse. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 229-238.

29.

Lewis

M. J.

West

Bautista

Greenberg

A. M.

Done-Perez

(2005). Perceptions of service providers and community members on intimate partner violence within a Latino community. Health Education & Behavior, 32, 69-83.

30.

Locke

L. M.

Richman

C. L.

(1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender issues. Sex Roles, 40, 227-247.

31.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Krueger

R. F.

Magdol

Margolin

Silva

P. A.

Sydney

(1997). Do partners agree about abuse in their relationship? A psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement. Psychological Assessment, 9, 47-56.

32.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Kimes

L. A.

(1999). The social construction of violence: The case of sexual and domestic violence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 234-245.

33.

Nayak

M. B.

Byrne

C. A.

Martin

M. K.

Abraham

A. G.

(2003). Attitudes toward violence against women: A cross-nation study. Sex Roles, 49, 333-342.

34.

Nocentini

Menesini

Pastorelli

(2010). Physical dating aggression growth during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 353-365.

35.

Noland

V. J.

Liller

K. D.

McDermott

R. J.

Coulter

M. L.

Seraphine

A. E.

(2004). Is adolescent sibling violence a precursor to college dating violence? American Journal of Health Behavior, 28, S13-S23.

36.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Stewart

Moore

T. M.

(2011). Effects of gender and confrontation on attributions of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 64, 875-887.

37.

Scott

Straus

(2007). Denial, minimization, partner blaming, and intimate aggression in dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 851-871.

38.

Seelau

S. M.

Seelau

E. P.

(2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 363-371.

39.

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.

40.

Sorenson

S. B.

Thomas

K. A.

(2009). Views of intimate partner violence in same- and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 337-352.

41.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence against Women, 10, 790-811.

42.

Straus

M. A.

(2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.

43.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

(1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

44.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

45.

Swan

S. C.

Gambone

L. J.

Caldwell

J. E.

Sullivan

T. P.

Snow

D. L.

(2008). A review of research on women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23, 301-314.

46.

Walker

L. E. A.

(2009). The battered woman syndrome. New York, NY: Springer.

47.

Waltermaurer

(2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 167-175.

48.

Yamawaki

Ochoa-Shipp

Pulsipher

Harlos

Swindler

(2012). Perceptions of domestic violence: The effects of domestic violence myths, victim’s relationship with her abuser, and the decision to return to her abuser. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3195-3212.