College Students’ Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence: The Effects of Type of Abuse and Perpetrator Gender

Abstract

This study explored how perceptions of intimate partner abuse severity and perpetrator responsibility differed based upon gender of the perpetrator/victim, participants’ gender, the type of abuse (physical vs. psychological), and the medium of abuse (in person vs. texting). Participants were undergraduates (N = 593, aged 18–27), including 457 women and 136 men from two colleges in the Northeastern United States, who completed surveys for course credit. Results demonstrated that participants perceived abuse perpetrated by a male as more severe than abuse by a female, and physical abuse as more severe than psychological abuse. Furthermore, an interaction between perpetrator gender and abuse type indicated that abuse by males was viewed as more severe regardless of whether it occurred in person or electronically. In addition, participants attributed more responsibility to males and those who committed physical abuse. These findings are discussed in light of limitations and implications for future research.

Keywords

intimate partner violence dating violence abuse type severity responsibility

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) consistently demonstrates that perceptions of abuse severity and perpetrator responsibility differ based on the type of abuse (e.g., physical vs. psychological; Capezza & Arriaga, 2008) and perpetrator/victim gender (e.g., male-to-female [M-to-F] vs. female-to-male [F-to-M]; Capezza et al., 2017); whereas the effects of participant gender are less consistent (e.g., Capezza et al., 2017; Hamby & Jackson, 2010). In addition, researchers have often examined IPV in the context of hypothetical marital relationships, as opposed to college-aged dating relationships (e.g., Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Hammock et al., 2015). Our research examined college students’ perceptions of abuse severity and perpetrator responsibility based on abuse type/medium (i.e., physical, psychological in-person, psychological via texting), perpetrator/victim gender (i.e., M-to-F, F-to-M), and participant gender (male, female) using hypothetical vignettes of college-aged couples.

IPV

IPV can be categorized into different types of abuse, such as sexual, physical, and psychological aggression (Breiding, 2015). Physical abuse may include being slapped, pushed, or shoved, whereas psychological abuse involves expressing aggression through name calling, insulting, or coercive control of a partner (Breiding, 2015). Sexual abuse involves rape, as well as unwanted sexual experiences such as being flashed or kissed (Breiding, 2015). IPV is a public health concern that affects millions and often occurs for the first time before the age of 25 (Black et al., 2011). Furthermore, victimization is linked to acute and chronic health risks, such as physical injury and poor mental health (Black et al., 2011; Coker et al., 2002; Dillon et al., 2013). Therefore, it is critical to explore how college students perceive incidents of IPV.

Abuse Type

Research exploring different types of abuse demonstrated that each type of abuse affects partners at varying rates. For example, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reported that one in four women and one in seven men have experienced physical abuse by a partner in their lifetime, whereas nearly half of all women and half of all men in the United States have experienced at least one form of psychological abuse by a partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Although there appear to be varying rates of experiencing different forms of abuse, research shows that both physical and psychological forms of abuse are associated with depressive symptomology, poor health, and injury among both men and women (Coker et al., 2002), thus highlighting the importance of further understanding perceptions of abuse.

Although both physical and psychological abuse are associated with negative consequences, prior work shows that participants perceive physical abuse as a more serious concern than psychological abuse (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Dardis et al., 2015; Owarish-Gross, 2012). For example, Dardis et al. (2015) found that college students rated physical abuse as the most severe form of abuse, followed by sexual and then psychological abuse. Capezza and Arriaga (2008) also found that low levels of physical abuse were judged as more severe than both low and high levels of psychological abuse. Similarly, Owarish-Gross (2012) found that participants attributed more blame to perpetrators of physical abuse compared with perpetrators of psychological abuse. It has been suggested that the severity of consequences of psychological abuse, in comparison with physical abuse, may be minimized by participants because psychological abuse often lacks visible injury (Capezza et al., 2017).

Recent research focuses on comparing perceptions of physical and psychological abuse. For example, Capezza and Arriaga (2008) demonstrated that when psychological abuse occurs in conjunction with physical abuse, participants had difficulty differentiating between low and high levels of psychological abuse. These findings suggest that physical abuse may muddle participants’ judgments of psychological abuse. Hammock et al. (2015) used vignettes of married couples to explore perceptions of physical and psychological abuse while varying the perpetrator/victim gender. Their findings showed that participants perceived physical aggression perpetrated by both males and females as more severe than psychological aggression. In addition, participants thought that perpetrators of physical abuse should be punished to a greater degree than perpetrators of psychological abuse (Hammock et al., 2015). Taken together, these findings suggest that the type of abuse is important to consider when studying college students’ perceptions of IPV, and that the perceived severity of different types of abuse may help account for why participants attribute more blame to perpetrators of physical abuse compared with psychological abuse. The following predictions were tested:

Hypothesis 1: Physical abuse will be perceived as more severe than psychological abuse.

Hypothesis 2: Perpetrators of physical abuse will be perceived as more responsible for the abuse than perpetrators of psychological abuse.

Abuse Medium: In-Person Versus Electronic Aggression

When studying psychological abuse, it is important to consider the medium through which it occurs. For example, psychological abuse is not restricted to in-person, face-to-face interactions, but can also occur through technology. Electronic, psychological abuse (e.g., texting) is known as electronic aggression or cyber intimate partner aggression (Melander, 2010). This type of aggression provides a convenient and efficient method of communication, yet it typically lacks certain social cues that are present in face-to-face interactions, such as facial expressions and voice tone. Texting also allows the message sender to avoid in-person, immediate emotional reactions (Melander, 2010). Baym (2010) posited that electronic communication can increase hostility; in addition, users may then have more opportunities to degrade and intimidate victims (Southworth et al., 2007). Moreover, research suggests that young adults (aged 18–29) are the highest group of technology users (Kohut et al., 2011), yet most research on cyber intimate partner aggression is based on adolescents (e.g., David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2007; Draucker & Martsolf, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2011; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007). Thus, it is important to further explore the perceptions of electronic abuse among college-aged students to gain an understanding of how this form of psychological abuse may differ from in-person abuse.

Research using college samples shows an association between in-person and online abuse (Marganski & Melander, 2018; Sargent et al., 2016), and in one study about 63% of the sample reported experiencing abuse both in person and electronically (Duerksen & Woodin, 2019). Marganski and Melander (2018) also showed that nearly all college students who reported experiencing physical and psychological in-person abuse also reported experiencing cyber aggression. These findings suggest that individuals who experience one form of abuse are at risk for experiencing other types of partner aggression as well, and that this can occur through various mediums. Much like other forms of IPV, cyber aggression is linked to negative health correlates, including depression and trauma symptomology (Mitchell et al., 2011; Sargent et al., 2016). Among college students, cyber victimization was found to uniquely contribute to depressive symptoms, even when controlling for experiences of in-person psychological abuse (Marganski & Melander, 2018). Given that there is a dearth of literature on electronic psychological abuse in college students, it is critical to examine how perceptions of severity and perpetrator responsibility of abuse vary as a function of abuse medium and how this type of abuse compares to in-person abuse.

Research Question 1: Does the perceived severity of abuse differ between in-person and electronic abuse?

Research Question 2: Does the perceived responsibility of the perpetrator differ between in-person and electronic abuse?

Research Question 3: Does the perceived severity of abuse mediate the relation between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility?

Effects of Gender

Perpetrator/Victim Gender

In addition, some have shown that the perpetrator/victim gender affects participants’ perceptions of abuse severity, such that M-to-F abuse is often viewed as more severe and serious than F-to-M abuse (Dardis et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Sylaska & Walters, 2014). This finding has been demonstrated for both physical (Bastow et al., 2007) and psychological forms of abuse (Capezza et al., 2017; DeHart et al., 2010; Hammock et al., 2015) For example, Dardis et al. (2015) found that college students perceived M-to-F physical abuse as more frightening due to physical distinctions, such as differences in strength and size, compared with F-to-M abuse. Researchers have also shown that when men are physically aggressive toward a female, they are more likely to cause serious harm than a physically aggressive female is to cause harm on a man.

Male perpetrators are also often viewed as more responsible and judged more harshly for abuse than female perpetrators (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005; Sylaska & Walters, 2014). Sorenson and Taylor (2005) found that female aggression toward a male was less likely to be considered wrong, compared with male aggression toward a female. Furthermore, because abuse perpetrated by males is often viewed as more severe than abuse perpetrated by females (Dardis et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson, 2010), it is possible that the greater perceived responsibility attributed to male perpetrators (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005; Sylaska & Walters, 2014) may in part be due to perceptions that male perpetrators cause more harm than females. The following predictions were tested:

Hypothesis 3: Abuse perpetrated by a male toward a female will be perceived as more severe than abuse perpetrated by a female toward a male.

Hypothesis 4: Male perpetrators of abuse will be perceived as more responsible than female perpetrators of abuse.

Research Question 4: Does the perceived severity of abuse mediate the relation between perpetrator gender and perpetrator responsibility?

Participant Gender

When examining perceptions of intimate partner abuse, some evidence suggests that female participants rate intimate partner abuse as more severe and less acceptable than male participants (Bastow et al., 2007; Dardis et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Hutchinson, 2012; Little & Terrance, 2010). Hamby and Jackson (2010) also found that female college students attributed more responsibility to perpetrators of physical abuse, compared with male college students. These gender differences have been demonstrated for perceptions of both homosexual (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Little & Terrance, 2010) and heterosexual (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Hutchinson, 2012) relationships. However, others have shown that the gender of the participant does not impact perceptions of abuse severity (Capezza et al., 2017). Given these mixed findings regarding the influence of participant gender on perceptions of abuse, we ask the following questions:

Research Question 5: Will perceptions of abuse severity vary based on participant gender?

Research Question 6: Will perceptions of perpetrator responsibility vary based on participant gender?

This Research

Previous research shows that perceptions of abuse severity and perpetrator responsibility differ based on the form of abuse (e.g., Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Hammock et al., 2015) and perpetrator/victim gender (Bastow et al., 2007; Dardis et al., 2015), whereas there is mixed evidence regarding how the gender of the participant affects perceptions (e.g., Capezza et al., 2017; Hamby & Jackson, 2010). Participants tend to perceive the severity of physical abuse as more severe than that of psychological abuse, and deem perpetrators of physical abuse as more responsible than perpetrators of psychological abuse. However, it remains unclear how the perceived severity of abuse may account for why participants view perpetrators of physical abuse as more responsible than perpetrators of psychological abuse. Similarly, participants tend to perceive the severity of abuse by a male perpetrator toward a female victim as more severe than abuse by a female perpetrator toward a male victim, and deem male perpetrators of abuse as more responsible than female perpetrators. However, it remains unclear how the perceived severity of abuse by a male toward a female versus a female toward a male may account for why participants view male perpetrators as more responsible than female perpetrators of abuse. Furthermore, some research has concurrently investigated how abuse type, perpetrator/victim gender, and participant gender interact to influence perceptions of abuse (e.g., Capezza et al., 2017; Dardis et al., 2015; DeHart et al., 2010; Hammock et al., 2015). However, these studies have not addressed an important gap in the literature, which involves understanding how the abuse medium (i.e., abuse committed in person vs. texting) also impacts perceptions.

Therefore, we examined whether college students’ perceptions of IPV varied as a function of (a) abuse type and medium (i.e., physical, psychological in-person, psychological via texting), (b) perpetrator/victim gender, and (c) participant gender. In addition, we investigated how perceptions of abuse severity statistically account for (a) the relation between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility and (b) the relation between perpetrator/victim gender and perpetrator responsibility.

Method

Design

A 3 × 2 × 2 between-group experimental design was used to examine whether perceptions of severity and responsibility of IPV vary as a function of type/medium of abuse (physical, psychological in-person, psychological via texting), perpetrator/victim gender (M-to-F, F-to-M), and gender of the participant (male, female).

Participants

A total of 593 undergraduates (136 males, 457 females) were recruited from psychology courses at two colleges in the Northeastern United States.¹ The participants were aged 18 to 27 years (M = 19.05, SD = 1.20). Most participants self-identified as White (87.9%) and reported that they were currently single and not dating (47.9%).

Materials

Vignettes

Each participant was randomly assigned one of six vignettes adapted from Hamby and Jackson (2010). The vignettes depicted two heterosexual college students in a relationship (i.e., Dave and Sarah; see Supplemental Material). The vignettes varied by the perpetrator/victim gender (M-to-F or F-to-M) and type/medium of abuse (physical, psychological in-person, or psychological via texting). As an example, below is the vignette depicting M-to-F, psychological in-person abuse:

Dave and Sarah, two college students who have been casually dating for about three months, just returned from a college sports game. While at the game, Sarah spoke to her friend Mike, which made Dave upset. When they returned to Sarah’s dorm, Dave let Sarah know how he was feeling. The more Dave talked, the more he yelled and cursed at Sarah. He accused Sarah of flirting with Mike and told her that she was not allowed to talk to Mike ever again. When Sarah said he was overreacting, Dave called her a bitch and threatened to break up with her. He then grabbed his belongings and left, slamming the door behind him.

Within a particular type of abuse, the only difference in the male/female vignettes involved switching the male and female names. For the physical abuse scenarios, behaviors of tightly grabbing their partner’s arm and slapping their partner in the face were used based on vignettes of physical abuse used in prior work (e.g., Hamby & Jackson, 2010). For the psychological abuse, behaviors of cursing, accusing their partner of flirting with someone else, and threatening to break up with their partner were used based on vignettes of psychological abuse used in prior work (e.g., Beyers et al., 2000).

Measures

Severity index

To assess participants’ perceptions of the abuse in each vignette, we adapted and modified four questions from Harris and Cook (1994) and Hamby and Jackson (2010) (using the targets’ names within the question): “How violent do you think [perpetrator’s] actions toward [victim] were?,” “How serious do you think [perpetrator’s] actions toward [victim] were?,” “How hurtful do you think [perpetrator’s] actions toward [victim] were?,” and “How afraid do you think [victim] was during this incident?” Each item was rated from 1 (not violent/serious/harmful/afraid) to 7 (very violent/serious/harmful/afraid). A mean score was taken across items, with higher scores indicating a greater perceived severity of the perpetrator’s behavior (M = 4.59, SD = 1.38); the severity index was a reliable measure (α = .86).

Perpetrator responsibility

We adapted one question from Hamby and Jackson (2010) to assess participants’ perceptions of perpetrator responsibility. The item (i.e., How responsible do you think [perpetrator] was for the incident?) was scored from 1 (not responsible) to 7 (very responsible). Higher scores reflected greater perceived perpetrator responsibility (M = 5.42, SD = 1.89).

Demographics

Participants were asked about common demographic variables, including school attended, gender, age, race/ethnicity, and relationship status.

Procedure

We recruited participants from undergraduate psychology courses using the schools’ online SONA system (a research participation management system). Participants received one research participation point for participation in this study, which took 15 min to complete. Participants read an online consent form; if they agreed to participate, they were automatically redirected to an online survey administered through Qualtrics. The survey was completely anonymous and Qualtrics did not track any identifying information (e.g., IP address). Participants completed the demographic questionnaire first, followed by the presentation of one of six vignettes (randomly assigned by the Qualtrics system), the severity index, and then the perpetrator responsibility item. The survey ended with a debriefing statement, including information on who to contact for more details regarding the study, and services to contact for any emotional distress. This study received approval from the institutional review boards (IRBs) at both institutions.

Results

Data Analysis Overview

Hypotheses 1 to 4 and Research Questions 1, 2, 5, and 6 were tested using univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs). We conducted two ANOVAs, one for the dependent variable of perceived severity of abuse and the other for perceived responsibility of the perpetrator. Both analyses included main effects for abuse type, perpetrator/victim gender, and participant gender. Within each section below, we describe main effects and interactions. There were no significant main effects or interactions of participant gender (Research Questions 5 and 6), and thus it is not discussed further.

Next, bivariate correlations among key study variables were computed. To address Research Questions 3 and 4, two mediation analyses were conducted using 5,000 bootstrapped samples with the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). First, we explored whether perceived severity of abuse accounted for the association between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility. Second, we explored whether perceived severity of abuse accounted for the association between perpetrator/victim gender and perpetrator responsibility.

Severity of Abuse

Hypothesis 1 predicted that physical abuse would be perceived as more severe than psychological abuse. Hypothesis 3 predicted that abuse perpetrated by a male toward a female would be perceived as more severe than abuse perpetrated by a female toward a male. Research Question 1 asked whether the perceived severity of abuse would differ between in-person and electronic abuse. To test our hypotheses and research question related to perceptions of abuse severity, we conducted an ANOVA. Type of abuse, perpetrator/victim gender, and participant gender were entered as the independent variables and perceptions of severity of abuse was the dependent variable. See Table 1 for means and standard deviations.

Table 1.

Mean Perceptions of Abuse Severity and Perpetrator Responsibility for Abuse Type in Relationship With Perpetrator Gender.

Variable	Abuse Type
	Physical		Psychological In-Person		Psychological via Texting
	Perpetrator Gender
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Severity	6.26 (0.90)_a	4.81 (1.13)_b	4.74 (1.13)_b	4.19 (1.20)_c	4.42 (1.10)_d	4.07 (1.20)_c
Responsibility	6.53 (1.30)_a	5.84 (1.75)_b	5.50 (1.84)_b	5.25 (1.83)_b	5.27 (1.73)_b	4.14 (1.99)_c

Note. Means with different subscripts were significantly different from each other (p < .05).

The main effect for type of abuse was significant and showed a difference between physical abuse, psychological abuse in person, and psychological abuse via texting, F(2, 580) = 74.87, p < .001, partial η² = .21. Post hoc analyses using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) indicated that physical abuse (M = 5.51, SD = 1.26) was rated as more severe than in-person psychological abuse (M = 4.19, SD = 1.20, p < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.06, 1.57]) and psychological abuse via texting (M = 4.08, SD = 1.21, p < .001, 95% CI = [1.17, 1.69]), regardless of the perpetrator/victim gender. This finding supported Hypothesis 1. There was no significant difference in perceptions of severity between psychological abuse in person and psychological abuse via texting (p > .05), which addressed Research Question 1.

There was also a significant main effect of perpetrator/victim gender on perceived severity of abuse, F(1, 580) = 86.26, p < .001, partial η² = .13. As hypothesized (Hypothesis 3), participants perceived M-to-F abuse (M = 5.12, SD = 1.32) as significantly more severe than F-to-M abuse (M = 4.07, SD = 1.24).

These main effects were qualified by a significant interaction between abuse type and perpetrator/victim gender, F(2, 580) = 4.53, p = .01, partial η² = .01. To test the interaction effects, a follow-up one-way ANOVA was conducted with condition (e.g., M-to-F physical, M-to-F psychological in-person, M-to-F psychological texting, F-to-M physical, F-to-M psychological in-person, F-to-M psychological texting) as the independent variable and perceived severity of abuse as the dependent variable (see Table 1). Perceived abuse severity differed significantly based on condition, F(5, 586) = 72.66, p < .001, partial η² = .38. Physical abuse by a male perpetrator was perceived as significantly more severe than physical abuse involving a female perpetrator (p < .001, 95% CI = [1.01, 1.90]). Psychological abuse in person by a male perpetrator was also perceived as significantly more severe than psychological abuse in person by a female perpetrator (p < .001, 95% CI = [0.59, 1.47]). Interestingly, psychological abuse in person by a male was not perceived as significantly different than physical abuse by a female (p > .05), but was perceived as significantly more severe than psychological abuse via texting by a female (p < .001, 95% CI = [0.75, 1.37]). Psychological abuse via texting by a male perpetrator was perceived as significantly more severe than psychological abuse via texting by a female perpetrator (p < .001, 95% CI = [0.44, 1.05]) and also more severe than psychological abuse in person by a female (p < .001, 95% CI = [0.30, 1.16]).

Perpetrator Responsibility

Hypothesis 2 predicted that perpetrators of physical abuse would be perceived as more responsible for the abuse than perpetrators of psychological abuse. Hypothesis 4 predicted that male perpetrators of abuse would be perceived as more responsible than female perpetrators of abuse. Research Question 2 asked whether the perceived responsibility of the perpetrator would differ between in-person and electronic abuse. To test our hypotheses and research question related to perceptions of perpetrator responsibility, we conducted an ANOVA. Type of abuse, perpetrator/victim gender, and participant gender were entered as the independent variables and perceptions of perpetrator responsibility as the dependent variable (see Table 1).

There was a significant main effect for type of abuse, F(2, 566) = 26.16, p < .001, partial η² = .09. Post hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD indicated that perpetrators of physical abuse (M = 6.18, SD = 1.59) were rated as more responsible for abuse than perpetrators of psychological abuse in person (M = 5.37, SD = 1.83, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.38, 1.21]) and perpetrators of psychological abuse via texting (M = 4.73, SD = 1.94, p < .001, 95% CI = [1.02, 1.87]), regardless of the gender of the perpetrator/victim. This finding supported Hypothesis 2. In addition, perpetrators of psychological abuse in person were perceived as more responsible for abuse than perpetrators of psychological abuse via texting (p = .001, 95% CI = [0.22, 1.06]), which addressed Research Question 2.

There was also a significant main effect of perpetrator/victim gender on perpetrator responsibility, F(1, 566) = 11.69, p = .001, partial η² = .02. Participants perceived male perpetrators of abuse (M = 5.73, SD = 1.74) as more responsible than female perpetrators of abuse (M = 5.12, SD = 1.97). This finding supported Hypothesis 4. These two main effects were not qualified by a significant interaction (p > .05)

Severity of Abuse as a Mediator

Research Question 3 asked whether the perceived severity of abuse would mediate the relation between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility. Research Question 4 asked whether the perceived severity of abuse would mediate the relation between perpetrator gender and perpetrator responsibility. To test these research questions, we first computed bivariate correlations among key study variables.

Perceived severity of abuse was positively correlated with perpetrator responsibility, r(578) = .49, p < .001. Perpetrator gender (male = 1, female = 2) was negatively associated with perceived severity, r(592) = −.38, p < .001, and perpetrator responsibility, r(578) = −.16, p < .001. As physical abuse was perceived as more severe than both psychological abuse in person and psychological abuse via texting, abuse type was coded into a dichotomous variable (i.e., physical abuse = 1, psychological abuse = 2). Abuse type was negatively associated with both perceived severity of abuse, r(592) = −.47, p < .001, and perpetrator responsibility, r(578) = −.28, p < .001. Participant gender was not significantly related to any study variables (ps > .05).

To determine whether perceived severity of abuse accounted for the association between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility, a mediation analysis was conducted using 5,000 bootstrapped samples with the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). The overall model explained 49.3% of the variance in perceived perpetrator responsibility, F(2, 575) = 92.06, p < .001. As shown in Figure 1, there was a significant indirect effect of abuse type on perpetrator responsibility through perceived severity of abuse (b = −0.86, 95% CI = [−1.10, −0.66]). After including the significant indirect path through perceived severity of abuse, the direct effect (b = −1.12, p < .001) of perpetrator gender on perpetrator responsibility was no longer significant (b = −0.26, p > .05). These results indicated that perceived severity of abuse mediated the relation between type of abuse and perpetrator responsibility.²

Figure 1.

Indirect effect of abuse type on perpetrator responsibility through perceived severity of abuse.

To determine whether perceived severity of abuse accounted for the association between perpetrator/victim gender and perpetrator responsibility, another mediation analysis was conducted. The overall model explained 49.0% of the variance in perceived perpetrator responsibility, F(2, 575) = 90.73, p < .001. As shown in Figure 2, there was a significant indirect effect of perpetrator gender on perpetrator responsibility through perceived severity of abuse (b = −0.71, 95% CI = [−0.90, −0.54]). After including the significant indirect path through perceived severity of abuse, the direct effect (b = −0.61, p < .001) of perpetrator gender on perpetrator responsibility was no longer significant (b = 0.10, p > .05). These results indicated that perceived severity of abuse mediated the relation between perpetrator/victim gender and perpetrator responsibility.

Figure 2.

Indirect effect of perpetrator gender on perpetrator responsibility through perceived severity of abuse.

Discussion

This study used vignettes depicting college-aged dating couples to assess college students’ perceptions of IPV. Findings replicated those related to perceptions of severity of abuse and perpetrator responsibility found in other studies utilizing similar methodologies (e.g., Dardis et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Owarish-Gross, 2012; Sylaska & Walters, 2014; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). In addition, this study expanded on prior research by assessing perceptions of two different forms of psychological abuse (i.e., in-person vs. texting), along with physical abuse. Furthermore, we explored whether the perceived severity of abuse mediated the association between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility, and the relation between perpetrator/victim gender and perpetrator responsibility.

Abuse Type

Researchers have shown that there is a difference in the perceived severity of abuse and perpetrator responsibility based on type of abuse committed when comparing physical and psychological abuse (Dardis et al., 2015; Hammock et al., 2015; Owarish-Gross, 2012; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). Consistent with prior research, we found that physical abuse within a college-aged relationship was perceived by college students as more severe than psychological abuse and perpetrators of physical abuse were perceived as more responsible than perpetrators of psychological abuse. As psychological abuse lacks more blatant injuries and is more common than physical abuse (Lawrence et al., 2009), it may cause participants to lessen its severity compared with physical abuse (Dardis et al., 2015). In addition, Baym (2010) posited that electronic communication can increase hostility. Due to repeated exposure of this type of hostility, college students may normalize psychological abuse and thus do not perceive it to be as severe. However, it is important to note that although the consequences resulting from psychological abuse may not be as evident or observable as physical abuse, they can still be similar in magnitude, and both types of abuse are associated with negative health outcomes, such as depression and anxiety (Coker et al., 2002; Draucker & Martsolf, 2010; Thompson et al., 2006). Therefore, our finding suggests that the negative consequences related to psychological forms of abuse should be emphasized in educational programs and/or interventions because college students may not perceive it as severe as physical abuse, which can lead to a societal environment that produces more psychological abuse (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008).

In addition to comparing physical and psychological abuse in person, we addressed a major gap in the literature by also examining perceptions of psychological abuse via texting. We found that there was not a significant difference in college students’ perceptions of the severity of psychological abuse committed in person versus psychological abuse committed via texting in a college-aged couple. This finding demonstrates that the severity of these two forms of psychological abuse is viewed similarly by college students, which can inform intervention strategies. Technology plays a vital role for young adults today, as one study found that college students spend an average of 90 min per day texting (Roberts et al., 2014). Furthermore, electronic communication is common within romantic relationships, with communication via cell phones being the most common compared with other media sources (Coyne et al., 2011). Thus, college students may view psychological aggression through texting to be similar to psychological aggression during in-person exchanges because of how common it is to interact with romantic partners through this medium. It is important that future research investigates different forms of psychological abuse, as well as exploring this type of abuse in different age groups.

Although we did not find differences in perceptions of severity between psychological abuse in person versus via texting, we did find differences in perceptions of perpetrator responsibility. College students perceived perpetrators of psychological abuse in person as more responsible for the abuse than perpetrators of psychological abuse via texting. This finding is novel and suggests that abuse in person may be perceived as more deliberative than more passive or indirect forms of aggression. More research is necessary to understand what other factors may help explain this finding.

To further explore a potential underlying cause for why perpetrators of physical abuse are perceived as more responsible than perpetrators of both forms of psychological abuse, perceived severity of abuse was tested as a mediator. The present findings are innovative and add to the literature by showing that perceived severity of abuse accounts for significant variance in the relation between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility. As prior research shows that college students view physical abuse as more abusive than psychological abuse (Dardis et al., 2015; Hammock et al., 2015; Owarish-Gross, 2012), the present findings provide preliminary support for the argument that psychological abuse may be minimized due to a lack of visible injuries or severity of injury, and this may be why perpetrators are not perceived as responsible. More research is necessary to further understand this phenomenon.

Effects of Gender

Perpetrator/victim gender

A large body of research using similar methodologies suggests that abuse perpetrated by a male is perceived as more severe and that males are perceived as more responsible relative to abuse perpetrated by a female, and this has been shown for both physical (e.g., Bastow et al., 2007; Dardis et al., 2015; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005) and psychological (e.g., Capezza et al., 2017; DeHart et al., 2010; Hammock et al., 2015) abuse. Our findings corroborate prior work, as college students rated abuse as more severe when perpetrated by a male than a female, and attributed more blame to male perpetrators than female perpetrators. Researchers have suggested that gender stereotypes and physical differences between males and females, such that males are usually greater in size and strength compared with females, may account for male perpetrators being perceived as more dangerous of frightening than female perpetrators (Dardis et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson, 2010). This suggested reasoning may explain our findings as well.

In addition, this study found that both psychological forms of abuse perpetrated by a male toward a female were perceived by college students as more severe than psychological abuse perpetrated by a female toward a male. One potential explanation could be that males are typically viewed as more masculine and “stronger” than females, and thus there could be a gender bias that causes college students to view males as more capable of dealing with abuse (Capezza et al., 2017).

Interestingly, participants perceived the severity of psychological abuse in person perpetrated by a male similarly to physical abuse perpetrated by a female. Moreover, psychological abuse in person by a male was viewed as more severe than psychological abuse via texting by a female, whereas psychological abuse via texting by a male was viewed as more severe than psychological abuse in person by a female. Some research suggests that partner aggression by males toward females is typically judged more harshly than partner aggression by females toward males (Sorenson & Taylor, 2005; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). However, the findings from this study highlight that college students perceive in-person psychological aggression by a male to be just as severe as physical aggression by a female, and psychological abuse via texting by a male as more severe than in-person psychological aggression by a female. These results suggest that college students might perceive males to be more threatening or capable of causing harm, or more qualified to deal with abuse, than females, which provides evidence of a gender bias when viewing relationships (Hammock et al., 2015). More research is necessary to understand what accounts for these perceptions. No physical descriptions were given of the two people depicted in the scenario, so participants were left to imagine the relative size and appearance of “Dave” and “Sarah.” In addition, this finding suggests that it is key to also highlight males’ experiences of IPV victimization among college students because of the negative health consequences males experience from both physical and psychological abuse as well (Coker et al., 2002).

To further explore a potential underlying cause for why male perpetrators of abuse are perceived as more responsible than female perpetrators of abuse, perceived severity of abuse was tested as a mediator. The present findings are innovative and extend prior research by showing that the perceived severity of abuse accounts for significant variance in the relation of perpetrator gender and perpetrator responsibility. This finding is novel such that it provides evidence for why male perpetrators of abuse may be considered more responsible for abuse compared with female perpetrators, regardless of the type of abuse committed. In addition, this finding provides initial support for the argument that physical differences between males and females affect perceived perpetrator responsibility (Hamby & Jackson, 2010), such that males being larger in size may influence perceptions of how severe abuse by a male is compared to abuse by a female.

Participant gender

Contradictory to some research (Dardis et al., 2015; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Hutchinson, 2012; Little & Terrance, 2010), but consistent with others (Capezza et al., 2017; Sylaska & Walters, 2014), we found that perceptions of abuse and perpetrator responsibility did not vary as a function of participant gender. One explanation for these findings may be attributed to a shift in sociocultural beliefs, such that both females and males are viewing forms of IPV as unacceptable and a serious concern (Archer, 2000; Dennison & Thompson, 2011; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005). An additional explanation for the lack of significant effects on perpetrator responsibility may be attributed to the measure of responsibility being only one item. Single item measures limit the potential reliability and construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1978). Our sample was also majority female. Future studies would benefit by replicating this study in a more gender-diverse sample with multiple items to strengthen the measure of responsibility attributed to the perpetrator.

Limitations and Future Directions

When interpreting the results of this study, there are several limitations that should be considered. First, these findings are not generalizable, as the participants were mostly female and Caucasian; both schools are majority White and, therefore, recruiting a diverse sample was a challenge. Second, the single item measure for perpetrator responsibility limits its reliability. Future studies should recruit more diverse samples and include more items to strengthen the reliability and validity of the measure.

Third, the vignettes in this study focused on heterosexual relationships. Future research should explore same-sex relationships as well to further examine gender differences in perceived severity of abuse and responsibility of the perpetrator, as well as the effects of different types/mediums of abuse. To further examine whether people make assumptions about the size and/or strength of males, relative to females, future studies could also include adding silhouettes or a physical description and vary the size of the perpetrator and victim, regardless of gender. As Hamby and Jackson (2010) found that male perpetrators are often perceived as more frightening than females due to physical size differences, this could help provide further support for their theory. Fourth, it was challenging to make the conditions equivalent across types of abuse and medium of abuse. It may have been beneficial to remove the last sentence from the vignettes depicting physical and psychological abuse in person to make the scenarios more equivalent to the texting vignette. Future research comparing differences based on the medium of abuse would benefit from this consideration.

Fifth, we did not ask participants about their prior personal experiences with IPV victimization or perpetration. This may have affected participants’ responses to our measures, as some research using hypothetical scenarios found that individuals who have experienced IPV victimization were more likely to attribute responsibility to the perpetrator, whereas perpetrators of IPV were less likely to attribute responsibility to the perpetrator (Rhatigan et al., 2011). However, others have shown that individuals with a history of IPV victimization had similar perceptions to those without a history of victimization (Owarish-Gross, 2012).

Sixth, we did not include manipulation checks or attention checks. Therefore, we cannot definitively confirm whether participants recognized the type of abuse or the medium of abuse portrayed in the vignette. An online study poses the threat that participants rush through the questionnaires without paying much attention (see Hauser et al., 2018, for a review). Without an attention check, we cannot rule out the possibility that some participants may not have read the questions fully and could have responded to questions randomly. However, this study was completed within 15 min, and researchers have demonstrated that one way to increase attentiveness besides using an attention check is to utilize a short survey which minimizes participant burden (Hauser et al., 2018).

Finally, this study focused on physical and psychological abuse via different mediums. Future research should include sexual aggression to understand how college students’ perceptions of sexual aggression compare to other forms of abuse. It would also be beneficial for future research to examine different forms of psychological partner abuse more in depth. By varying the medium of psychological partner abuse, researchers could gain a greater understanding of what aspects of psychological partner aggression college students perceive to be the most severe or blameworthy.

Conclusion

Overall, this study replicated past research about perceptions of abuse severity and perpetrator responsibility in a college-aged sample using hypothetical IPV situations involving heterosexual couples. More importantly, we extended the literature by including a form of cyber abuse (i.e., texting), as well as exploring perceived severity of abuse as a mediator between abuse type and perpetrator responsibility, and perpetrator/victim gender and perpetrator responsibility. The results highlight how college students’ perceptions of IPV vary based on the type of abuse and gender of the perpetrator/victim, and the perceived severity of abuse may be an underlying mechanism as to why more responsibility is attributed to perpetrators of physical abuse and those who are male. Taken together, these findings emphasize the importance of the inclusion of psychoeducation about the severity of all types of abuse, regardless of perpetrator/victim gender, in IPV prevention and intervention programs. Increasing college students’ awareness of the negative consequences associated with all forms of IPV may help in early intervention efforts.

Supplemental Material

supplemental_material – Supplemental material for College Students’ Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence: The Effects of Type of Abuse and Perpetrator Gender

Supplemental material, supplemental_material for College Students’ Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence: The Effects of Type of Abuse and Perpetrator Gender by Jenna M. Wilson and Kimberly Smirles in Journal of Interpersonal 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

Jenna M. Wilson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jenna M. Wilson, MS, is a graduate student in the Life Span Developmental Psychology program at West Virginia University. Her research broadly focuses on decision making and information processing. She examines how different mechanisms (e.g., interpersonal relations, experience, and emotion regulation) are associated with decision making in various domains.

Kimberly Smirles, PhD, is an associate professor in Psychology at Emmanuel College. She studies gender issues in interpersonal violence, body image, and Japanese women’s perceptions of gender and leadership, and teaches a variety of courses (e.g., Race, Gender, and Sexuality, Women & Leadership). She advises MEDIAGIRLS, a nonprofit organization aimed at helping middle school girls develop a positive relationship with social media.

References

Archer

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

Bastow

S. A.

Cahill

K. F.

Phelan

J. E.

Longshore

McGillicuddy-DeLisi

(2007). Perceptions of relational and physical aggression among college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00333.x

Baym

N. K.

(2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity Press.

Beyers

J. M.

Leonard

J. M.

Mays

V. K.

Rosén

L. A.

(2000). Gender differences in the perception of courtship abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(5), 451–466.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walter

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

… Stevens

M. R.

(2011). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Breiding

M. J.

(2015). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. American Journal of Public Health, 105(4), E11–E12.

Capezza

N. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

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

Capezza

N. M.

D’Intino

L. A.

Flynn

M. A.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2017). Perceptions of psychological abuse: The role of perpetrator gender, victim’s response, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517741215

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. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00514-7

10.

Coyne

S. M.

Stockdale

Busby

Iverson

Grant

D. M.

(2011). “I luv u:)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x

11.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

P. E.

(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

12.

Dardis

C. M.

Edwards

K. M.

Kelley

E. L.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2015). Perceptions 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.

David-Ferdon

Hertz

M. F.

(2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S1–S5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.020

14.

DeHart

D. D.

Follingstad

D. R.

Fields

A. M.

(2010). Does context matter in determining psychological abuse? Effects of pattern, harm, relationship, and norms. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9307-7

15.

Dennison

S. M.

Thompson

C. M.

(2011). Intimate partner violence: The effect of gender and contextual factors on community perceptions of harm, and suggested victim and criminal justice responses. Violence and Victims, 26, 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.347

16.

Dillon

Hussain

Loxton

Rahman

(2013). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature. International Journal of Family Medicine, 2013, Article 313909. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/313909

17.

Draucker

C. B.

Martsolf

D. S.

(2010). The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23(3), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00235.x

18.

Duerksen

K. N.

Woodin

E. M.

(2019). Cyber dating abuse victimization: Links with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519872982

19.

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

20.

Hammock

G. S.

Richardson

D. S.

Williams

Janit

A. S.

(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

21.

Harris

R. J.

Cook

C. A.

(1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30(7–8), 553–565.

22.

Hauser

D. J.

Ellsworth

P. C.

Gonzalez

(2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 998. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. In Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.

24.

Hutchinson

K. M.

(2012). Predictors of college students’ dating violence perceptions and help-seeking recommendations [Doctoral dissertation]. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd

25.

Kohut

Wike

Horowitz

J. M.

Simmons

Poushter

Barker

… Gross

E. M.

(2011). Global digital communication: Texting, social networking popular worldwide. Pew Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center.

26.

Lawrence

Yoon

Langer

(2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24(1), 20–35.

27.

Little

Terrance

(2010). Perceptions of domestic violence in lesbian relationship: Stereotypes and gender role expectations. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903543170

28.

Marganski

Melander

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1071–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515614283

29.

Melander

L. A.

(2010). College students’ perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0221

30.

Mitchell

K. J.

Finkelhor

Wolak

Ybarra

M. L.

Turner

(2011). Youth internet victimization in a broader victimization context. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.06.009

31.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1978). Psychometric testing. McGraw-Hill.

32.

Owarish-Gross

(2012). Do gender and relationship composition affect college students’ perceptions of intimate partner violence severity? [Senior Theses]. Trinity College, Hartford, CT.

33.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Stewart

Moore

T. M.

(2011). Effects of gender and confrontation on attributions of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 875–887. https://doi-org.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/10.1007/s11199-011-9951-2

34.

Roberts

Yaya

Manolis

(2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015

35.

Sargent

K. S.

Krauss

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

(2016). Cyber victimization, psychological intimate partner violence, and problematic mental health outcomes among first-year college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(9), 545–550. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0115

36.

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(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00170.x

37.

Southworth

Finn

Dawson

Fraser

Tucker

(2007). Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence Against Women, 13, 842–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207302045

38.

Sylaska

K. M.

Walters

A. S.

(2014). Testing the extent of the gender trap: College students’ perceptions of and reactions to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 70, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0344-1

39.

Taylor

C. A.

Sorenson

S. B.

(2005). Community-based norms about intimate partner violence: Putting attributions of fault and responsibility into context. Sex Roles, 53, 573–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7143-7

40.

Thompson

R. S.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Dimer

J. A.

Carrell

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence: Prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.01.016

41.

Ybarra

M. L.

Espelage

D. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2007). The co-occurrence of online verbal aggression and sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration: Association with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S31–S41. http://doi.org.library.emmanuel.edu:2048/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.010

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB