Feeling Guilt and Shame Upon Psychological Dating Violence Victimization in College Women: The Further Role of Sexism

Abstract

Dating violence is manifested in different forms between romantic partners. Psychological violence, the most common form of dating violence, is more likely to affect women, eliciting feelings such as shame and guilt. The robust relationship of sexism to psychological dating violence victimization (PDVV) is well-documented but whether PDVV serves as a mechanism linking sexism to guilt and shame remains unexplored. This study, therefore, investigated the potential mediating role of PDVV in the association between sexist attitudes and feelings of guilt and shame. Dating college women (N = 219) from Turkey, an honor culture in which one’s self-worth lies on one’s evaluation as well as the assessment of what others think, participated in the study. High rates of PDVV were found in this culture, and structural equation modeling revealed that PDVV mediated the relationship between sexism and feelings of guilt and shame. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for future research and how sexist attitudes might be challenged to reduce the adverse emotional effects experienced by women who are victims of psychological dating violence.

Keywords

psychological dating violence victimization sexism shame and guilt dating college women structural equation modeling

Dating violence (DV) can be defined as psychological, physical, or sexual behavior perpetrated to cause pain or injury to a dating partner (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989; Wincentak et al., 2017). The World Health Organization (Krug et al., 2002) has specified that such intimate partner violence is a concern in all countries regardless of differences in religious, economic, social, or cultural factors. The Global Status Report on Violence Prevention (World Health Organization, 2014) indicates that one in three women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetime. Regardless of the type of the DV (sexual, physical, or psychological), the consequences are harmful and include increased substance use, internalizing symptoms, self-esteem problems, depression, posttraumatic stress, dissociation, lower levels of life satisfaction, antisocial behavior, and suicidal ideation (Briere & Jordan, 2004; Callahan et al., 2003; Dardis et al., 2015; Karakurt et al., 2014; Roberts et al., 2003).

Prior research on Turkish college women in dating relationships shows a prevalence rate of 31.6% for sexual, 32.5% for physical, and 67.5% for psychological victimization (Toplu-Demirtaş et al., 2013). Additionally, women are generally found to experience more severe effects as victims (i.e., physical injuries, posttraumatic stress) compared to males (Callahan et al., 2003; Hamberger, 2005; Phelan et al., 2005; Swan et al., 2008). When asked to list their motives for inflicting violence on their partner, respondents of both sexes chose anger as the most common motivation for perpetrating violence (O’Keefe, 1997); however, for women, additional reasons included self-defense, fighting back, and a reaction to male violence, whereas, for men, perpetration was to dominate, punish and control the partner (Allen et al., 2009; Hamberger, 2005; Johnson, 1995; O’Keefe, 1997; Swan et al., 2008).

Psychological Dating Violence Victimization

Although more blatant and visible forms of abuse such as physical harm (e.g., battery, murder) or sexual assault (i.e., abuse, rape) are well known, psychological violence generally goes unrecognized and is taken relatively less seriously (Toplu-Demirtaş et al., 2020). Unlike physical violence that causes bodily damage, psychological violence disrupts the partner’s self-concept and wellbeing by producing fear or increasing dependency. Such behaviors include verbal aggression, humiliation, controlling behaviors, threats, isolation (i.e., jealousy), and withdrawal, which lead to increased relationship insecurity (Murphy & Hoover, 1999). Murphy and Hoover (1999) further categorized the behaviors aimed at creating fear through aggression in the partner as “dominance/intimidation”; behaviors that isolate or restrict the partner to increase dependency as “restrictive engulfment”; behaviors aimed at lowering the partner’s self-esteem as “denigration”; and behaviors that create anxiety or insecurity towards the relationship through withdrawing emotional intimacy as “hostile withdrawal.”

Psychological DV for younger women was found to range from 17% to 88% in a meta-analysis by Leen et al. (2013), which included samples from Canada, the UK, and the US. Although wide variation in the rate of psychological DV depends on both measurement factors and definitional differences between studies in addition to actual differences in geographical regions, researchers indicated that psychological victimization is the most frequently perpetrated type of violence and is more prevalent than physical and sexual victimization. This is important because recent studies have shown that the detrimental effects of psychological violence exceed those of physical abuse (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015). Women subjected to psychological violence are at greater risk of future physical violence (Salis et al., 2014) and long-term mental health problems (Estefan et al., 2016; Pico-Alfonso, 2005). Considering both its high prevalence and harm, identifying predictors of psychological violence is important.

Feelings of Shame and Guilt and Victimization

Documenting the antecedents and consequences of victimization is crucial to diminishing its effects and serving the victims/survivors of violence effectively. Self-blame, shame, and guilt are some of the most crucial feelings linked to victimization (i.e., Budden, 2009). These emotions are critical due to their role in the formation and maintenance of psychopathology (i.e., PTSD) (Lee et al., 2001) and in influencing help-seeking behaviors (i.e., Allen et al., 2015). Shame involves negative evaluation of the self, whereas guilt involves evaluation of the action taken or not taken. Specifically, for shame, the evaluation is global and attributed to the entire self (i.e., I am a terrible person), whereas for guilt, it is directed towards a particular event (i.e., I could have done this differently) (Lewis, 1971; Tangney, 1996). Beck et al. (2011) found that shame and guilt were significantly associated with emotional abuse in women. In addition, higher levels of shame and emotional abuse were also found to be associated with PTSD symptoms. Lee et al. (2001) proposed a clinical model which includes the role of early maladaptive schemas in explaining the role of shame and guilt in traumatic events. According to their model, maladaptive self-schemas (i.e., self as incompetent, weak, inferior) match with the meaning of the traumatic experience (i.e., loss of status or attractiveness in the eyes of others) (Gilbert, 2000), which in turn activates shame schemas and feelings of shame. Guilt feelings occur when the meaning of the traumatic event conflicts with one’s life rules (i.e., “I must be good/responsible if I am to be accepted by others”). Specifically, one develops standards or conditions of living to eliminate the shame feelings resulting from maladaptive self-schemas (i.e., “I am weak”). Therefore, while not being able to meet standards/life rules causes guilt, the activation of maladaptive schemas related to oneself (resulting from the violation of standards of living) causes shame. Self-blame and shame were also found to be associated with higher levels of hopelessness, psychological and physical distress, affect dysregulation, social withdrawal/isolation, dysphoria, depression, and lower self-esteem in women following victimization (Clements et al., 2004; Flicker et al., 2012; Kennedy & Prock, 2018).

A narrative study of young women’s experience of dating violence showed that shame and guilt were among the consequences of experiencing such violence (Ismail et al., 2007). In addition, Karakurt et al. (2014) reported that women who were experiencing feelings of self-blame, guilt, and shame for their victimization were at risk for more serious mental health problems and increased risk for substance abuse, compared to women who were ready to move forward after victimization or women who were focusing on the negative experiences of intimate partner violence. The study also found that the source of the guilt and shame following victimization stemmed from reporting the abuse because they considered doing so a betrayal of their partner.

Sexism, Victimization, and Feelings of Shame and Guilt

One of the critical antecedent attitudes for women’s victimization is sexism. Glick and Fiske (1996) argue that sexism can take benevolent and hostile forms. Benevolent sexism is related to viewing women in stereotypical ways such as pure, passive, needy, dependent on men’s protection (positive prejudice), whereas hostile sexism is related to viewing women negatively, such as incompetent and weak (negative prejudice) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2011). Though benevolent sexism was perceived more positively than hostile forms, both attitudes are adversarial and limit women to traditional roles and endorse male dominance in society (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Ibabe et al., 2016). In other words, although being two sides of sexist ideology, hostile and benevolent sexism go hand in hand and are found to be highly and positively correlated with each other (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2011). Importantly, people with sexist attitudes are more likely to accept and legitimize intimate partner violence (e.g., Glick et al., 2002; Toplu-Demirtaş et al., 2020).

Dosil et al. (2020) reported that higher sexism was related to greater psychological dating violence victimization (PDVV). In a qualitative study with abused women, Enander (2010) found that women in abusive relationships tend to label themselves as “stupid,” to stay in abusive relationships or allow the violence to happen to them. In this study, stupidity was interpreted as self-blame, which might result from gendered norms due to women’s assigned role as the person primarily responsible for maintaining or nurturing the relationship. However, LeMarie et al. (2016) found that women who showed higher levels of sexism tend to show greater tolerance of sexual assault and are less likely to report their sexual harassment experiences as rape even if they fit the definition of rape. Benetti-McQuoid and Bursik (2005) showed that the adoption of gendered norms is related to shame and guilt feelings, with feminine gender roles being related to greater shame and guilt-proneness. One can infer from these studies that sexism is one of the crucial risk factors in victimization, and it can be linked to guilt and shame feelings experienced due to victimization.

Current Study

The current study investigates the relationships among psychological dating violence, guilt and shame, and sexism with a Turkish sample of dating college women. To clarify the context of the study, we believe it is essential first to examine Turkish culture. A culture encapsulates common beliefs, norms, behaviors, values, and shared practices of a society that centers around a theme, such as collectivism or individualism (Leung & Cohen, 2011; Triandis, 2001). The primary distinguishing factor in the classification of cultures as collectivist or individualist is related to the degree to which people are independent versus dependent on social roles (Aslani et al., 2016). For example, in collectivist cultures, interdependence is valued in a way that priority is given to group goals, behaviors are shaped around in-group norms and maintaining good relationships with others is of great importance. On the other hand, in individualistic cultures, autonomy and independence are valued in a way that priority is given to one’s personal goals and achievements, and self-reliance is critical in decision-making (Triandis, 2001). Another classification was proposed by Leung and Cohen (2011), and they categorized cultures as face, dignity, and honor (Leung & Cohen, 2011).

In dignity cultures, similar to individualistic cultures, autonomy and independence are appreciated, and the individuals' worth depends on their inner value rather than other people’s judgments. On the other hand, people from honor cultures (e.g., Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia) value both inner judgment and the judgment of other people. Specifically, in cases of insults or humiliation, people from honor cultures tend to stand for themselves and their reputation of themselves in the eyes of their family and community (see Leung & Cohen, 2011). Turkey is considered to have an honor culture (Gul & Schuster, 2020; Uskul & Cross, 2019). Although honor is a term that mostly indicates qualities such as honesty or trustworthiness (i.e., keeping promises), in Turkish culture, it has associations for women like purity or virginity (i.e., namus in Turkish). For example, if a woman acts differently from current stereotypes in Turkey (i.e., remaining a virgin until married), she endangers the honor of the whole family (Sakallı-Uğurlu & Akbaş, 2013). In a recent study with samples from Europe and Turkey, Gul and Schuster (2020) found that in cases of sexual victimization, Turkish participants blamed the victim more and the perpetrator less, compared to participants from the UK and Germany. Therefore, honor cultures impose a great burden on women regarding their acts in dating relationships. Thus, feelings of guilt and shame might be related to victimization due to putting the whole family’s honor in jeopardy.

The first goal of the current study was to document the frequency of PDVV among dating college women living in Turkey. Adopting Murphy and Hoover’s (1999) definition of psychological abuse, “coercive and aversive acts intended to produce emotional harm and directed at target’s emotional wellbeing or sense of self ” (p. 40), we used their Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) to document PDVV. This measure assesses four aspects of victimization; restrictive engulfment, denigration, hostile withdrawal, and dominance/intimidation. The second goal was to document the relation between victimization, sexism, and shame and guilt in an honor society. Although one of the crucial feelings associated with victimization in Western samples is shame and guilt feelings (i.e., Ismail et al., 2007; Follingstad et al., 1991), as noted earlier, no study has assessed dating women’s experience of psychological violence in Turkey, and how these experiences are related to feelings of shame and guilt. In a similar vein, although gender-based norms or sexism have been shown to be related to guilt and shame feelings (e.g., Benetti-McQuoid & Bursik, 2005), there is a lack of evidence for this relationship in Turkish culture. Lastly, although we know from the literature that sexism is a predictor of PDVV, and shame and guilt are the consequences of PDVV, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has examined PDVV as a mechanism that might account for the link between sexism and guilt/shame, either in the Turkish or Western literature.

In the absence of previous research, we posed the following question: Does PDVV meditate the relationship between sexism and guilt and shame? (Question 1). In light of the research question, we offer four hypotheses: Sexism will positively be associated with PDVV (Hypothesis 1); PDVV will positively be associated with feelings of shame and guilt (Hypothesis 2); Sexism will positively be associated with feelings of shame and guilt (Hypothesis 3). PDVV will mediate the association between sexism and guilt and shame (Hypothesis 4). Please see Figures 1 and 2 for the proposed models and latent variables for sexism, PDVV, and shame and guilt.

Figure 1.

The association between sexism and guilt and shame.

Figure 2.

The hypothetical model tested.

Method

Research Design

Our primary aim was to test a proposed model and investigate the direct and indirect associations in the model (via SEM) with cross-sectional data; therefore, correlational research was designed, which analyzes the associations between variables, and in these studies, researchers do not attempt to manipulate variables (Fraenkel et al., 2012).

Participants

Participants were 219 dating college women from different provinces of Turkey. As regards sexual orientation, 187 (85.4%) of the participants were heterosexual, 25 (11.4%) bisexual, four (1.8%) lesbian, and three (1.4%) people chose “other” to identify themselves. The sample ranged in age from 18 to 33 (M = 21.35, SD = 2.01). The average relationship length for participants in their current relationship was 18.21 months (SD = 17.26). 106 participants (48.4%) indicated that they intended to keep the relationship going, 49 (22.4%) to get married, and 12 (5.5%) to leave. 47 participants (21.5%) were unsure about the future of their relationship, and five (2.3%) selected “other.”

Data Collection Procedure

Permission was obtained from the MEF University Human Research Ethics Committee before gathering data. Participants comprised a convenience sample from whom data were collected between August and November 2019. We used both paper and pencil and online surveys to reach a more diverse sample of dating college women from Turkey’s various provinces. For the online survey, a link to a Google survey with informed consent was released through multiple social media platforms to recruit participants online. Google Survey is a free online micro survey software powered by Google. The items in the survey were arranged in a format that requires participants to answer them without skipping. For the paper-and-pencil survey, university campuses (classes, library, and socializing areas) in İstanbul were visited. We first informed the participants about the purpose of the study and participation criteria (i.e., being voluntary, women aged 18 years or older and currently in a dating relationship), obtained their consent, and then they received their surveys. Both in the paper and pencil and online surveys, confidentiality and anonymity were assured. It took 15–20 minutes in total for participants to complete the survey. As Google Survey only gives access to the assembled data, we do not know how many eligible participants commenced the survey versus how many completed it, so we could not calculate a response rate. Participants did not receive any compensation for completing the survey.

Data Collection Instruments

Demographic information form

We created a form to gather demographic data on the participant’s age, sexual orientation, relationship status, relationship length, and perception of the relationship’s future.

Ambivalent sexism inventory

Developed to measure sexist attitudes by Glick and Fiske (1996) and translated into Turkish by Sakallı-Uğurlu (2002), the ASI has two subscales. The Benevolent Sexism (BS) subscale (11 items, e.g., Women should be cherished and protected by men) evaluates whether individuals have attitudes that glorify and protect women. The Hostile Sexism subscale (HS) (11 items, e.g., Women seek power by gaining control over men) evaluates whether individuals have attitudes that view women as inferior to men (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The inventory is rated on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree strongly to 6 = agree strongly). Higher scores reflect more sexist attitudes. The Turkish version of the ASI has good psychometric properties (Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2002). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the BS was .92 and .93 for the HS.

The trait shame and guilt scale

To measure guilt and shame, we utilized the Trait Shame and Guilt Scale developed by Rohleder et al. (2008) and translated into Turkish by Bugay and Demir (2011). The scale consists of two subscales. The Shame subscale (five items, e.g., I’ve felt humiliated, disgraced) gauges one’s shame level, and the Guilt subscale (five items, e.g., I’ve felt remorse, regret) gauges one’s guilt level as a trait. Responses are given on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not feeling this way at all; 5 = feeling this way very strongly). Higher scores indicate greater levels of shame and guilt. The Turkish form of the scale appeared to have sufficient validity and reliability evidence (Bugay & Demir, 2011). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the Shame subscale was .91, and .90 for the Guilt subscale.

Multidimensional measure of emotional abuse

To measure PDVV, we used the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse. It was developed by Murphy and Hoover (1999) and translated into Turkish by Toplu-Demirtaş et al. (2018). The Restrictive Engulfment (RE) subscale (seven items, e.g., “Tried to stop you from seeing certain friends or family members.”) evaluates a person’s curtailment of their partner’s social life and behaviors to control the partner. The Denigration (DEN) subscale (seven items, e.g., “Said that someone else would be a better partner.”) measures attitudes and verbally degrading behaviors to decrease the partner’s self-esteem. The Hostile Withdrawal (HW) subscale (seven items, e.g., “refused to have any discussion of a problem.”) relates to moving away from the partner and erecting an emotional barrier during a disagreement. The Dominance/Intimidation (D/I) subscale (seven items, e.g., “Threw, smashed, hit, or kicked something in front of you.”) contains threatening and aggressive behaviors to scare the partner. Items range from 0 “never happened” to seven to “not in the last 6 months” (never, once, twice, 3–5 times, 6–10 times, 11–20 times, more than 20 times, and not in last 6 months). Higher scores indicate more victimization experiences. The scale has been shown to be valid and reliable in measuring psychologically aggressive acts in Turkish college students' dating relationships (Toplu-Demirtaş et al., 2018). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for RE was .92, for DEN was .96, for HW was .93, for D/I was .95.

Data Analysis

We first examined the prevalence rates of PDVV. Then, we calculated the bivariate correlations among study variables. Next, we checked the assumptions of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), such as sample size, multivariate normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity, and tested the measurement model as a prerequisite to SEM. Finally, we utilized SEM with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to test the direct associations among latent variables and our question of whether PDVV mediates the relationship between sexism and shame and guilt. We checked the direct and indirect effects and their statistical significance via bootstrapping, in which 5000 random samples were generated with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (Zhao et al., 2010). We conducted the SEM analysis using AMOS. For the rest of the analyses, SPSS was employed.

We created latent variables for sexism, PDVV, and shame and guilt. The Benevolent Sexism and Hostile Sexism subscales of the ASI served as two observed sexism indicators. Similarly, the Restrictive Engulfment, Denigration, Hostile Withdrawal, and Dominance/Intimidation subscales of the MMEA served as four observed indicators of PDVV. Finally, the Shame and Guilt subscales of the Trait Shame and Guilt Scale served as the latent variable’s two indicators to represent the feeling of shame and guilt. We adopted multiple criteria for model fit to interpret the results, such as the chi-square test (χ2/df < 3, SRMR <.08, CFI >.95, and RMSEA, < .05, a close fit, <.05 and <.08, fair fit, <.08 and <.10, mediocre fit, and >.10, poor fit).

Results

Frequency Analysis

We first explored PDVV rates. Consistent with the scoring of the MMEA (Murphy & Hoover, 1999), we dichotomized responses into 0 (never experienced an instance of violence in their current relationship in the past 6 months) and 1 (experienced at least one instance of violence in their current relationship in the past 6 months). Before this dichotomization, we re-coded the response category 7 as 0 (not in the last 6 months but happened before) as we were interested in the past 6 months' experiences.

Overall, most women (n = 202; 92.2%) indicated having experienced at least one Hostile Withdrawal-related act by their dating partners within the past 6 months. The prevalence rates of victimization for Restrictive Engulfment, Denigration, and Dominance/Intimidation were 77.2%, 59.4%, and 55.7%, respectively.

Correlational Analysis

As illustrated in Table 1, all the correlations among study variables were statistically significant and positive. There was a positive and strong association between PDVV (e.g., restrictive engulfment) and shame (r = .67, p < .01), and guilt (r = .70, p < .01). Dating college women subjected to more frequent controlling behaviors by their partners were more inclined to feel shame and guilt. Similarly, women who held more benevolent (r = .66, p < .01), and hostile sexist (r = .61, p < .01) attitudes experienced more PDVV (e.g., restrictive engulfment).

Table 1.

Cronbach Alphas, Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations among Study Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M	SD	α
1. Restrictive engulfment	1	.85**	.68**	.85**	.66**	.61**	.67**	.60**	10.90	12.41	.94
2. Denigration		1	.65**	.88**	.58**	.56**	.65**	.50**	7.44	12.37	.96
3. Hostile withdrawal			1	.67**	.50**	.43**	.67**	.60**	16.42	13.44	.93
4. Dominance/Intimidation				1	.65**	.60**	.65**	.54**	12.37	12.69	.95
5. Hostile sexism					1	.78**	.51**	.48**	23.14	12.69	.93
6. Benevolent sexism						1	.48**	.46**	28.95	14.73	.92
7. Shame							1	.82**	11.11	6.07	.91
8. Guilt								1	12.87	6.19	.90

Note. N = 219.

**p < .01.

Assumption Checking Analyses of SEM

In the online survey, missing data was not an issue as Google Survey only gives access to the completed data. In the paper and pencil survey, no missing data was detected. Based on the ratio of cases to free parameters of at least 10:1 (Kline, 2005), the sample size was sufficient. To check for violation of multivariate normality, we used Mardia’s (1970) coefficient, which we computed with the formula, p (p+2), where p refers to the number of observed variables in the model (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2008, p. 18). We obtained a value of 30.10 in the analysis, which is less than 80 (p in the current study is 8). Thus, we met the assumption of multivariate normality. We assessed scatterplots and homogeneously distributed variances between variables, which suggested non-violation of linearity and homoscedasticity assumptions (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Lastly, we screened inter-correlations for multicollinearity to inspect any that exceeded the cutoff value of .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and found none.

Measurement Model

The model fitted well at the measurement level, χ2 = .68.11, df = 17, χ2/df = 4.00, p < .001, CFI = .97, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI of .08–.15), which is critical for the SEM framework. All factor loadings were high and had t values that were significant. The standardized regression weights ranged between .730 and .939 for psychological dating violence victimization, .837 and .984 for shame and guilt, and .852 and .916 for sexism.

Mediation Analysis via SEM

Prior to testing the mediation model, we evaluated the relationship between sexism and guilt and shame (Figure 1). The model fit the data very well, χ2 = .36, df = 1, χ2/df = .36, p = .534, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .00, RMSEA = .00 (90% CI of .00–.15). Sexism had a direct and positive effect on guilt and shame, (β = .608, p < .001).

Then we entered PDVV into the model as the mediator (Figure 2). Table 2 illustrates the indirect estimates along with direct effects. The association between sexism and shame and guilt was no longer significant [β = .082, p = .333, 95% CI = (-.161, .589)] after we added the mediator variable. The model showed a satisfactory fit to the data, χ2 = .68.11, df = 17, χ2/df = 4.00, p < .001, CFI = .97, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI of .08–.15) and explained 55% and 54% of the variances in PDVV and shame and guilt, respectively. The associations between sexism and PDVV, [β = .774, p < .001, 95% CI = (.653, .815)] and PDVV and shame and guilt, [β = .670, p < .001, 95% CI = (.454, .892)] were positive. Finally, as evident in Table 2, the indirect path between sexism and shame/guilt via PDVV was significant, [β = .498, p < .001, 95% CI = (.319, .701)] showing that PDVV mediated the association between sexism and guilt/shame. That is, dating college women who held more sexist attitudes were more prone to be psychologically abused by their partners and felt more shame and guilt over their victimization experiences. Finally, it is worth noting that the variables can be put in any order in the model because they were all collected at the same time. Consequently, we tested alternative models, but none yielded significant indirect effects. For example, the first alternative model, [psychological dating violence victimization → shame and guilt → sexism,] did not reveal a significant indirect effect, β = .061; 95% CI (–.124, .230), p = .584.

Table 2.

Bootstrapped Results of Direct and Indirect Effects.

Paths	(β)	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Direct effects
Sexism → shame and guilt	.082	–.161	.317
Sexism → Psychological dating violence victimization	.744	.653	.815
PDVV → shame and guilt	.670	.454	.892
Indirect effects
Sexism → Psychological dating violence victimization → shame and guilt	.498	.319	.701

Note. Reported BC intervals are the bias-corrected 95% CI of estimates resulting from bootstrap analysis; 5000 bootstrapped samples.

Total N is 219.

Discussion

Previous research shows that sexism is a strong predictor of PDVV and that PDVV is similarly a strong predictor of feelings of shame and guilt. However, in the absence of existing data, we do not know whether PDVV serves as a mechanism that might explain the relationship between sexism and shame and guilt. Thus, in the current study, we investigated whether PDVV plays a mediating role in the association between sexism and the feelings of shame and guilt in a sample of dating college students from an honor culture.

In addressing the above issue, we also documented rates of victimization among our Turkish participants. In our sample, 77.2% of the participants reported experiencing at least one act of Restrictive Engulfment-related victimization in their current relationships within the past 6 months. The prevalence of Denigration, Hostile Withdrawal, and Dominance/Intimidation-related victimization were 59.4%, 92.2%, and 55.7%, respectively. These results are critical in the sense that PDVV does not occur in a single form, but rather victims are subject to multiple forms of emotional abuse. These rates are similar to those found previously in Turkey. Toplu-Demirtas et al. (2013) reported a prevalence rate of 67.5% for PDVV among college women in Turkey. Recently, Kahya (2018) reported a prevalence rate for PDVV of 86.8% in a sample of Turkish women. These high rates of psychological DV accord with those reported by researchers using samples in Western countries.

Sexism and Psychological Dating Violence Victimization

Our first hypothesis was that sexism would predict PDVV, and this hypothesis was supported by the data. The present result is consistent with prior research, in which higher levels of sexism were found to be associated with higher PDVV (e.g., Dosil et al., 2020). A possible explanation for this finding is that sexist attitudes might lead to the normalization of DV. In their study, Fernández-Antelo et al. (2020) found that benevolently sexist adolescents were also more likely to experience greater emotional abuse. Although our study did not differentiate the types of sexism (benevolent or hostile), it might still be the case that sexism in general creates greater vulnerability to emotional victimization since emotional victimization goes hand in hand with normalizing or accepting sexist attitudes.

This result may also be explained by the fact that patriarchy is for the benefit of men. As indicated by Smuts (1992), male status striving is higher in hierarchical cultures. Therefore, gender-based hierarchy and inequality might lead to the victimization of women because sexist thinking implies that men should have more power and dominance than women, and women can be a threat to men’s power (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Accordingly, women’s internalization of sexist norms (i.e., perceiving men as the authority or the protectors of the women in the relationship) might increase the acceptance of PDVV. This study is consistent with the view that patriarchy and male domination are systematically creating privilege on behalf of men and thus creating gender inequality, which, in turn, negatively affects women.

Psychological Dating Violence Victimization and Guilt and Shame

Our second hypothesis was that PDVV would predict shame and guilt feelings. The data supported this hypothesis. This finding is consistent with previous studies demonstrating that feelings of shame and guilt were significantly associated with women’s emotional abuse (e.g., Beck et al., 2011). It seems possible that these results are due to adverse effects of PDVV on women, such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD (Callahan et al., 2003; Carlson et al., 2002; Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012; Holt & Espelage, 2005; Shen, 2014), which might further contribute to the feelings of guilt and shame (Beck et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2006).

This also accords with Karakurt et al. (2014) finding that women tend to feel guilty for reporting spousal abuse. A possible explanation for this is that women who were victimized in their relationships might tend to feel responsible for their situation. In light of these data, there is an increased risk for women in our sample to question their behaviors in the event of psychological abuse, which might, in turn, explain feelings of guilt and shame.

Sexism and Guilt and Shame

The third hypothesis of this study was that sexism would predict feelings of shame and guilt, and the data supported this hypothesis. This finding corroborates the ideas of Koepke et al. (2014), who suggest that sexist attitudes play a decisive role in leading women to feel guilty and ashamed. Enander (2010) speculated that women might blame themselves more if a problem occurs in relationships, a phenomenon that likely reflects gendered norms in which women are assigned the role of nurturing and maintaining the relationship. In both cases (hostile or benevolent), ambivalent sexism pushes women to question their own behavior as they tend to justify men’s actions. In this way, as much as the patriarchal culture promotes men to view themselves as dominant, it can act to undermine women’s views of their own behaviors in dealing with male violence.

Grubb and Turner (2012) concluded that women with sexist attitudes tend to blame victims more than women with non-sexist attitudes. In a similar vein, one possible explanation for our results might be that some women can turn to self-blame and be ashamed of themselves in a negative situation they have with their partner. The present result shows that accepting gender stereotypes can be a factor in explaining women’s guilt and shame. Sakalli-Ugurlu et al. (2007) argued that perpetrators and society doubly victimize abused women. Since male-oriented thought also makes women more likely to be victimized, women tend to feel guilty, and shame increases.

Both gender and culture have power over attitudes. Cultural context, therefore, may explain the role of sexism on the feelings of shame and guilt. Different cultural contexts have norms and gender relations that shape attitudes towards violence against women (Flood & Pease, 2009). Since the honor culture normalizes men’s psychological and physical dominance over women, it makes the violence committed by men appear reasonable because it dominates women (Saucier et al., 2015). Saucier and McManus (2014) showed that both men and women see honor as relevant to masculinity. Individuals with high honor beliefs have supported men’s protective behavior and masculine courage. Moreover, Dietrich and Schuett (2013) reported that individuals involved in the honor culture showed higher tolerance of intimate partner violence, approved the perpetrators’ behavior, and were less likely to approve of seeking help. Specifically, in Turkey, which internalizes honor culture, some previous studies (e.g., Gul & Schuster, 2020) have shown that people have accused women more in cases of abuse while justifying the male perpetrator’s behavior. Accordingly, the responsibility or burden given to women for appeasing men in Turkish culture might increase women’s probability of blaming themselves or being ashamed of victimization. Another possible explanation might be that the victim should conform to traditional sexist roles, which would give women the responsibility to prevent violence. Gender hierarchy and traditional roles support woman’s modesty and deference (Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2001). Therefore, in a situation of violence, women might blame or take on responsibility for themselves.

In studies conducted in other countries where the culture of honor is dominant, it has been observed that the perpetrator is almost not blamed by society as the culture of honor legitimizes the aggressive and oppressive behavior of men (Khan, 2018). A study investigating the perspective of the police on perpetrators of violence in Afghanistan found that when the victim was in a relationship with another man, the police showed softer attitudes towards the perpetrators, and their desire to arrest decreased (Baldry et al., 2013). In a different study, both men and women reported that a husband’s honor was damaged by his wife’s infidelity. This study, conducted in India, Iran, Malaysia, and Pakistan, found that all countries supported honor-based attitudes. It showed that they don’t blame the perpetrator and could tolerate honor-based violence committed by the spouse (Lowe et al., 2018).

Psychological Dating Violence Victimization, Sexism, and Guilt and Shame

The current study examined the role PDVV might play in the relationship between sexism and guilt and shame. PDVV was shown to mediate the sexism and guilt/shame association. In a previous study conducted with Turkish participants, sexually victimized women were found to experience more guilt than perpetrators, and participants tried to justify the perpetrators' behaviors (Gul & Schuster, 2020). Similarly, The Mor Cati Women’s Shelter Foundation (1996, p. 18–24) in Turkey found that men used many excuses in cases of physical, psychological, and sexual violence against their wives. These excuses were mainly based on gendered norms for women (e.g., she does not cook well, she can’t take care of the children, she does not love my mother, I can’t find my clothes). As the perpetrator dominates, it might be necessary for women to behave in the desired way to avoid violence. Women who think that they should fit these roles can take responsibility for their behaviors, which may not be consistent with their gender scheme. As traditional gender roles are accepted, the psychological victimization inflicted by men might be interpreted in a way that justifies the men’s perpetration, such as thinking like, “if I hadn’t annoyed him, he wouldn’t behave like that.” Accordingly, higher levels of sexism in women might increase their chance to self-blame or have guilt feelings as the frequency of PDVV increases.

Limitations and Research Implications

The present results should be interpreted in light of several study limitations. Although the results provided us with evidence that PDVV predicted shame and guilt feelings in Turkish college women, we do not know how other emotional factors (i.e., self-blame) or disorders (i.e., depression, anxiety, PTSD) might influence this relationship. Future studies might include other emotional factors to show how any pre-existing emotional conditions could affect this relationship. Second, our results showed that sexism was a predictor of shame and guilt feelings. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the relationship between sexism and the feelings of shame and guilt within Turkish culture. Third, we showed how PDVV, sexism, and feelings of shame and guilt were related to each other. As far as we know, this is the first study to examine possible mechanisms that might account for the associations among these variables. This research will serve as a base for future studies, and which we recommend should include different DV types (cyber, economic, physical, sexual, and stalking).

This research used convenience sampling; therefore, future studies are recommended that utilize random sampling to make the results more representative. The sample studied consisted primarily of women who describe themselves as heterosexual and underrepresents people who identify themselves as lesbian and bisexual. Therefore, the results may not be applicable to these groups, and future studies need to replicate our findings with lesbian and bisexual women. Another weakness of this study was the paucity of participants who were living in different parts of Turkey. More than half of the study participants were from Istanbul, which is more liberal compared to other cities in the country. Therefore, we cannot generalize our results to all female students in Turkey. Moreover, we collected data via both electronic and paper/pencil forms. It is possible that preference for online versus paper/pencil could reflect inherent differences among participants. However, only a minimal amount of data was collected via paper and pencil and hence meaningful analyses between response formats were not possible. Moreover, missing data, searching for patterns in the missing data, and deciding imputation strategies to handle missing data are shared in statistical analyses. However, we only had access to the non-missing data provided by Google Survey. Finally, there is the issue of examining a mediation model with cross-sectional data. Although we found significant indirect effects in the hypothesized model and there are strong arguments to support the model, it is also possible that there might be other significant mediation models. As noted, however, alternative models failed to yield significant indirect effects. Because the cross-sectional nature of the data limits our ability to infer the direction of effects, it will be important in future research to collect longitudinal data that can address this concern.

Practical Implications

Considering the results, we believe that it is critical to foster awareness of gender inequality in order to eliminate it. Awareness is the first step in bringing about change and a crucial achievement in self-defense (Banks & Reed, 2003). For that, school counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals can act to make individuals aware of gender inequality, thus challenging sexism. The American Counseling Association (2003) emphasized counselors as agents for change and for advocacy, including gender inequality.

Studies show that feminism liberates women. For instance, women with feminist values have greater overall well-being than women with traditional values (Yakushko, 2007). Similarly, women who display feminist attitudes on social media feel better psychologically (Foster, 2015). In a survey of heterosexual women’s relationships, women who identify themselves as more feminist tend to choose partners that do not fit traditional masculine roles (Backus & Mahalik, 2011). It is also known that women with high feminist attitudes have more egalitarian expectations for romantic relationships. (Schick et al., 2008). In contrast, women with lower feminist identities were less likely to adopt egalitarian, long-term, committed, and intimate relationships (Yoder et al., 2007). Among young women, those who identify themselves as feminists react more to sexist and aggressive attitudes (Ayres et al., 2009). Nelson et al. (2008) reported that women’s negative experiences associated with sexism were instrumental in developing feminist self-identity. Studies also show that feminist identity has a protective effect on women and is necessary for self-defense as it affects partner choice. Thus, fostering a feminist identity may help women diminish partner victimization and hence feelings of shame and guilt. Therefore, developing and implementing empowering activities for women by counselors and other mental health practitioners at campuses is strongly recommended. Lastly, the inclusion of strategies targeting shame or guilt-related feelings and thoughts to prevention and intervention programs when working with victims/survivors of violence are of great importance because they pose a risk for other significant emotional problems (e.g., Karakurt et al., 2014).

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 iDs

Gizem Öztemür

Ezgi Toplu-Demirtaş

Frank D. Fincham

Author Biographies

Çiğdem Oflaz, BA in Psychological Counseling and Guidance at MEF University in 2020. She works as an exam coach with students preparing for the high school and university exams. As in her first research, she aims to continue her studies on dating violence in young women. Moreover, she is interested in the cultural construction of emotions and critical psychology and pedagogy.

Ezgi Toplu-Demirtaş, Assoc. Dr and 2019 Fulbright Visiting Scholar from Turkey to Department of Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University Florida, USA, is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance at MEF University. Her research focuses on gender, dating violence (DV), psychological DV, cyber DV, dating infidelity, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) issues, adult attachment, and multicultural issues in counseling. Currently, her primary research interest relates to bridging the gap between research and practice in DV. With interest in mind, she has been busy developing inclusive, protective, and preventive approaches to promote safe, happy, and healthy dating relationships.

Gizem Öztemur, MA, is a research assistant in the Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance at MEF University. She is pursuing a PhD degree in Guidance and Psychological Counseling at Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Her research interests include gender issues, interpersonal violence, cognitive and emotional development in children.

Frank D. Fincham, PhD, is an Eminent Scholar and director of the Florida State University Family Institute. His goal is to understand cognitive processes involved in conflict, forgiveness, and prayer in close relationships. He also investigates emerging adulthood, focusing particularly on school burnout, hooking up, and friends with benefits. Recently, he has integrated hemodynamic and cardiac functioning into his research to understand how the processes he studies affect health.

References

Allen

C. T.

Ridgeway

Swan

S. C.

(2015). College students’ beliefs regarding help-seeking for male and female sexual assault survivors: Even less support for male survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.982237

Allen

C. T.

Swan

S. C.

Raghavan

(2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(11), 1816–1834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508325496

American Counseling Association (2003). Advocacy competencies. American Counseling Association. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/competencies/aca-advocacy-competencies.pdf?sfvrsn=d177522c_4

Arriaga

X. B.

Schkeryantz

E. L.

(2015). Intimate relationships and personal distress: The invisible harm of psychological aggression. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1332–1344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215594123

Aslani

Ramirez-Marin

Brett

Yao

Semnani-Azad

Zhang

Z.-X.

Tinsley

Weingart

Adair

(2016). Dignity, face, and honor cultures: A study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1178–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2095

Ayres

M. M.

Friedman

C. K.

Leaper

(2009). Individual and situational factors related to young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles, 61(7-8), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9635-3

Backus

F. R.

Mahalik

J. R.

(2011). The masculinity of Mr Right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310392357

Baldry

A. C.

Pagliaro

Porcaro

(2013). The rule of law at time of masculine honor: Afghan police attitudes and intimate partner violence. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212462492

Banks

A. L.

Reed

J. A.

(2003). Applying mass media to self-defense instruction in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 74(2), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2003.10608378

10.

Beck

J. G.

McNiff

Clapp

J. D.

Olsen

S. A.

Avery

M. L.

Hagewood

J. H.

(2011). Exploring negative emotion in women experiencing intimate partner violence: Shame, guilt, and PTSD. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 740–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.04.001

11.

Benetti-McQuoid

Bursik

(2005). Individual differences in experiences of and responses to guilt and shame: Examining the lenses of gender and gender role. Sex Roles, 53(1-2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4287-4

12.

Briere

Jordan

C. E.

(2004). Violence against women: Outcome complexity and implications for assessment and treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(11), 1252–1276. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269682

13.

Budden

(2009). The role of shame in posttraumatic stress disorder: A proposal for a socio-emotional model for DSM-V. Social Science & Medicine, 69(7), 1032–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.032

14.

Bugay

, & Demir

(2011). Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of trait shame and guilt scale. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 45, 17–30.

15.

Callahan

M. R.

Tolman

R. M.

Saunders

D. G.

(2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 664–681. http://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403254784

16.

Carlson

B. E.

McNutt

L.-A.

Choi

D. Y.

Rose

I. M.

(2002). Intimate partner abuse and mental health: The role of social support and other protective factors. Violence Against Women, 8(6), 720–745. http://doi.org/10.1177/10778010222183251

17.

Clements

C. M.

Sabourin

C. M.

Spiby

(2004). Dysphoria and hopelessness following battering: The role of perceived control, coping, and self-esteem. Journal of Family Violence, 19(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOFV.0000011580.63593.96

18.

Dardis

CM.

Dixon

KJ.

Edwards

KM.

Turchik

(2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16(2), 136–152. http://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559

19.

Toplu-Demirtaş

ET.

Sümer

ZH.

Murphy

(2018). Turkish version of the multidimensional measure of emotional abuse: preliminary psychometrics in college students. Violence and Victims, 33(2), 275–295. http://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-16-00087

20.

Dietrich

D. M.

Schuett

J. M.

(2013). Culture of honor and attitudes toward intimate partner violence in Latinos. Sage Open, 3(2), 2158244013489685. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013489685

21.

Dosil

Jaureguizar

Bernaras

Sbicigo

J. B.

(2020). Teen dating violence, sexism, and resilience: a multivariate analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2652. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082652

22.

Enander

(2010). “A fool to keep staying”: Battered women labeling themselves stupid as an expression of gendered shame. Violence Against Women, 16(1), 5–31. http://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209353577

23.

Eshelman

Levendosky

A. A.

(2012). Dating violence: Mental health consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27(2), 215–228. http://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.2.215

24.

Estefan

L. F.

Coulter

M. L.

VandeWeerd

(2016). Depression in women who have left violent relationships: The unique impact of frequent emotional abuse. Violence Against Women, 22(11), 1397–1413. http://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215624792

25.

Fernández-Antelo

Cuadrado-Gordillo

Martín-Mora Parra

(2020). Synergy between acceptance of violence and sexist attitudes as a dating violence risk factor. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14), 5209. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145209

26.

Flicker

S. M.

Cerulli

Swogger

M. T.

Talbot

N. L.

(2012). Depressive and posttraumatic symptoms among women seeking protection orders against intimate partners: Relations to coping strategies and perceived responses to abuse disclosure. Violence Against Women, 18(4), 420–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212448897

27.

Flood

Pease

(2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. http://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131

28.

Follingstad

D. R.

Wright

Lloyd

Sebastian

J. A.

(1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/585658

29.

Foster

M. D.

(2015). Tweeting about sexism: The well‐being benefits of a social media collective action. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(4), 629–647. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12101

30.

Fraenkel

Wallen

Hyun

(2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

31.

Gilbert

(2000). The relationship of shame, social anxiety and depression: The role of the evaluation of social rank. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 7(3), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0879(200007)

32.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. http://doi.org/1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

33.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414832

34.

Glick

Sakalli-Ugurlu

Ferreira

M. C.

Souza

M. A. D.

(2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292–297. http://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068

35.

Grubb

Turner

(2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity, and substance use on victim-blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 443–452. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

36.

Gul

Schuster

(2020). Judgments of marital rape as a function of honor culture, masculine reputation threat, and observer gender: A cross‐cultural comparison between Turkey, Germany, and the UK. Aggressive Behavior, 46(4), 341–353. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21893

37.

Hamberger

L. K.

(2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 131–151. http://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2005.20.2.131

38.

Holt

M. K.

Espelage

D. L.

(2005). Social support as a moderator between dating violence victimization and depression/anxiety among African American and Caucasian adolescents. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 309–328. http://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2005.12086289

39.

Ibabe

Arnoso

, & Elgorriaga

(2016). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Adaptation to Basque population and sexism as a risk factor of dating violence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19, E78–E79. http://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.80

40.

Ismail

Berman

Ward-Griffin

(2007). Dating violence and the health of young women: A feminist narrative study. Health Care for Women International, 28(5), 453–477. http://doi.org/10.1080/07399330701226438

41.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/353683

42.

Kahya

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration in a Turkish female sample: Rejection sensitivity and hostility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(6). http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518786499

43.

Karakurt

Smith

Whiting

(2014). Impact of intimate partner violence on women’s mental health. Journal of Family Violence, 29(7), 693–702. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9633-2. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9633-2

44.

Kennedy

A. C.

Prock

K. A.

(2018). “I still feel like I am not normal”: A review of the role of stigma and stigmatization among female survivors of child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19(5), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016673601

45.

Khan

(2018). Attitudes towards ‘honor violence and killings in collectivist cultures: Gender differences in Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian (MENASA) and Turkish populations. In Ireland

J. L.

Birch

Ireland

Carol A.

(Eds), The Routledge international handbook of human aggression (pp. 216–226). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315618777-18

46.

Kline

T. J.

(2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage Publications. http://doi.org/10.12691/jpm-3-2-1

47.

Koepke

Eyssel

Bohner

(2014). “She deserved it” effects of sexism norms, type of violence, and victim’s pre-assault behavior on blame attributions toward female victims and approval of the aggressor’s behavior. Violence Against Women, 20(4), 446–464. http://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214528581

48.

Krug

E. G.

Mercy

J. A.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Zwi

A. B.

(2002). The world report on violence and health. Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0

49.

Leen

Sorbring

Mawer

Holdsworth

Helsing

Bowen

(2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors, and the efficacy of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015

50.

Lee

D. A.

Scragg

Turner

(2001). The role of shame and guilt in traumatic events: A clinical model of shame‐based and guilt‐based PTSD. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 74(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711201161109

51.

LeMaire

K. L.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2016). Labeling sexual victimization experiences: the role of sexism, rape myth acceptance, and tolerance for sexual harassment. Violence and Victims, 31(2), 332–346. http://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00148

52.

Leung

A. K.

Cohen

(2011). Within-and between-culture variation: individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022151

53.

Lewis

(1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Psychoanalytic Review, 58(3), 419–438.

54.

Lowe

Khan

Thanzami

Barzy

Karmaliani

(2018). Attitudes toward intimate partner “honor”-based violence in India, Iran, Malaysia, and Pakistan. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(4), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-09-2017-0324

55.

Mardia

K. V.

(1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334770

56.

Murphy

C. M.

Hoover

S. A.

(1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 39–53. http://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.39

57.

Nelson

J. A.

Liss

Erchull

M. J.

Hurt

M. M.

Ramsey

L. R.

Turner

D. L.

Haines

M. E.

(2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification and collective action. Sex Roles, 58(9-10), 721–728. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9384-0

58.

O'Keefe

(1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 546–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012004005

59.

Phelan

M. B.

Hamberger

L. K.

Guse

C. E.

Edwards

Walczak

Zosel

(2005). Domestic violence among male and female patients seeking emergency medical services. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 187–206. http://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2005.20.2.187

60.

Pico-Alfonso

M. A.

(2005). Psychological intimate partner violence: The major predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder in abused women. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29(1), 181–193. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.08.010

61.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809532

62.

Roberts

T. A.

Klein

J. D.

Fisher

(2003). Longitudinal effect of intimate partner abuse on high-risk behavior among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(9), 875–881. http://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.157.9.875

63.

Rohleder

Chen

Wolf

J. M.

Miller

G. E.

(2008). The psychobiology of trait shame in young women: Extending the social self-preservation theory. Health Psychology, 27(5), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.5.523

64.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

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

65.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

(2002). Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(49), 47–58.

66.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Akbaş

(2013). “Honor” and “violence against women in the name of honor” in honor cultures. Turkish Psychological Articles, 16(32), 76–91.

67.

Sakallı-Uğurlu

Yalçın

Z. S.

Glick

(2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57(11–12), 889–895. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9313-2

68.

Salis

K. L.

Salwen

O’Leary

K. D.

(2014). The predictive utility of psychological aggression for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 5(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.5.1.83

69.

Saucier

D. A.

McManus

J. L.

(2014). Men of honor: Examining individual differences in masculine honor beliefs. In Masculinities in a global era (pp. 85–99). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6931-5_5

70.

Saucier

D. A.

Strain

M. L.

Hockett

J. M.

McManus

J. L.

(2015). Stereotypic beliefs about masculine honor are associated with perceptions of rape and women who have been raped. Social Psychology, 46(4), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000240

71.

Schick

V. R.

Zucker

A. N.

Bay-Cheng

L. Y.

(2008). Safer, better sex through feminism: The role of feminist ideology in women's sexual well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(3), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00431.x

72.

Shen

A. C.

(2014). Dating violence and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in Taiwanese college students: The roles of cultural beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(4), 635–658. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505213

73.

Smuts

(1992). Male aggression against women. Human Nature, 3(1), 1–44. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692265

74.

Sugarman

D. B.

Hotaling

G. T.

(1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good

M. A.

Stets

J. E.

(Eds), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3–32). Praeger.

75.

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(3), 301–314. http://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.301

76.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

77.

Tangney

J. P.

(1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the assessment of shame and guilt. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00034-4

78.

The Mor Cati Women’s Shelter Foundation (1996). Evdeki terör: Kadına yonelik siddet [terror at home: Violence against women]. Mor Cati Yayinlari.

79.

Toplu-Demirtas

Hatipoğlu-Sümer

White

J. W.

(2013). The relation between dating violence victimization and commitment among Turkish college women: Does the investment model matter? International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 7(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3019

80.

Toplu-Demirtaş

Öztemür

Fincham

F. D.

(2020). Perceptions of dating violence: assessment and antecedents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520914558

81.

Triandis

H. C.

(2001). Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169

82.

Uskul

A. K.

Cross

S. E.

(2019). The social and cultural psychology of honour: What have we learned from researching honour in Turkey? European Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 39–73. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10463283.2018.1542903

83.

Wilson

J. P.

Drozdek

Turkovic

(2006). Posttraumatic shame and guilt. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 7(2), 122–141. http://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005285914

84.

Wincentak

Connolly

Card

(2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040194

85.

World Health Organization (2014). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. World Health Organization.

86.

Yakushko

(2007). Do feminist women feel better about their lives? Examining patterns of feminist identity development and women’s subjective well-being. Sex Roles, 57(3-4), 223–234. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9249-6

87.

Yoder

J. D.

Perry

R. L.

, & Saal

E. I.

(2007). What good is a feminist identity?: Women’s feminist identification and role expectations for intimate and sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 57(5-6), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9269-2

88.

Zhao

Lynch

J. G.

Jr. Chen

(2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257