Receiving Leniency After Hurting a Female Norm-Violator: The Mediating Role of Victim and Harm-Doer Empathy

Abstract

Data from 140 participants from the South Pacific, where domestic violence rates are high, demonstrated less punitive responding toward the male harm-doer of a female sexual norm-violator (SNV) relative to a control victim. The impact of victim type on punitive responding was mediated by empathy toward the victim and harm-doer. In Study 2, data from 240 individuals from the South Pacific demonstrated less punitive responding toward the harm-doer of an SNV victim relative to a control and a career-focused mother victim. The victim type-punitive responding relationship was also mediated by victim blame attributions and victim moral outrage.

Keywords

norm-violator empathy domestic violence

The capacity to feel and understand what another person is experiencing from their frame of reference is known as empathy. Empathy for the suffering of others is a central part of the human condition and the human experience. Empathy has been shown to occur at a very early age, and it can increase our prosocial responding toward a myriad array of others, including strangers (Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002; Batson et al., 1997). Indeed, there is some evidence that empathic responding may be due to an evolutionary-based motivation to generate altruistic behaviors in human societies that could facilitate feelings of common welfare (De Waal, 2008). Despite the positive impact it may have on societal functioning and its potential evolutionary basis, it seems empathy is not an inevitable response to all who suffer. There is a growing body of evidence that individuals are much less likely to report empathic responses toward suffering members of other groups (Avenanti, Sirigu, & Aglioti, 2010; Chiao & Mathur, 2010). While these findings demonstrate that outgroup membership may lead to reduced empathy, the present examination explored the extent to which a class of behaviors (i.e., sexual norm violations) might also lead to empathic dampening (i.e., a reduction in the empathic response) toward a female victim of domestic violence. In addition, there was an exploration of the extent to which such sexual norm violations might elicit empathic enhancement toward the victim’s harm-doer. The extent to which such biased empathic responding (i.e., empathic dampening for the victim and empathic enhancement for the harm-doer) might, in turn, influence punitive responding toward the harm-doer was also assessed (Study 1, Study 2). There was also an assessment of whether the impact of sexual norm violations on harm-doer punitive responding might be mediated by blame and moral outrage directed toward the victim (Study 2).

The current examination also has the potential to make a broader contribution to the social science literature because the participants are from a developing non-Western nation (i.e., Fiji) in the Pacific Region. A number of social science researchers have suggested that it is very problematic that 96% of psychological research is based on the responses of individuals from Western industrialized nations (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Furthermore, a focus on domestic violence has more practical applications because of the excessively high rates of domestic violence in the Pacific Region. Specifically, in Fiji, 64% of women who have ever been in an intimate relationship report having experienced physical violence, and 58% of ever-partnered women report having experienced emotional violence (i.e., psychological abuse) from a husband or intimate partner in their lifetime (Swami, 2016). By comparison, Smith et al. (2015) reported that 25% of ever-partnered women in America will experience such violence in their lifetime. More broadly, in the entire Pacific Region, reports suggest that up to 68% of women have experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship (World Health Organization [WHO], 2013). However, there has been limited empirical research focused on factors that might influence societal responses toward the victims or perpetrators of such violence in the Pacific Region. This is important because societal responses establish expectations for normative reactions to such violence, including whether and how the police and the broader justice system responds, how these experiences are covered in the media, as well as how they influence social policy.

Gender Norm Violation

There has been extensive research documenting the profound impact that gender norm beliefs have on gender-related actions and perceptions (Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990; Jacobs & Eccles, 1992; Tomasetto, Alparone, & Cadinu, 2011; Witt, 1997). Furthermore, there seems to be clear and pervasive negative consequences for the violation of these gender norm expectations. For example, Blakemore (2003) demonstrated that children devalue other children who engage in behaviors that violate gender roles. In addition, adult males who violate gender norm expectations have been shown to suffer multiple forms of antigay anger and aggression (Parrott, 2008, 2009). There is also evidence that gender norm violations may involve punishments such as rejection of requests for assistance and/or resources (e.g., Henry & Reyna, 2007) or greater physical and psychological distance (e.g., Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005).

In addition, and most relevant to the current examination, there is evidence that sexual gender norm violation will lead to negative outcomes for women. Sibley and Wilson (2004) had men read about a woman who was described as having past sexual relations with several men or not enjoying casual flings with men. The results demonstrated that the men reported significantly stronger hostile attitudes toward the woman with a sexual history. Women who engage in sexual betrayal also face significant negative responses from men. Forbes, Jobe, White, Bloesch, and Adams-Curtis (2005) exposed males to a scenario involving a female who was a victim of physical assault by her boyfriend, and she was characterized as having committed or not committed sexual betrayal. Men were more likely to support the assault when she had committed sexual betrayal. Finally, there is significant empirical evidence demonstrating that norm violations elicit negative emotions such as anger (Nelissen & Zeelenberg, 2009).

Empathic Dampening and Empathic Enhancement

Consistent with previous research by Batson and his colleagues (e.g., Batson et al., 2002; Batson, Klein, Highberger, & Shaw, 1995), the present study will involve empathy as an other-oriented emotional response congruent with the perceived welfare of another (if the other is in need, empathy includes feeling sympathetic, softhearted, compassionate, tender). There is a growing and substantial body of research in the fields of social psychology, developmental psychology, and cognitive neuroscience illustrating dampened or absent empathic responses (and associated physiological indicators) for social or cultural outgroups (e.g., Avenanti et al., 2010; Chiao & Mathur, 2010). The bulk of this research on such intergroup empathy bias has involved majority group members’ empathic dampening toward minority group members. However, there is some evidence that minority group members will also report empathic dampening toward majority group members (Johnson, Bushman, & Dovidio, 2008) and toward other ingroup members whom they perceive as weakly identified with their ethnicity (Johnson & Kaiser, 2013; Johnson & Ashburn-Nardo, 2014).

Importantly, Cikara, Bruneau, Van Bavel, and Saxe (2014) contended that one limitation in this “biased empathic responding” area of research is that it has tended to focus on the reduction of empathy toward real social groups (Cikara, Bruneau, & Saxe, 2011), such as racial groups (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2010), and academic, athletic, or political rivals (e.g., Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003). They contend that greater attention should be given to examining whether such empathic reduction for suffering others will occur in other contexts as well with less well-defined groups. For example, it is possible that such empathic dampening will occur due to a violation of widely accepted gender norms.

A second limitation in the biased empathic responding literature involves the minimal exploration of the extent that individuals might report empathic enhancement (i.e., increased empathic responding) toward those who engage in the harmful treatment of others (i.e., harm-doers). Indeed, Decety, Lewis, and Cowell (2015) suggested that greater empirical attention should be given to this “other side of the coin” (p. 12) of biased empathic responding. For example, due to their strong belief that the American criminal justice system is racist, a number of Blacks reported empathic responding and supported the acquittal of O.J. Simpson while fully acknowledging that he was guilty (Brown, 2016).

Interestingly, extant Social Norm Theory provides some theoretical leverage to the contention that norm violations by a female victim may lead to less positive emotional responding toward her and greater positive emotional responding toward her harm-doer. Specifically, Posner and Rasmussen (1999) suggest that, in an effort to maintain societal order and harmony, societal group members will show a propensity to engage in negative responding (e.g., reduced empathy) toward those who violate societal rules (e.g., reduced empathy for norm-violator), and they will also tend to respond positively (e.g., increased empathy) toward the individual who harms the norm-violator. Finally, the authors also contend that societies will seek ways of releasing the punisher from the ordinary formal or informal sanctions for the punishing behavior and/or create a perceived benefit for such punishment. Although this perspective has been fully endorsed by a number of social norm theorists (see Frank, 1988; Posner, 1981), it has received minimal direct empirical attention. More broadly, all forms of Balance Theory (Cartwright & Harary, 1956; Heider, 1958) are consistent with the contention that individuals would respond more positively toward a person who harmed a disliked other. In addition, other researchers have shown more directly that the enemy of one’s enemy is one’s friend (Mearsheimer, 1990).

Another important question involves whether biased empathic responding (i.e., victim empathic dampening, harm-doer empathic enhancement) would influence punitive responding toward the harm-doer of a sexual norm-violator. This issue is relevant because empathic responding appears to play a significant role in legal decision-making in criminal cases. For example, Deitz, Blackwell, Daley, and Bentley (1982) examined the role of victim empathy on perceived defendant guilt in a rape case. They found that greater victim empathy was associated with greater perceived defendant guilt. In research focused on harm-doer empathy in actual trials, those who show strong empathy for the defendant hold defendants less responsible for an offense and assign more lenient punishments (Chin, 2012; Colby, 2012). In the present study, we propose that sexual norm violation by a female domestic violence victim will lead to both empathic dampening for her and empathic enhancement for her harm-doer. This biased empathic responding was expected, in turn, to reduce punitive responding toward the harm-doer.

Why is it important to examine factors that might influence a third-party responding toward domestic violence? A recent report titled “Linking the Chain: The Role of Friends and Family in Tackling Domestic Abuse” (Parker, 2015) revealed that a significant majority of domestic violence victims chose to confide in third-party individuals (48%) relative to legal authorities (14%). Thus, the author suggested that much greater focus should be given to the role of third parties in reducing domestic violence (Parker, 2015). Klein (2012) also suggests that third parties tend to create an environment that either emboldens or discourages a victim to take steps to leave an abusive relationship. The author further asserts that such third-party influence sends clear signals to both the victim and perpetrator regarding the appropriateness of the abuse. To support this contention, domestic violence arrests have been shown to increase significantly when third parties become complainants or provide sworn statements against the perpetrator (Shernock, 2005). Moreover, Gracia and Herrero (2007) suggest that when third parties have strong beliefs about increasing the costs of domestic violence for the perpetrator and positive attitudes toward engaging the legal authorities, then this creates a “climate of social intolerance” toward domestic violence that, in turn, could elicit greater social control of domestic violence. The authors further contend that in cases of domestic violence, the failure to examine factors that might influence third-party views of perpetrator punitive costs and engaging legal authorities is a critical limitation in the domestic violence research area. To address this limitation in the literature, the present study explored factors that influence third-party attitudes toward punishment of the perpetrator.

Study 1

Male and female participants read a passage focused on domestic violence involving a man physically attacking his female live-in partner. The victim either supported norm-violating beliefs (i.e., norm-violator) or there was no information given about her gender norm beliefs (i.e., control). After reading the passage, participants reported their empathy for the victim, empathy for the harm-doer (i.e., the victim’s live-in partner), perceptions of the extent that the victim felt emotional pain, and perceptions of the appropriate punitive response toward the harm-doer.

Previous research has indicated that gender norm orientation can have a greater impact on domestic violence attitudes than gender (Davis & Liddell, 2002; De Judicibus & McCabe, 2001; Pavlou & Knowles, 2001; Truman, Tokar, & Fischer, 1996; Wade & Brittan-Powell, 2001). Given that there has been little research on the gender norm attitudes of men and women in Fiji, there was no specific hypothesis based on gender. The major hypotheses are delineated below.

Victim type effect on victim empathic responding: There should be less reported empathy for the norm-violating victim relative to the control victim.

Victim type effect on harm-doer empathic responding: There should be greater empathic responding for the harm-doer of the norm-violating victim relative to the harm-doer of the control victim.

Victim type effect on harm-doer punitive responding: There should be less punitive responding toward the harm-doer of the norm-violating victim relative to the harm-doer of the control victim.

Mediational effects of empathic responding:

The impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responding should be mediated by victim empathic responding.

The impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responding should be mediated by harm-doer empathic responding.

Method

Participants

In total, 80 male and 60 female students from the University of the South Pacific (Suva, Fiji) participated in the study. They were compensated for their time with $FJ10. They were recruited from student societies on the campus using “blanket” e-mail requests to society members.

Procedure

The University of the South Pacific does not have a dedicated pool of participants (i.e., a subject pool) for conducting experimental research. Consequently, for psychology researchers, participants are recruited through student organizations via e-mail requests. For the current study, per recruitment e-mails that provided the time and location for the session, participants gathered in a large auditorium to complete the questionnaires. Once the requisite number of participants arrived (there was a limit of 70 per session), the session was closed. The two female experimenters had to turn away a number of students who arrived late. There were two data collection sessions with both conditions (i.e., sexual norm-violator, control) included in each session. To obscure the exact nature of the research, the “cover story” (presented on the first page of the questionnaire) was that psychologists were interested in how individuals make decisions and judgments on a wide range of issues (i.e., romantic relationships, academic choices). Participants were told that they would be presented with information in a passage that was based on true and actual events involving one of the aforementioned areas. They were further instructed that, after reading the passage, they would provide judgments and decisions about the individuals who were described in the passages.

Participants read a passage (see Appendix A for the full passage) describing an incident of domestic violence involving Salote and Apisai (typical Fijian names) who lived together. Apisai (the male) became angry one evening because Salote ruined a pair of his pants by ironing them incorrectly. The passage stated that Apisai “threw Salote on the floor and then hit her in the chest causing a severe bruise.” Participants were also given information on a “personal chat” with a friend from Salote’s Facebook page as background information. In the control victim condition, Salote stated that “She loved to fish. She loved pets.” In the sexual norm-violator condition, she stated, “There is so much casual sex and cheating in our society. I think people, including myself, were never meant to be with just one person. I have no problem ‘kind of dating’ two guys at once.”

After reading the passage, participants then completed five items measuring their empathic responding for both Salote and Apisai on 1 (not very much)-7 (extremely) Likert-type scales (see Batson, 1991; Batson et al., 2002). Specifically, they rated their experience of sympathy, compassion, warmth, softheartedness, and being moved toward Salote and Apisai. The empathy responses were combined and averaged to create a victim empathy score (Cronbach’s α = .85) and harm-doer empathy score (Cronbach’s α = .81). Higher scores demonstrated higher empathy. They then reported how much emotional pain they felt Salote suffered from the attack (1 = very little, 7 = very much). Finally, on 7-point Likert-type scales, they gave their judgments of whether Salote should file charges against Apisai (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes), and whether Apisai should spend time in jail (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes). These two items were averaged to create a punitive responding score (r = .57, p < .001). After completion of the survey items, participants were debriefed, paid, and dismissed.

Power Analyses

Based on the literature (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Heilman & Chen, 2005; Heilman & Wallen, 2010), the average effect size obtained in related research is in the small to medium range (e.g., average η² of approximately .10). Thus, power for all main effects with a sample of 140 and alpha of .05 would be .97 for the hypothesized main effects and .95 for the analyses involving mediation.

Manipulation Check

To assess whether the norm violation for the victim was successfully manipulated and the scenarios were perceived to be realistic, 25 independent raters (12 male and 13 female students from the same university) were recruited. In all, 13 read the norm-violating passage, and 12 read the control-victim passage. The raters were asked, on a 7-point scale (1 = a small extent, 7 = a great extent) to what extent the woman in the passage behaved in a manner consistent within the “usual and standard norms for women.” An ANOVA revealed that the control victim (M = 3.46, SD = .51) was perceived as adhering to gender norms significantly more than the norm-violator (M = 1.91, SD = .79), F(1, 23) = 33.75, p < .001, η² = .59. These results clearly demonstrate that the victim type manipulation was successful.

To assess the extent to which the passages reflected real world events, the raters responded to two questions that assessed their perceptions: (a) that the passage was realistic (1 = not realistic, 7 = realistic), and (b) of whether the incident reflected events that occur in Fiji (1 = definitely no, 7 = definitely yes). The results indicated that (a) there were no significant differences between the norm violation (M = 5.8, SD = .57) and control condition (M = 6.1, SD = .75) in perceived realism, F(1, 23) = .80, p = .37, η² = .03; and (b) there were no significant differences between the norm violation (M = 5.4, SD = .79) and control condition (M = 5.8, SD = .92) in perceived occurrence, F(1, 23) = 1.03, p = .31, η² = .04. These results demonstrated that the perceived realism and perceived occurrence were fairly high and did not differ as a function of the scenario.

Results and Discussion

Participant Gender Effects

The data analysis involved a 2 (victim type- norm violator, control) x 2 (gender-male, female) ANOVA. There were no significant main effects or interactions involving gender, thus, this variable will not be included in any of the subsequent analyses.

Victim Type Effects

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the main effect of victim type reached significance for victim empathic responding, F(1, 138) = 9.00, p = .003, η² = .061. Those in the norm-violator condition (M = 5.00, SD = 1.28) reported significantly less victim empathic responding than those in the control condition (M = 5.6, SD = 1.04).

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the main effect of victim type reached significance for harm-doer empathic responding, F(1, 138) = 17.47, p < .001, η² = .11. Those in the norm-violator condition (M = 3.36, SD = 1.35) reported significantly greater harm-doer empathy than those in the control condition (M = 2.4, SD = 1.12).

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the main effect of victim type reached significance for harm-doer punitive responding, F(1, 138) = 4.91, p = .028, η² = .034. Those in the norm-violator condition (M = 4.89, SD = 1.63) reported significantly less punitive responding for the harm-doer than those in the control condition (M = 5.44, SD = 1.28).

Mediational Effects of Empathic Responding

To test whether the hypothesized mediation occurred, PROCESS Macro Model 4 was employed. Consistent with Hypothesis 4a, the analysis revealed that the impact of victim type on punitive responding was mediated by victim empathic responding. Specifically, the indirect effect of victim impact on harm-doer punitive responding through victim empathic responding [–.42, –.05] was significantly different from 0, a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Consistent with Hypothesis 4b, the analysis revealed that the impact of victim type on punitive responding was mediated by harm-doer empathic responding. Specifically, the indirect effect of victim impact on harm-doer punitive responding through harm-doer empathic responding [–.52, –.10] was significantly different from 0, a 95% CI. In sum, these findings demonstrate that the norm violation reduced victim empathic responding and enhanced harm-doer empathic responding, which, in turn, reduced harm-doer punitive responding.

The results of Study 1 demonstrated that norm-violating behaviors from a victim of domestic violence led to empathic dampening toward her, and empathic enhancement toward her harm-doer. This biased empathic responding, in turn, led to reduced punitive responding toward her harm-doer.

While these findings certainly extend both the domestic violence and empathic responding literature, there were some shortcomings associated with the control vignette that limit the contributions of the findings. First, the control vignette was not equivalent to the norm-violating vignette. Specifically, the norm-violating statement had a full description of norm-violating behaviors and the basis of such behaviors. In contrast, the control statement was much briefer and simply focused on the victim’s statement of likes (i.e., pets and fishing). Thus, the differential effects of victim type might have been due to a lack of victim statement equivalence or differential knowledge about the victim even though manipulation checks suggested that neither perceived realism of the incident nor perceived likelihood that it would occur in Fiji varied as a function of condition. Nonetheless, in Study 2, a relevant comparison condition was included that was much more equivalent to the norm-violating condition in length, scope, and depth.

A second shortcoming was that it is possible that the findings may have been due to a positivity bias for the control victim rather than negative perceptions toward the norm-violator. In addition, it is conceivable that the negative responding toward the gender norm-violator would occur for any victim who evidences negative behavior to the same degree as the gender norm-violating behavior. Consequently, for Study 2, a comparison condition was added that involved negative nonsexual norm-violating behavior. Specifically, in one condition, participants read about a “career-focused mother” who acknowledges having no problem with neglecting her family’s needs for her career advancement. This condition (a) reduces the likelihood that a positivity bias will influence the findings; and (b) provides a direct test of whether the impact of sexual norm violation is distinct (i.e., has greater impact) from the influence of other negative gender norm-violating behaviors.

In addition, to provide a more stringent test of the relevant expectations in Study 2, the intensity of the violence in the attack was increased significantly. Finally, Study 2 extended the findings of the first study by providing direct assessments of negative responding toward the victim (i.e., attributions of victim blame, moral outrage toward the victim) and the extent that such negative responses might also (i.e., in addition to harm-doer empathy) mediate the impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responses.

Study 2

In this second study, participants read a passage focused on domestic violence involving a husband physically attacking his wife. The victim either supported sexual norm-violating beliefs, was a career-mom who focused on her career more than her family’s needs, or no information was given regarding her beliefs (i.e., control). Participants gave their perceptions of empathy for the victim and empathy toward the husband, made attributions of victim responsibility, and reported moral outrage toward the victim. Finally, they gave their perceptions of the appropriate degree of perpetrator punitive responding. The major hypotheses are listed below.

Victim type effect on victim empathic responding: There should be less reported empathy for the norm-violating victim relative to the control victim and career-focused mother.

Victim type effect on harm-doer empathic responding: There should be greater empathic responding for the harm-doer of the norm-violating victim relative to the harm-doer of the control victim and career-focused mother victim.

Victim type effects on perceived victim culpability: There should be greater attributions of victim responsibility for the norm-violating victim relative to the control victim and career-focused mother victim.

Victim type effects on moral outrage toward the victim: There should be greater moral outrage expressed toward the norm-violating victim relative to the control victim and career-focused mother victim.

Victim type effect on harm-doer punitive responding: There should be less punitive responding toward the harm-doer of the norm-violating victim relative to the harm-doer of the control victim and career-focused mother victim.

Mediational effects:

The impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responding should be mediated by victim empathic responding.

The impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responding should be mediated by harm-doer empathic responding.

The impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responding should be mediated by victim blame.

The impact of victim type on harm-doer punitive responding should be mediated by victim-directed moral outrage.

Method

Participants

In total, 140 male and 100 female students from the University of the South Pacific (Suva, Fiji) participated in the study. They were compensated for their time with $FJ10. They were recruited from student societies on the campus. None of the participants from Study 1 were involved in Study 2.

Procedure

The method of student recruitment and data collection were identical to Study 1. To determine whether the findings of the first study would generalize to a Western context (i.e., victim and harm-doer with Western names), participants read about Robert and his wife Dawn (see Appendix B for full passage). Robert told Dawn that he was stressed and frustrated with her and their marriage. He then proceeded to attack her physically. The attack involved him slapping her hard in the face and kicking her hard in the chest several times after the slaps had knocked her to the floor. When it was over, he told her that it was her fault. Unlike Study 1, there was no inclusion of information from the victim’s personal chat on Facebook to reflect the victim’s beliefs and attitudes. The victim made statements regarding her attitudes and beliefs directly to her friends. In the norm-violating condition, Dawn was described as a social butterfly who likes being around her male office workers. It was also noted that she had once told her friends that she enjoys sex, sees no problems with women who have many sex partners, and so forth. In the career-focused mother condition, Dawn told her friends that her career was of central importance in her life. She also stated that her career took precedence over her family’s needs. Finally, in the no-information control condition, there was no information given regarding Dawn’s beliefs and/or attitudes.

As in Study 1, empathy responses were combined and averaged to create a victim empathy score (Cronbach’s α = .89) and harm-doer empathy score (Cronbach’s α = .92). In both cases, higher scores demonstrated higher empathy.

Perceived Victim Culpability was assessed by participants’ responses to the following statement: “Dawn deserves some of the blame for the assault” (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

Victim-directed moral outrage was assessed by participants reporting the extent that the victim’s actions elicited “anger” and “disgust” (1= not very much, 7 = very much) toward the victim. The responses to these two items, which are typically employed to depict moral outrage (see Ashburn-Nardo, 2016), were averaged (r = .48, p < .001) to create a victim-directed moral outrage score.

Harm-doer Punitive Responding was measured by participants giving their judgments of whether Robert should be arrested, spend time in jail, and pay punitive damages for the pain that he inflicted upon Dawn. These items were each rated on 1-6 scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) and averaged to create a punitive responding score (Cronbach’s α = .62).

Power Analyses

Based on the literature (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Heilman & Chen, 2005; Heilman & Wallen, 2010), the average effect size obtained in related research is in the small to medium range (e.g., average η² of approximately .10). Thus, power for all main effects with a sample of 240 and alpha of .05 would be .99 for the hypothesized main effects and .99 for the analyses involving mediation.

Manipulation Check

The manipulation checks were identical to Study 1. In all, 36 independent raters (18 male and 18 female students from the same university) were recruited. A total of 12 raters were randomly assigned to read the sexual norm-violating passage, career-mother passage, or the control passage. The main effect of victim type reached significance, F(2, 33) = 12.78, p < .001, η² = .43. Post hoc analyses revealed that the sexual norm-violator (M = 1.83, SD = .71) was perceived as adhering to gender norms significantly less than the control victim (M = 3.51, SD = .90, p < .001) and the career-focused mother condition (M = 2.6, SD = .79, p = .03). The career-mother victim was perceived as adhering to norms less than the control condition (p = .009). These findings revealed that victim type was manipulated successfully. In addition, raters did attribute some degree of norm violation to the career-focused mother victim.

The results also indicated that (a) there were no significant differences between the norm violation (M = 5.6, SD = .88), control condition (M = 5.8, SD = .96), and career-mother condition (M = 5.6, SD = 1.6) in perceived realism, F(2, 33) = .06, p = .94, η² = .004; and (b) there were no significant differences between the norm violation (M = 5.6, SD = 1.15), control condition (M = 6.0, SD = .95), and career-mother condition (M = 5.9, SD = 1.1) in perceived occurrence, F(2, 33) = .30, p = .74, η² = .02. These results demonstrated that the perceived realism and perceived occurrence were fairly high and did not differ as a function of scenario.

Results

Gender Effects

The data analysis involved a 3(victim type-sexual norm vioilator, career-focused mother, control) × 2(gender-male, female) ANOVA. As in Study One, there were no main effects of gender.

Victim Type Effects

The main effect of victim type reached significance for victim empathic responding, F(2, 237) = 10.03, p < .001, η² = .078. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, post hoc analyses revealed that those in the sexual norm-violator condition (M = 4.2, SD = 1.33) reported significantly less victim empathic responding than those in the control condition (M = 5.0, SD = 1.28, p < .001) and the career-focused mother condition (M = 4.9, SD = 1.37, p < .001). The control and career-focused mother conditions were not significantly different from each other (p = .56).

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the main effect of victim type reached significance for harm-doer empathic responding, F (2, 227) = 24.21, p < .001, η² = .18. Those in the sexual norm-violator condition (M = 4.2, SD = 1.49) reported significantly greater harm-doer empathy than those in the control condition (M = 2.6, SD = 1.55, p < .001) and career-focused mother condition (M = 2.9, SD = 1.44, p < .001). The control and career-focused mother conditions were not significantly different from each other (p = .19). A total of 10 participants did not complete the perceived harm-doer empathy item.

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the main effect of victim type reached significance for perceived victim culpability, F(2, 234) = 19.18, p < .001, η² = .14. Those in the sexual norm-violator condition (M = 4.4, SD = 1.41) reported significantly greater victim culpability than those in the control condition (M = 2.9, SD = 1.55, p < .001) and career-focused mother condition (M = 3.5 SD = 1.50, p < .001). In addition, participants assigned significantly greater culpability to the career-focused mother victim than the control victim (p = .017). Three participants did not complete the victim culpability item.

Consistent with Hypothesis 4, the main effect of victim type reached significance for perceived victim moral outrage, F(2, 237) = 6.5, p = .002, η² = .05. Those in the sexual norm-violator condition (M = 4.2, SD = 1.62) reported significantly greater victim-directed moral outrage than those in the control condition (M = 3.3, SD = 1.81, p = .001) and career-focused mother condition (M = 3.5, SD = 1.61, p = .010). The control and career-focused mother conditions were not significantly different from each other (p = .38).

Consistent with Hypothesis 5, the main effect of victim type reached significance for perceived harm-doer punitive responding, F(2, 235) = 5.5, p = .005, η² = .05. Those in the sexual norm-violator condition (M = 3.7, SD = 1.18) reported significantly less harm-doer punitive responding than those in the control condition (M = 4.1, SD = 1.18, p = .015) and career-focused mother condition (M = 4.2, SD = 1.04, p = .002). The control and career-focused mother conditions were not significantly different from each other (p = .47).

Mediational Effects

To test whether significant mediational effects occurred, PROCESS Macro Model 4 was employed. The specific test involved whether the indirect effect was significantly different from 0 at the 95% CI.

Consistent with Hypothesis 6, the analysis revealed that the impact of victim type on punitive responding was mediated by (a) victim empathic responding [.0035, .0372]; (b) harm-doer empathic responding [−.0579, −.0081]; (c) perceived victim culpability [−.0452, −.0043]; and (d) victim-directed moral outrage [−.0154, −.0001].

General Discussion

There is clear evidence that domestic violence is extremely pervasive in the Pacific Region. Survey analyses reveal that, in that area of the world, up to 68% of women have experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship (WHO, 2013). More specifically, in Fiji, 64% of women who have ever been in an intimate relationship report having experienced physical violence, and 58% of ever-partnered women report having experienced emotional violence (i.e., psychological abuse) from a husband or intimate partner in their lifetime (Swami, 2016). Despite these statistics, there has been minimal empirical assessment of the factors that might influence third-party emotional and/or punitive responding in such cases of violence. Some researchers contend that an examination of third-party beliefs in increasing the costs of domestic violence for the perpetrator and positive attitudes toward engaging legal authorities are often critical to creating a climate of “social intolerance,” thereby resulting in greater social control over domestic violence (Gracia & Herrero, 2007).

In the present examination, which involved two studies with Fijian samples, sexuality-related norm-violating behaviors from a victim of domestic violence were shown to elicit empathic dampening toward the victim and empathic enhancement toward her harm-doer. This biased empathic responding, in turn, led to reduced punitive responding toward her harm-doer. Furthermore, there was also evidence such norm violation increased perceptions of victim culpability and moral outrage toward the victim. Both of these responses also led to decreased punitive responding toward the perpetrator of domestic violence. Finally, the current research extended the domestic violence research by demonstrating that the impact of a victim’s sexual norm violation on third-party domestic violence responding is significantly more impactful than other victim negative, norm-violating behaviors (i.e., neglecting her family for her career). That is, the described effects may be unique to a sexual norm-violator and do not necessarily generalize to other gender norm violating (i.e., career-focused) behaviors.

Gender Norm-Violation Research

Social scientists have clearly established the pervasiveness of backlash (a negative reaction) against women whose behavior violates gender norms (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 1999, 2001), are self-promotional (Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1979), or who endeavor to attain leadership positions (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Furthermore, those women who engage in sex-related gender norm violations also face significant negative reactions (e.g., Sibley & Wilson, 2004). The present study revealed that a similar backlash can occur toward a sexual norm-violator in a developing country such as Fiji with high rates of domestic violence (see Swami, 2016; WHO, 2013).

One unexplored empirical issue involved whether anyone “cared” when sexual norm-violators are the victims of domestic violence. The present study addressed this particular issue and extended the gender norm research by examining the impact of sexual norm violations on third-party empathic responding. The finding revealed that sexual norm violations will lead to both a reduction in empathic responding toward the suffering victim and empathic enhancement toward the harm-doer. In addition, previous research has shown that gender norm violations will lead to a number of negative outcomes for the violator (Bem, 1974; Sibley & Wilson, 2004; Spence & Helmreich, 1979). However, little research has focused on factors that might mediate the impact of such a violation on subsequent negative responses toward the harm-doer of the norm-violator. The present study revealed that the impact of norm violations on subsequent harm-doer responses was mediated by victim empathic responding, harm-doer empathic responding, perceived victim culpability, and victim-directed moral outrage.

Biased Empathic Responding Research

Previous research has clearly shown that individuals will report dampened or absent empathic responses (and associated physiological indicators) for social or cultural outgroups. The bulk of this research on such intergroup empathy bias has involved majority group member empathic dampening toward minority group members (e.g., Avenanti et al., 2010; Chiao & Mathur, 2010; Cikara et al., 2014). There is some recent evidence that minority group members will also report empathic dampening toward majority group members (Johnson et al., 2008) and other ingroup members (Johnson & Kaiser, 2013; Johnson & Ashburn-Nardo, 2014). However, some researchers contend that research in this area should move beyond documenting empathic dampening among established groups and explore whether it occurs in other contexts (e.g., Cikara et al., 2014). In directly addressing this call, the current study demonstrated that empathic dampening would occur due to a “class of behaviors” (i.e., sexual norm violations) in a non-Western developing country context. Importantly, this effect emerged in both men and women (i.e., there were no effects for participant gender), thereby indicating that even the victim’s gender ingroup paralleled the overall findings of empathic dampening for the victim and empathic enhancement for the harm-doer.

In addition, the bulk of research in this area has been limited to the reduction of empathic feelings toward a suffering individual, with very little exploration of responding toward the harm-doer. The German word Schadenfreude has been used to characterize indifference and even pleasure due to the pain of a suffering disliked other. Research shows that the pain and suffering of a rival has been associated with disappointment in response to news that their injury was not serious (Hoogland, Schurtz, Combs, Powell, & Smith, 2012), a willingness to harm, and an unwillingness to relieve pain from rival team fans (Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, 2011; Cikara, Bruneau, et al., 2014; Hein, Silani, Preuschoff, Batson, & Singer, 2010). The present findings revealed that third parties will also report empathic enhancement toward those who harm disliked others. These findings are consistent with all forms of Balance Theory (Cartwright & Harary, 1956; Heider, 1958) and research demonstrating that the “enemy of one’s enemy is one’s friend” (Gowa, 1999; Mearsheimer, 1990). The findings also support extant Social Norm Theory, which suggests that, in an effort to maintain societal order and harmony, societal group members will show a propensity to engage in negative responding toward those who violate societal rules (e.g., Frank, 1988; Posner, 1981). Furthermore, individuals should also respond positively toward the individual who harms the norm-violator by ignoring the normal punishment for such behaviors (Posner & Rasmussen, 1999). Importantly, however, this effect was not broadly applied in the case of domestic violence, as a gender norm-violating mother who was career focused did not experience empathic dampening or empathic enhancement for the harm-doer. Rather, this effect was reserved only for the victim who endorsed sexual norm-violating beliefs.

Limitations and Conclusion

There are some limitations with the current findings that are inherent to all survey research. The fact that the information was presented as a brief vignette as opposed to a more detailed video or in vivo experience can raise questions of generalizability, especially relative to real-world experiences. In the present study, we attempted to address these concerns by informing participants that the vignettes were based on true and actual events. Moreover, we included manipulation checks illustrating that while conditions differed with respect to the information provided about the victim, they were equivalent at least with respect to perceived realism and perceived occurrence. Although generalizability is typically less of a concern when the predicted outcomes are well supported by the extant theoretical and empirical research, the current studies do not rule out the possibility that the conditions may have differed on other unmeasured areas of interest. Importantly, in the current scenario, the “triggering” incident involved a simple ironing mistake by the victim while performing a household task for her intimate partner. Presumably, factors such as intentionality (e.g., intentionally damaging the pants) and engaging in more provocative victim behavior (e.g., taunting the perpetrator, actually having an affair and initiating the aggression) could potentially strengthen the effects even further by providing “justification” for a retaliatory act by the harm-doer.

As in a majority of psychological research, the use of student samples in the two studies can also limit generalizability, as university student samples are typically younger and better educated than the surrounding communities. Importantly, however, the high rates of domestic violence in Fiji (see Swami, 2016) significantly increase the likelihood that the students have also been and/or will be exposed to such violence in their lifetime. There is also evidence that there is a significant degree of intimate partner violence occurring on university campuses across the world. For example, in a survey of 31 universities in 16 countries, Strauss (2010) found that 29% of the respondents had physically assaulted a dating partner in the last year. In sum, an analysis of third-party responding to domestic violence among Fijian students does seem warranted and could extend the domestic violence literature.

It has been well established in social psychological research that social desirability and demand effects can impact participant responses. In the present study, the data were collected in large groups, and each of the conditions was represented in those groups, with no way for the researchers to know which participant was assigned to which specific condition. This should lessen the concern at least with respect to demand effects varying by condition.

Relatedly, previous research on the consequences of sexual norm violations have involved women actually engaging in sexual norm-violating behaviors such as having sexual relations with several men (Sibley & Wilson, 2004) or “sexual betrayal” (Forbes et al., 2005). In the current study, it should be noted that the sexual norm-violator did not actually engage in any of these behaviors. Instead, the victim only stated that she did not disagree with such behaviors. Thus, the simple approval of such attitudes was shown to be sufficient to lead to reduced empathy for her and enhanced empathy for her harm-doer, which, in turn, led to a reduction in punishment for her harm-doer. Thus, in Fiji, it seems that there is an extremely “low threshold” for expressing reduced support for a domestic violence victim and enhanced support for her harm-doer. It is very possible that this type of anti-victim and pro-perpetrator responding may play a role in the extremely high rate of domestic violence in the Pacific Region. It would be interesting for future research to assess whether other types of norm violations, aside from the career-oriented norm-violator, might lead to similar outcomes.

The present findings involve a replication of dampened empathy for a sexual norm-violating victim and enhanced empathy for her harm-doer relative to control victims (along with mediational effects) in two independent samples. Given concerns regarding the replicability of research in psychology (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012), these robust findings involving 380 participants necessarily provide some degree of definitiveness.

Obviously, the long-term goal of studying domestic violence in the South Pacific region is to identify the variables that play a role in maintaining such high rates of victimization by women. The present study sought to focus on the reactions of third-party observers because they are more likely than legal authorities to hear about such violence (Parker, 2015), as well as playing a critical role in either emboldening or discouraging the victim to leave the relationship (Klein, 2012), press charges (e.g., Shernock, 2005), and/or influence the broader climate of intolerance for such behavior (Gracia & Herrero, 2007). Thus, the present research not only offers direction for future lines of inquiry, but also practical insights into the variables that could be maintaining the insidious pattern of violence against women in the Pacific Region and around the world.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

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.

Author Biographies

James D. Johnson is a social psychologist with research interests in interpersonal conflict and all forms of intergroup and intragroup stereotypes. He has secured more than US$4 million in grant funding for his work, which has been featured in international news outlets such as CNN, the Associated Press, and the Washington Post. Due to his research on media influences on stereotypes, he has consulted with the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. House of Representatives. He has won numerous awards of excellence for his teaching and presentations.

Nishael Raj is a master of arts student at the University of the South Pacific. Her current research interests are in the fields of gender norm violation and empathic responding. She has also previously worked at a women’s crisis center and has experience in counseling women who have experienced gender-based violence. Her goal is to pursue a doctorate in psychology, and she aspires to become a psychologist and would also like to teach.

Shonell Smith-Enoe is a lecturer in the Departments of Social Work and Psychology at the University of Guyana. Her fields of specialization include social work, education, and psychology. She has worked extensively with individuals, families, and communities in that capacity. Her research interests include domestic and other forms of interpersonal violence, marriage and relationship counseling, mental health, life-span development with a focus on adolescence, middle adulthood, gender differences, and childhood psychological disorders. Her most recent focus involves partner violence, gender inequalities, and issues related to mental health.

Len Lecci is a professor of psychology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. His areas of expertise include clinical psychology, measurement/assessment, and bias. He has published several measures, including a measure assessing juror bias (Pretrial Juror Attitudes Questionnaire, PJAQ; Lecci & Myers, 2008), a measure assessing racial bias of minority group members toward the majority group (Johnson-Lecci Scale, JLS; Johnson & Lecci, 2003), and a neuropsychological screening measure (Concise Neuropsychological Screening Inventory, CNSI; Lecci & Holler, 1997). He also directs a memory clinic (MARS Memory-Health Network) that specializes in the early detection of memory problems.

References

Amanatullah

E. T.

Tinsley

C. H.

(2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much . . . or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 110-122.

Ashburn-Nardo

(2016). Parenthood as a moral imperative? Moral outrage and the stigmatization of voluntarily childfree women and men. Sex Roles, 76, 393-401. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0606-1

Avenanti

Sirigu

Aglioti

S. M.

(2010). Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology, 20, 1018-1022.

Batson

C. D.

(1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Batson

C. D.

Chang

Orr

Rowland

(2002). Empathy, attitudes and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656-1666.

Batson

C. D.

Klein

Highberger

Shaw

(1995). Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1042-1054.

Batson

C. D.

Polycarpou

M. P.

Harmon-Jones

Imhoff

H. J.

Mitchener

E. C.

Bednar

L. L.

, et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Blakemore

J. E. O.

(2003). Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn’t look like girls, and girls shouldn’t act like boys. Sex Roles, 48, 411-419.

10.

Brown

(2016). Former DA Gil Garcetti: I never wanted Marcia Clark on OJ trial. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2016/04/10/former-da-gil-garcetti-i-never-wanted-marcia-clark-on-oj-trial/

11.

Cartwright

Harary

(1956). A generalization of Heider’s theory. Psychological Review, 63, 277-292.

12.

Chiao

J. Y.

Mathur

V. A.

(2010). Intergroup empathy: How does race affect empathic neural responses? Current Biology, 20, R478-R480.

13.

Chin

(2012). Sentencing: A role for empathy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1561-1584.

14.

Cikara

Botvinick

M. M.

Fiske

S. T.

(2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306-313.

15.

Cikara

Bruneau

E. G.

Saxe

(2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 149-153.

16.

Cikara

Bruneau

Van Bavel

Saxe

(2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110-125.

17.

Colby

(2012). In defense of judicial empathy. Minnesota Law Review, 96, Article 1944.

18.

Davis

T. L.

Liddell

D. L.

(2002). Getting inside the house: The effectiveness of a rape prevention program for college fraternity men. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 35-50.

19.

Decety

Lewis

K. L.

Cowell

J. M.

(2015). Specific electrophysiological components disentangle affective sharing and empathic concern in psychopathy. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114, 493-504.

20.

Deitz

S. R.

Blackwell

K. T.

Daley

P. C.

Bentley

B. J.

(1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384.

21.

De Judicibus

McCabe

M. P

. (2001). Blaming the target of sexual harassment: Impact of gender role, sexist attitudes, and work role. Sex Roles, 44, 401-417.

22.

De Waal

F. B

. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300.

23.

Dovidio

J. F.

Johnson

J. D.

Gaertner

S. L.

Pearson

A. R.

Saguy

Ashburn-Nardo

(2010). Empathy and intergroup relations. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior (pp. 393-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

24.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

25.

Eccles

J. S.

Jacobs

J. E.

Harold

R. D.

(1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201.

26.

Forbes

G. B.

Jobe

R. L.

White

K. B.

Bloesch

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

(2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52, 165-173.

27.

Frank

R. H.

(1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York: W. W. Norton.

28.

Gowa

(1999). Ballots and bullets: The elusive democratic peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

29.

Gracia

Herrero

(2007). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes toward reporting domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 737-752.

30.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.

31.

Heilman

M. E.

Chen

J. J.

(2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431-441.

32.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

(2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 664-667.

33.

Hein

Silani

Preuschoff

Batson

C. D.

Singer

(2010.). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members’ suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68, 149-160.

34.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.

35.

Henry

P. J.

Reyna

(2007). Value judgments: The impact of perceived value violations on American political attitudes. Political Psychology, 28, 273-298.

36.

Hoogland

Schurtz

D. R.

Combs

D. J. Y.

Powell

C. A. J.

Smith

R. H.

(2012, February). Enjoying bad news and suffering good news: In-group identification and the joys of Schadenfreude and the sorrows of Glückschmerz. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Diego, CA.

37.

Jacobs

J. E.

Eccles

J. S.

(1992). The impact of mothers’ gender-role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932-944.

38.

Johnson

J. D.

Ashburn-Nardo

(2014). Testing the “Black code”: Do Blacks withhold empathy from other Blacks with close White friends? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 369-376.

39.

Johnson

J. D.

Bushman

Dovidio

(2008). Support for harmful treatment and reduction of empathy towards Blacks: “Remnants” of stereotype activation involving Hurricane Katrina and “Lil’ Kim.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1506-1513.

40.

Johnson

J. D.

Kaiser

(2013). Identity denied: Does wealth reduce intragroup empathic responding among blacks? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 376-382.

41.

Klein

(2012). Advances in personal relationships: Responding to intimate violence against women: The role of informal networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Leach

C. W.

Spears

Branscombe

N. R.

Doosje

(2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 923-943.

43.

Mearsheimer

J. J.

(1990). Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security, 15(2), 15-56.

44.

Nelissen

R. M.

Zeelenberg

(2009). Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt and the functions of altruistic sanctions. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 543-553.

45.

Parker

(2015). A link in the chain: The role of friends and family in tackling domestic abuse. London, England: Citizens Advice.

46.

Parrott

D. J.

(2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforcement: Effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress. Journal of Personality, 77, 1137-1166.

47.

Parrott

D. J.

Zeichner

(2008). Determinants of anger and physical aggression based on sexual orientation: An experimental examination of hypermasculinity and exposure to male gender role violations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 891-901.

48.

Pashler

Wagenmakers

E. J.

(2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528-530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253

49.

Pavlou

Knowles

(2001). Domestic violence: Attributions, recommended punishments and reporting behaviour related to provocation by the victim. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 8, 6-85.

50.

Posner

(1981). The economics of justice. Boston, MA: Harvard University.

51.

Posner

Rasmussen

(1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19, 369-382.

52.

Rudman

L. A.

(1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.

53.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004-1010.

54.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.

55.

Shernock

(2005). Third party roles in intimate partner violence incidents and their effects on police response in a statewide rural jurisdiction. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 20, 22-39.

56.

Sibley

C. G.

Wilson

M. S.

(2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687-696.

57.

Skitka

L. J.

Bauman

C. W.

Sargis

E. G.

(2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895-917.

58.

Smith

Zhang

Basile

Merrick

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2015). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datasources/nisvs/index.html

59.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

R. L.

(1979). Comparison of masculine and feminine personality attributes and sex-role attitudes across age groups. Developmental Psychology, 15, 583-584.

60.

Strauss

(2010). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 7, 790-811.

61.

Swami

(2016). Domestic violence statistics. Retrieved from https://www.fijitimes.com/domestic-violence-statistics/

62.

Tomasetto

Alparone

F. R.

Cadinu

(2011). Girls’ math performance under threat: Moderating role of mothers’ gender stereotypes. Developmental Psychology, 47, 943-949.

63.

Truman

D. M.

Tokar

D. M.

Fischer

A. R.

(1996). Dimensions of masculinity: Relations to date rape supportive attitudes and sexual aggression in dating situations. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 555-562.

64.

Wade

Brittan-Powell

(2001). Men’s attitudes toward race and gender equity: The importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits, and reference group identity dependence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 42-50.

65.

Witt

S. D.

(1997). Parental influence on children’s socialization to gender roles. Adolescence, 32, 253-259.

66.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en/