Judging the Severity of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Role of Situational Factors and Respondents’ Characteristics in Public Opinion

Abstract

Public perceptions of the severity of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) play a crucial role in its prevention. This study examines the impact of multiple factors related to the scenario and respondent characteristics on the perceived severity of IPVAW. To achieve this, a factorial survey design was implemented using a non-probability-based sample in Spain (N = 1007). The results indicate that 90.3% of respondents rated the scenario as severe. The perceived severity was influenced by both the details of the scenario and the characteristics of the respondents. These findings can inform the design of targeted awareness campaigns.

Keywords

factorial survey design intimate partner violence against women public opinion severity vignettes

Introduction

Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) represents a serious public health problem and a violation of women’s rights (World Health Organization, 2021). Global estimates indicate that one in four women (26%) report having experienced physical and/or sexual violence from a current or former partner at least once in their lives (World Health Organization, 2021). In Spain, recent figures reveal that among women who have or have had relationships with men, 32% have experienced psychological violence, and 14% have faced physical and/or sexual violence at some point in their lives (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 2020). Given its widespread nature and severe repercussions, identifying the factors that contribute, directly and indirectly, to perpetuating this form of violence is essential for the design of prevention and intervention strategies.

Public perspectives on violence against women in intimate relationships are strongly associated with condoning and perpetuating this form of abuse (Gracia et al., 2020). As Martín-Fernández et al. (2022) noted, “the degree to which this type of violence in intimate relationships is tolerated or accepted, perceived as serious and of public concern, and thus deemed worthy of personal or institutional involvement, contributes to creating a social climate in which IPVAW can be facilitated or deterred” (p. 110). A series of factors have been associated with social attitudes toward IPVAW, including the acceptability of certain violent behaviors, social perceptions about the prevalence and severity of this form of violence, and victim-blaming attitudes (Gracia et al., 2020). Of these, the perceived severity of IPVAW has received the least attention. However, the recognition of violence plays an important role; if IPVAW is only identified as such in instances of extreme or repeated violence, it risks normalizing subtler forms of abuse, potentially leading to a lack of involvement of individuals who are aware of this situation or even victims being hesitant to seek help (Leon et al., 2021).

With the aim of advancing the literature in this area, this study analyzes how realistic IPVAW scenarios are perceived in terms of their severity. Using an experimental design, we examined the potential effects of multiple contextual factors and personal characteristics on the judgments of respondents.

Factors Influencing the Perceived Severity of IPVAW

Influence of IPVAW Episode Characteristics on Severity Perceptions

Both the type of violence and its frequency have been found to be associated with the perceived severity of aggressions. It is well established that physical violence is regarded as more severe than psychological violence (Aizpurua & O’Connell, 2021; Hammock et al., 2015). This holds true even when comparing low levels of physical abuse with extremely severe psychological violence and controlling behaviors (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008a; 2008b). Regarding abuse frequency, perceptions of severity intensify with the perceived recurrence of the violence, indicating that more frequent incidents are deemed more serious (Dennison & Thompson, 2011; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005).

Other factors analyzed in the literature are those related to the perpetrator and the victim. A study by Witte et al. (2015) with U.S. college students found that when the perpetrator was believed to be under the influence of alcohol, respondents perceived the aggression as less severe compared to situations where the perpetrator was not intoxicated. Differences in the judgments of respondents have also been found depending on the events that preceded the aggression. For instance, episodes of IPVAW are justified to a greater extent when the aggression follows a female infidelity (Baldry & Winkel, 2008). Additionally, when women admit to infidelity, bystanders’ perceptions and reactions towards IPVAW incidents tend to be more negative (Pagliaro et al., 2020).

Immigration status, race, and ethnicity have all received little attention in IPVAW research. While previous experimental studies with college student samples have identified race as a significant correlate of judgments about IPVAW (Esqueda & Harrison, 2005; Harrison & Esqueda, 2000), to our knowledge, no studies have analyzed the effect of both the victims’ and perpetrators’ national origins on judgments about the perceived severity of IPVAW incidents. A notable exception is Taylor and Sorenson’s study (2005) with college students, which found no evidence of ethnic bias in judgments of responsibility pertaining to IPVAW incidents.

The effect of the gender of both victims and perpetrators on the perceived severity of aggressions has been extensively researched. Studies consistently show that aggressions directed at women are perceived as more severe than those directed at men (Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019; Zapata-Calvente & Megías, 2017). However, the pervasiveness of gender stereotypes has been underexplored within this area of research. This highlights the importance of examining factors tied to gender roles and associated with an increased risk of experiencing IPVAW, such as the distribution of financial power within relationships.

Respondents’ Characteristics and Their Perceptions of IPVAW Severity

The most extensively studied respondent-level factor in perceptions about the severity of IPVAW is gender, with most studies showing that women perceive violent behaviors as more serious than men (Ermer et al., 2017; Hutchinson, 2012). Several explanations have been proposed for this discrepancy, including the hypothesis that women ascribe greater severity to IPVAW cases because they more readily identify with female victims (Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019). Another explanation, Merrill’s Social Psychology Theory, posits that due to gender socialization, women exhibit a strong interpersonal orientation, focusing on others’ wellbeing and paying greater attention to others’ emotions (Merril, 1996). Empirical findings, however, remain inconclusive, with some studies reporting no association between gender and the perceived severity of IPVAW (Capezza et al., 2017; Sylaska & Walters, 2014).

Regarding age and education, evidence indicates that younger and more educated individuals tend to perceive IPVAW episodes as more severe (for a review, see Gracia et al., 2020). Some studies have also explored the role of ideological variables, such as political conservatism, since conservative ideologies lean toward traditional gender beliefs (Kposowa & Ezzat, 2016). The severity of violent behaviors is also perceived differently based on religiosity, with religious participants often viewing them as less severe than their secular counterparts (Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019). Another finding that emerges from the literature is that single individuals tend to rate violence as more severe than those who are married or living with a partner (Follingstad et al., 2004). However, findings related to these factors are relatively limited, especially when compared to gender, where the evidence is robust.

In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, sexism is another well-established factor associated with the perceived severity of IPVAW incidents. A study conducted by Zapata-Calvente (2017) with college students in Spain found that individuals who scored higher on hostile sexism minimized the severity of IPVAW to a greater extent than those scoring lower on hostile sexism. Supporting this, another study by Martín-Fernández et al. (2022) showed a relationship between sexism and the perceived severity of IPVAW, showing that respondents perceiving higher levels of severity presented lower levels of hostile sexism (Martín-Fernández et al., 2022).

The acceptance of myths about IPVAW has also been associated with different dimensions of violence against women (Flood & Pease, 2009; Megías et al., 2018) and sexism (León & Aizpurúa, 2021). However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined the role of these myths in the perceived severity of IPVAW when multiple characteristics of the incidents are manipulated.

Experiencing violence in intimate relationships is also linked to perceptions of psychological and physical aggression. Dennison & Thompson, 2011 found that prior exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) played a significant role in determining whether the described behavior was illegal and caused harm. Hammock et al. (2015) argue that individuals may be more likely to recognize the actual or potential harm of demeaning or controlling behaviors after experiencing them. This hypothesis is consistent with the results of Vázquez et al. (2019), which indicated that women in the European Union who had experienced IPVAW and/or knew other victims were more likely to perceive IPVAW as a frequent phenomenon in their countries. Similarly, Vives-Cases et al. (2018) found that respondents who did not know any victims of IPVAW showed a higher acceptance of such violence; and Gracia & Herrero, 2006 reported that men who knew victims exhibited lower levels of IPVAW acceptability. At the same time, higher acceptability of IPVAW has been associated with a lower perceived severity of this form of violence (for a review, see Gracia et al., 2020).

Evolution of IPVAW Perception and Legislation in Spain

To properly contextualize the study of public views on IPVAW in Spain, it is important to consider the country’s socio-political environment over the past several decades. Under Franco’s dictatorship (1939‒1975), women’s rights were significantly constrained, and a series of restrictive laws were enacted. Notably, the Marital Power Act permitted husbands to “correct” their wives and forced women to comply with their husbands’ orders. These conditions led to a normalization of IPVAW, as it was not classified as a crime and failed to be acknowledged as a societal issue.

Following Franco’s death, the situation in Spain progressively changed. The Spanish feminist movement played a pivotal role in bringing attention to violence against women, incorporating this form of violence into the political and public agenda. The approval of the Constitution further guaranteed the full protection of women’s rights. These achievements, coupled with the establishment of the governmental ‘Women’s Institute’ in 1983, fostered a range of actions and policies aimed at improving women’s lives and advocating for gender equality. This included legislative changes and the establishment of prevention and support programs for battered women.

These and other advances have established Spain’s legal framework for safeguarding women from IPVAW as one of the most progressive and pioneering in Europe. This legal framework grants a wide range of labor rights and offers complimentary legal assistance, psychological services, and certain economic rights (Gonzalo, 2009). There has also been a marked increase in the societal acknowledgement of IPVAW as a pressing social issue, with an expansion of specialized services for victims (for an in-depth review, see Ferrer-Pérez & Bosch-Fiol, 2014). However, Spanish society has seen increasing polarization around gender issues in recent years. Antifeminism and traditional gender views are notably present in the ideological foundation of populist, radical right-wing parties. These parties propagate the notion that IPV is gender-neutral, effectively denying the ubiquity of IPVAW and dismissing it as an ideological construct. This perspective might have had tangible effects, with a recent study in Spain showing that one in five male youths denies the existence of IPVAW (Centro Reina Sofía, 2021).

Current Study

The perceived severity of partner violence against women has emerged as a critical area of research given its close relationship with the acceptability and public responses to this form of violence (Martín-Fernández et al., 2022). To advance the literature in this field, the current study analyzes the potential impact of multiple factors surrounding the scenario and the personal characteristics of the respondents on the perceived severity of IPVAW.

To achieve this, we employed a factorial survey design, which offers deeper insights into judgment and decision factors compared to single broad questions (Auspurg & Hinz, 2015). Moreover, situational descriptions with varying dimensions, as the ones used in this study, tend to result in more subtle questioning; therefore, survey responses might be less affected by social desirability (Walzenbach, 2019). This is particularly relevant given a recent study suggesting that in more egalitarian countries, among which Spain could be placed (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023), respondents might feel a stronger obligation to answer by avoiding the stigma associated with downplaying the severity of IPVAW (Karlsson et al., 2020).

Due to the limited attention this field of research has received in the literature, we propose the following research questions:

1. How do specific circumstances surrounding episodes of IPVAW (i.e., the situation preceding the aggression, the type of violence exerted by the perpetrator, the frequency of aggressions, the national origin of the couple, financial power dynamics, and the justifying causes of the abuse) affect their perceived severity?

2. Which sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, religiosity, political orientation) and attitudinal factors (e.g., sexist beliefs, acceptance of IPV myths, acceptability of IPVAW) of the respondents influence the perceived severity of IPVAW cases?

Based on previous studies, we expect that the characteristics surrounding the IPVAW incidents will affect respondents’ perceptions of their severity. Specifically, we hypothesize that:

H₁: Scenarios involving infidelity will be rated as less severe.

H₂: Scenarios describing physical and sexual violence will be rated as more severe than those describing controlling behaviors.

H₃: Scenarios describing frequent aggressions will result in more severe ratings than those describing the aggression for the first time.

H₄: Individuals scoring higher on sexism will perceive IPVAW episodes as less severe.

H₅: Individuals who indicate that IPVAW is sometimes acceptable and/or not always punishable will perceive IPVAW episodes as less severe.

H₆: Women will perceive IPVAW episodes as more severe than men.

Method

Data Collection and Participants

Data for this study was collected online between January 7 and 29, 2019, using the Netquest panel in Spain.¹ Quotas for gender, age, and habitat size were used to achieve a sample distribution similar to the Spanish population. The final sample consisted of 1007 individuals (51.1% women; M = 45.37 years old). The questionnaire was completed by 92.3% of the panelists invited, who received non-cash incentives for participation.

The questionnaire was pretested from October 10 to 31, 2018, using expert reviews (further information is available in the Supplemental Material). The survey was self-administered in Spanish and included 51 questions measuring attitudes and perceptions toward IPVAW, its victims, and perpetrators. On average, respondents took approximately 12 minutes to complete the survey.

Experimental Design and Measures

This study used a factorial survey design, wherein each respondent was presented with a single hypothetical situation, called vignette, depicting an episode of IPVAW. They were then asked to judge the situation by responding to a series of questions about the episode and the individuals involved (Auspurg & Hinz, 2015). Additional details on this experimental design and the six dimensions and levels manipulated in the vignettes are available in the Supplemental Material and serve as our independent variables.

The first dimension focused on the situation preceding the violence. Taking a series of scenarios from previous Demographic and Health Surveys as a starting point (Antai & Antai, 2009), we outlined four possible scenarios:² (1) the woman goes out with friends and does not return home to sleep; (2) one of the couple’s children experiences a domestic accident due to her neglect; (3) she declines to accompany him to the movies; and (4) she engages in sending messages of sexual content to another man.

The second dimension relates to the type of violence. Four behaviors were included to illustrate different types of violence: (1) physical (he grabs her arm strongly and pushes her against the sofa in their shared home); (2) emotional (he insults her and throws things all over the room); (3) sexual (he forces her to have sex with him when she does not want to); and (4) controlling behaviors (he persistently sends messages, insisting on knowing what she is doing, where she is, and with whom).

The third dimension focuses on the frequency of violent episodes. Three frequencies were included to examine variations in perceptions: (1) the incident has not happened before; (2) it has happened once; and (3) lately, it occurs frequently. The rationale for including this dimension was to examine the extent to which people perceive the scenario as more severe when the aggression had occurred before. With these three levels, we were also able to evaluate whether the severity varied when he was portrayed as a chronic abuser (lately, [the abuse] occurs frequently) as opposed to scenarios in which the aggression was depicted as occurring for the first time (has not happened before).

The fourth dimension addressed the national origin of the couple. Because prior research suggests that race can influence the acceptability of IPVAW (Vives-Cases et al., 2018), we explored whether national origins affect judgments about IPVAW situations. Four levels were defined: (1) both individuals are of Spanish origin; (2) both are foreign; (3) the woman is foreign while the man is Spanish; and (4) the woman is Spanish while the man is foreign. The decision to focus on national origin rather than race was influenced by cultural considerations, as most countries in the European Union do not collect race information in surveys or official records (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017).

The fifth dimension pertains to the financial power dynamics within the relationship, with four levels defined: (1) the woman has a higher salary than the man; (2) the man has a higher salary than the woman; (3) the woman does not have a paid job; and (4) the man does not have a paid job. According to “Resource Theory” (Blood & Wolfe, 1960), income is a tangible asset that serves as a negotiation tool, facilitating the exchange of power. In the context of romantic relationships, any imbalance in resources, such as income, can potentially lead to an imbalance of conjugal power, with the partner contributing more tangible resources presumed to have more power. This factor was included to analyze whether episodes in which victims defy traditional gender roles ‒men being the sole or main providers‒ are perceived as less severe.

The last dimension focused on the justifications for the abuse. Since previous research indicates that some characteristics of the perpetrators influence the perceived severity of IPVAW (Witte et al., 2015), four distinct narratives were built: (1) he is very temperamental and easily loses control; (2) he has problems with alcohol and drinks regularly; (3) he is very jealous; and (4) a scenario where none of the above factors were specified.

A total of three thousand seventy-two unique vignettes were generated in Python by combining all levels across the six dimensions (4*4*4*4*4*3) using fsdesign .1.4.³ A sample vignette is provided in the Supplemental Material. Since the universe of possible vignettes (i.e., the sampling frame) was larger than the sample size, vignettes were randomly selected from the universe and assigned to respondents.⁴

Respondents’ Characteristics

Sociodemographic variables included gender, age (in intervals), education (ranging from no studies or primary studies to master’s or doctorate), political orientation (measured on a scale ranging from 0–left to 10–right), religiosity (religious vs. non-religious), and marital status (single; married; separated, divorced, widowed). Respondents were also asked if they knew a victim of IPVAW within their close circle (1 = yes). Four questions measuring respondents’ own experiences of victimization within a relationship were also included. Specifically, respondents were asked if they had experienced physical, emotional, sexual violence, and/or controlling behaviors during their lifetime (1 = yes).

Additionally, three attitudinal variables were included in the analysis: a scale measuring sexism, an index evaluating the acceptance of IPV myths, and a single item assessing the acceptability of IPVAW.

Classical and Modern Sexism Scale

This instrument was originally developed and validated by Ekehammar et al. (2000) in the Scandinavian context.⁵ Although the original scale comprised 15 items, in the current study, one item was excluded because it did not load in the same factor as the others.⁶ The remaining 14-item scale showed good internal consistency (α = .83), with factor loadings ranging from .31 to .75 (Eigenvalue = 4.99). Each item was measured on a 5-point agree/disagree scale, with six items reverse-coded. Responses were averaged to create a sexism index (range 1–5), where higher scores indicated more sexist attitudes.

Myths About Intimate Partner Violence (α = .71)

This ad hoc scale consisted of seven items examining myths about IPV. The wording of the items can be found in the Supplemental Material. Each item was measured on a 5-point agree/disagree scale and then dichotomized to distinguish between those who agreed with the statement and those who did not. Agreeing responses were counted to create an indicator of myth acceptance (range 0–7).

Acceptability of IPVAW

This was evaluated using an item featured in previous studies (European Commission, 2010, 2016): “In your opinion, IPVAW is: (1) unacceptable in all circumstances and always punishable; (2) unacceptable in all circumstances but not always punishable; (3) acceptable in certain circumstances; and (4) acceptable in all circumstances. A dummy variable was created to distinguish between respondents who viewed IPVAW as always unacceptable and punishable, and those who indicated otherwise.⁶

Dependent Variable

Perceived Severity of IPVAW

After reading the vignette, respondents were asked, “How would you rate the severity of this case?.” This item was measured using a 4-point scale ranging from “not severe at all” to “very severe.” Due to the highly asymmetric distribution, the categories “not severe at all” (n = 8) and “slightly severe” (n = 90) were combined.

Analytic Strategy

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived severity of IPVAW episodes and the factors influencing respondents’ perceptions. We first examined the distribution of all study variables. To determine whether the six factors manipulated in the experiment and the respondents’ characteristics influenced the perceived severity of the abuse, an ordinal regression model was estimated. The Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) fell within appropriate limits, suggesting no multicollinearity problems (1.01 ≤ VIF ≤ 1.82). The assumption of proportional odds was met, indicating that the slopes were constant across levels of the outcome variable (Brant X² = 41.93, p = .304).

Due to the presence of missing data in some of the variables, multiple imputation procedures were applied. The proportion of missing data was generally low, with 252 out of 1007 records (25.0%) being incomplete. The variables knowing victims of IPVAW (11.9%), political orientation (9.1%), religiosity (5.6%), having experienced emotional violence (3.5%), controlling behaviors (3.5%), physical violence (3.1%), and sexual violence (3.1%) were the only ones with missing observations. Multiple imputation procedures were applied to generate and analyze 20 multiply imputed datasets, and incomplete variables were imputed under fully conditional specification using Stata 16.

Results

Summary of the Study Variables

Table 1 presents the summary statistics for the variables used in the study. Nearly half of the respondents indicated knowing victims of IPVAW (46.2%). Regarding personal victimization, approximately one in four respondents reported experiencing controlling behaviors (27.6%) and/or emotional violence (26.3%) during their lifetime. Meanwhile, one in ten indicated having experienced physical violence (10.8%), and 6.2% sexual violence. Respondents tended to disagree with sexist statements (M = 2.35, on a scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”), and exhibited low acceptance of IPV myths (M = 1.15, range 0–7). Almost nine in ten participants (87.4%) indicated that IPVAW is unacceptable in all circumstances and should always be punishable.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Variable	% (n)	M (SD)
Gender
Men	48.9% (493)
Women	51.1% (514)
Age
18–24	11.8% (119)
25–34	15.3% (154)
35–44	22.3% (225)
45–54	20.3% (204)
55–65	17.2% (173)
+66	13.1% (132)
Education
Without education or primary education	4.3% (43)
High school or technical school	40.7% (410)
College graduate	40.2% (405)
Master’s or doctorate	14.8% (149)
Political orientation (0 Left – 10 Right)		4.05 (2.55)
Religiosity
Religious	54.9% (522)
Non-religious	45.1% (429)
Marital status
Single	37.9% (382)
Married	51.5% (519)
Separated, divorced, and widowed	10.5% (106)
Knows victim(s) of IPVAW	46.2% (410)
Victimization experiences
Physical violence	10.8% (105)
Emotional violence	26.3% (256)
Sexual violence	6.2% (60)
Controlling behaviors	27.6% (268)
Sexism (α = .83) (range 1–5)		2.35 (0.45)
Myths about IPV (α = .71) (range 0–7)		1.15 (1.23)
Acceptability of IPVAW
Unacceptable in all circumstances and should always be punishable	87.4% (880)
Not always unacceptable, nor should it always be punishable	12.6% (127)

Note. M: Mean; SD: Standard Deviation. Descriptive statistics were computed before multiple imputation. For this reason, in some variables, the sum of the observations ≠ 1,007.

Perceived Severity of IPVAW Episodes and its Correlates

Nine in ten respondents (90.3%) indicated that the episode of violence depicted in the vignette was severe, with 31.6% labeling it as very severe and 58.7% as severe. Conversely, one in ten respondents (9.7%) perceived the scenario as slightly or not severe at all.

Table 2 displays the results of the ordinal regression model examining the perceived severity of IPVAW. Three characteristics of the episode ‒type of violence, frequency of aggressions, and justifying causes of the abuse‒ were significant in the model. The perceived severity was higher in scenarios describing sexual (OR = 5.14, p ≤ .001), physical (OR = 2.29, p ≤ .001), and emotional violence (OR = 1.72, p = .005), compared to those depicting controlling behaviors. Moreover, scenarios describing repeated abuse were perceived as more severe than those in which the aggression occurred for the first time (see Table 2). In addition, scenarios stating that the perpetrator was very temperamental (OR = 2.00, p ≤ .001), had alcohol problems (OR = 1.50, p = .037), or was very jealous (OR = 1.48, p = .045) resulted in greater perceived severity compared to those not mentioning these characteristics of the abuser.

Table 2.

Correlates of Perceived Severity of IPVAW Episodes (Ordinal Regression Model).

Variables	OR	[95% CI]
Situation (ref. She declines to accompany him to the movies)
She goes out with friends and does not return home to sleep	1.06	[0.73, 1.54]
One of the couple’s children experiences a domestic accident	0.93	[0.65, 1.35]
She engages in sending messages of sexual content to another man	0.88	[0.61, 1.29]
Type of violence (ref. Controlling behaviors)
Physical	2.29***	[1.56, 3.35]
Emotional	1.72**	[1.17, 2.52]
Sexual	5.14***	[3.45, 7.65]
Frequency (ref. Never happened before)
It has happened once before	1.39*	[1.00, 1.93]
Lately it occurs frequently	1.92***	[1.38, 2.67]
Origin (ref. Both are of Spanish origin)
Both are foreign	1.01	[0.70, 1.45]
She is foreign and he is Spanish	0.86	[0.60, 1.24]
She is Spanish and he is foreign	1.21	[0.83, 1.75]
Financial power in the relationship (ref. He has a higher salary than her)
She has a higher salary than him	0.84	[0.58, 1.22]
She does not have a paid job	1.02	[0.71, 1.49]
He does not have a paid job	0.99	[0.68, 1.45]
Justification (ref. None)
He is very temperamental	2.00***	[1.37, 2.91]
He has problems with alcohol	1.50*	[1.03, 2.20]
He is very jealous	1.48*	[1.01, 2.18]
Gender (Women)	1.19	[0.88, 1.60]
Age (ref. 18–24)
25–34	1.47	[0.87, 2.49]
35–44	1.47	[0.85, 2.53]
45–54	1.42	[0.81, 2.51]
55–65	1.91*	[1.05, 3.46]
66+	0.97	[0.50, 1.86]
Education (ref. Without studies or primary studies)
High school or technical school	0.88	[0.44, 1.75]
College graduate	0.96	[0.48, 1.94]
Master’s or doctorate	1.10	[0.51, 2.35]
Marital status (ref. Single)
Married	1.21	[0.83, 1.75]
Separated, divorced or widowed	1.72*	[1.00, 2.95]
Political orientation (Left – Right)	0.97	[0.91, 1.03]
Religiosity (Religious)	0.84	[0.61, 1.14]
Knowing victim(s) of IPVAW	1.48*	[1.09, 2.06]
Victimization experiences (ref. No victim)
Physical violence	1.08	[0.64, 1.83]
Emotional violence	0.72	[0.48, 1.10]
Sexual violence	0.50*	[0.28, 0.92]
Controlling behaviors	1.11	[0.76, 1.63]
Sexism (α = .83)	0.20***	[0.13, 0.29]
Myths about IPV (α = .71)	0.95	[0.85, 1.07]
Acceptability of IPVAW (Sometimes acceptable/ not always punishable)	0.44***	[0.28, 0.68]
Cut 1	-4.99	[-6.27, -3.72]
Cut 2	-1.22	[-2.45, 0.01]
F	6.03***
N	1,007
Brant test (Proportional odds)	X² = 41.93, p = .304

Note. OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.

Regarding the characteristics of the respondents, several factors were associated with the perceived severity of the episodes, including age, marital status, sexism, having experienced intimate partner sexual violence, knowing victims of IPVAW, and acceptability of IPVAW. Respondents aged 55‒65 perceived the episodes as more severe compared to the youngest group (18–24 years old) (OR = 1.91, p = .045). Those who were separated, divorced, or widowed indicated greater severity of the episodes compared to single respondents (OR = 1.72, p = .048).

In contrast, respondents with higher scores on sexism were less likely to rate the scenario as severe or very severe (OR = 0.20, p ≤ .001). Respondents who reported having experienced sexual violence perceived the scenario as less severe compared to those not reporting this type of violence (OR = 0.50, p = .025). Conversely, respondents who knew victims of IPVAW were more likely to report greater severity of the abuse (OR = 1.48, p = .014). Finally, individuals who considered IPVAW as sometimes acceptable and/or not always punishable were less likely to rate the scenario as severe or very severe (OR = 0.44, p ≤ .001).

Discussion

This study used vignettes depicting scenarios of IPVAW to examine their perceived severity and the factors influencing respondents’ judgments. These findings contribute to the literature by expanding the number of manipulated variables and the number of levels within these variables while portraying complex and realistic situations of violence. Another contribution of this study is the inclusion of several respondents’ characteristics not analyzed before in the literature on perceived severity of IPVAW, such as the acceptance of IPV myths. By identifying additional factors associated with heightened perceptions of severity, we sought to broaden the understanding of how violence against women by intimate partners is recognized. These findings have relevant implications for developing prevention and intervention strategies aimed at eliminating violence against women.

Perceived Severity of IPVAW Episodes

The results suggest a general consensus among respondents that episodes of violence were severe. This prevalent perception of severity across experimental conditions is encouraging and might be linked to the heightened awareness and increased visibility of IPVAW in Spain. This contrasts with earlier studies showing that intimate partner violence against women was deemed severe only in cases of extreme or recurrent violence (Gracia & Herrero, 2006).

However, our results may also be influenced by the social desirability bias, more prevalent in egalitarian countries (Karlsson et al., 2020). As noted by Karlsson et al. (2020), “it is plausible that respondents in countries with high GEI [Gender Egalitarian Index] would respond that they find IPVAW to be very severe because it is a societal norm, and because it corresponds to a gender-equal self-image, even if this does not correspond with their actions” (p. 11). According to the Gender Equality Index 2023, Spain ranks as the fourth most egalitarian country in the European Union (GEI = 76.4), preceded only by Denmark (GEI = 77.8), the Netherlands (GEI = 77.9), and Sweden (GEI = 82.2). Notably, Spain’s scores are well above the average GEI of 70.2 in the European Union (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023).

Factors Associated with the Perceived Severity of IPVAW Episodes

A noteworthy finding is the increased perceived severity associated with instances of physical, emotional, and sexual violence compared to controlling behaviors. This result provides support for our second hypothesis and is generally consistent with previous research. These studies highlight that while controlling behaviors are the most frequent form of violence (Walker et al., 2017) and have serious implications (Saeed Ali et al., 2014), they often fail to be identified as violence (Follingstad & Rogers, 2014; Rollero et al., 2019). These behaviors are frequently normalized and remain unnoticed or unchallenged by both the public and the victims, partly due to the high frequency with which they occur (Nardi-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Ugnė et al., 2019). In fact, some studies have found that controlling behaviors are often misconstrued as manifestations of concern and affection rather than recognized as forms of violence (Estébanez & Vázquez, 2013). Controlling behaviors, however, are a form of violence and are associated with other types of violence, such as emotional and physical abuse (Aizpurua et al., 2017).

The frequency of aggressions emerged as a significant factor influencing the perceived severity of IPVAW, with recurring aggressions perceived as more severe (H₃). This finding aligns with previous research (Taylor & Sorenson, 2005), suggesting that perceptions of IPVAW are influenced by assessments of whether the violence is likely to occur again. Dennison and Thompson (2011) noted that when encountering a first-time occurrence, respondents could be uncertain about the probability of violence reoccurring. However, when the aggression occurred for the third time, the perceived likelihood of repetition considerably increased. Therefore, respondents may be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in the first instance, which could help explain why they evaluated this situation as less severe, but recurring incidents establish an anticipated pattern of violence, rendering these situations more severely perceived.

Regarding the causes justifying the abuse, perceived severity was higher when the perpetrator was depicted as having problems with alcohol consumption, being jealous, or highly temperamental. This aligns with previous research indicating that IPVAW perpetrated by men who abuse alcohol tends to be both more frequent and severe than that perpetrated by men who do not have alcohol problems (Graham et al., 2011; Testa & Derrick, 2014). Respondents, therefore, might anticipate that abusers under the influence of alcohol will become aggressive and violent, leading to more severe situations of violence. A similar rationale may apply to scenarios featuring a jealous or temperamental perpetrator; respondents might deduce that such traits are likely to escalate the severity of violence.

The study found associations between most respondent characteristics, both sociodemographic and attitudinal, and the perceived severity of the episodes. Specifically, respondents aged 55–65 perceived the episodes as more severe compared to the youngest group (18–24 years old). This challenges the notion that older individuals hold more traditional views, more often normalizing violence within intimate relationships (Worden & Carlson, 2005). This age effect is concerning since it might reflect that recent awareness-raising initiatives in the Spanish education system may not be effectively reaching younger generations. It might also reflect the rise and appeal of extreme right-wing politics among Spanish youth, requiring tailored awareness efforts and further exploration into why younger groups perceive IPVAW as less severe. Future longitudinal analyses are warranted to disentangle age, cohort, and period effects.

The finding regarding marital status runs contrary to the literature. While previous studies suggest that single individuals tend to view violent behaviors as more severe, likely due to less experience with intense conflict within a committed relationship (Follingstad et al., 2004), our results show that separated, divorced, and widowed individuals perceived the episodes as more severe than their single counterparts. This discrepancy may stem from the varying experiences between single and previously committed individuals, suggesting that the perception of IPVAW severity could be influenced by one’s history within intimate relationships. Some cultural differences might also contribute to explaining this inconsistency, since the U.S., where most of the studies within this area have been conducted, has higher rates of marriage than Spain.

Another well-established finding that replicates in our research, providing support to H₄, is that sexism is associated with a diminished perception of severity (Herrero et al., 2017; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2020). As Rollero et al. (2019) point out, sexist attitudes play an important role in the recognition of violence against women, with individuals exhibiting higher levels of hostile sexism being less likely to identify behaviors, such as emotional abuse, as violent. In the current study, most of the items comprising the sexism scale represented hostile sexism (e.g., “a man’s work is more important than a woman’s”, “I prefer a male boss to a female”), which could explain why sexism was significant in our model. This finding highlights the relevance of sexist ideologies in perpetuating IPVAW, serving as the foundation upon which unequal gender relations are built and sustained.

Our findings reveal an unexpected pattern: individuals who reported sexual victimization were less likely to perceive the scenario as severe. This contrasts with the study by Follingstad et al. (2004), showing that individuals who reported psychological victimization regarded such aggression as more severe than those who did not identify as victims. Our results suggest a potential link between sexual victimization and a diminished perception of IPVAW severity. This highlights the potentially increased vulnerability of this group, which might perceive episodes as less severe due to their personal experiences of victimization. However, it is important to note that the prevalence of sexual victimization in our study was low, reducing the reliability of our estimates. Further research with larger sample sizes is necessary to analyze the impact of individual forms of victimization as well as their cumulative effect on the perception of IPVAW severity.

Our results reveal that knowing IPVAW victims is linked to an increased perception of severity. This is consistent with previous research, indicating that individuals acquainted with victims are less tolerant of IPVAW (Gracia et al., 2020; Vives-Cases et al., 2018) and perceive it as a more prevalent issue (Vázquez et al., 2019). Baldry and Pagliaro (2014) have suggested that relationships with victims of IPVAW could heighten awareness of the severe repercussions of such violence.

Our results also indicate that individuals who consider IPVAW to be acceptable rated the scenarios as less severe than those who believed that IPVAW is always unacceptable and punishable (H₅). This finding appears plausible, as considering some forms of violence as acceptable can shape perceptions, leading to the normalization or trivialization of certain aggressions.

Contrary to our expectations (H₆), gender was not a significant variable in our model. This result suggests that the effect of gender might diminish when controlling for other gender-related variables. Therefore, when accounting for these factors, the direct effect of gender becomes non-significant. Overall, our findings suggest that perceptions of IPVAW might be primarily shaped by broader social norms and beliefs about gender, as well as social ideologies concerning male dominance, rather than by gender or other sociodemographic variables alone.

Finally, we did not find evidence that IPV myth acceptance was related to the perceived severity of the episodes, despite earlier studies indicating a link between higher endorsement of romantic love myths, justifications of violence, and severity perception (Redondo et al., 2011). This area calls for further exploration in future studies to examine the impact of various misconceptions on public attitudes towards IPV.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers valuable insights, it is not without its limitations. A primary constraint is the reliance on a non-probabilistic panel, which restricts the generalizability of the findings. Despite the external validity constraints, the use of a factorial survey in this study enhances internal validity. This is due to the experimental setup and the increased control available to the researchers, fostering more confidence in the causal effect of variables manipulated in the vignettes (Auspurg et al., 2019).

Despite the study’s design enabling the exploration of multiple dimensions and levels, it was restricted by limited statistical power. Nevertheless, the risk of encountering an incorrect sign (Type S error) was very low (<1%), as was the exaggeration ratio (<1.8) (Stefanelli & Lukac, 2020). Future studies could increase their statistical power by increasing their sample sizes, allocating multiple vignettes to each respondent, and/or reducing the number of levels for each dimension.

Additionally, it should be noted that some respondents may not have fully assimilated the information presented to them due to the complexity of the vignettes, which included a substantial amount of information (Auspurg & Hinz, 2015). Given the extensive number of dimensions and levels manipulated within the vignettes, there are potential interactions among them that remain unexplored in this study. This underscores the need to further investigate the roles of these dimensions and levels and their interrelationships. It is essential for subsequent studies to not only refine and identify new predictors but also to collect relevant variables to ensure that models are correctly specified. Incorporating qualitative methodologies can provide valuable insights into the complex relationships between variables.

Other limitations pertain to the measures used, including the operationalization of our dependent variable, which was evaluated using a single item on a 4-point scale. Furthermore, the scale used to measure myth acceptance was developed ad hoc and did not undergo prior validation. Validated instruments for measuring this construct in the Spanish context have since become available (Megías et al., 2018), but they were not accessible when we designed and pre-tested our questionnaire. Furthermore, the items used to assess IPV did not allow us to disentangle the frequency or severity of the different forms of violence, whether they occurred simultaneously or were spaced out, or to assess whether they took place in past or in current relationships.

Finally, the topic covered in this study is sensitive and subject to the influence of social desirability. While the self-administered nature of the survey is generally acknowledged to mitigate this source of bias, the reported severity of the episode may still be overestimated. This underscores the importance of further exploration into best practices for minimizing measurement error, particularly when researching topics of a sensitive nature.

Conclusion and Implications

The current study reveals that most respondents perceive IPVAW to be severe, irrespective of the situation preceding the aggression or the type of violence involved. This finding is encouraging, as it suggests a broad societal recognition of various forms of IPVAW. If only extreme or repeated instances of violence were acknowledged, it would imply a level of acceptance for less severe forms, thereby contributing to a social climate that facilitates IPVAW (Martín-Fernández et al., 2022).

While these findings might suggest an increased awareness of IPVAW in Spanish society, the study also reveals that certain forms of violence are perceived as less severe than others. Specifically, controlling behaviors are associated with lower perceived severity than sexual, physical, and emotional violence. Understanding whether specific behaviors are recognized as violence is paramount in the development of interventions aimed at increasing public awareness of the potential harm of such behaviors and sending a message of zero tolerance for violence.

Along with the type of violence, it was found that both the circumstances surrounding the violent episode and certain characteristics of the respondents play a role in understanding the perceived severity of IPVAW. Instances of recurring aggression were perceived as more severe compared to those occurring for the first time. This might suggest that chronic aggressions are no longer normalized but should be interpreted with caution, as it may also imply that initial aggressions are not considered severe enough.

Another relevant finding is the association of sexual victimization with a lower perception of severity. This highlights the potential increased vulnerability of this group, which might perceive episodes as less severe due to their own victimization experiences. This difficulty in recognizing the severity of violent episodes could, in fact, increase their risk of victimization.

Finally, our findings underscore the need for public awareness campaigns based on empirical evidence and the practical implications of our findings, pinpointing areas where intervention would be beneficial. The implementation and outcomes of these measures should be evaluated to inform future iterations and the development of new practices.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Judging the Severity of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Role of Situational Factors and Respondents’ Characteristics in Public Opinion

Supplemental Material for Judging the Severity of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Role of Situational Factors and Respondents’ Characteristics in Public Opinion by Carmen M. Leon and Eva Aizpurua in Feminist Criminology

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the experts who participated in the pre-test for their insights on the questionnaire used in this study. We also extend our gratitude to Alberto Egido, the developer of “fsdesign,” a Python package for creating factorial survey designs. This open-access program has been instrumental in the design of our factorial survey experiment.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Carmen M. Leon

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Carmen M. Leon, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, in Spain. She is interested in the broad areas of violence against women, the effects of commercialised sex consumption, and survey research methods.

Eva Aizpurua, PhD, is a Research Director at NatCen. Prior to that, Eva worked as a Research Scientist on the Demography & Survey Science team at Meta, as a Research Fellow at the European Social Survey Headquarters and as a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Northern Iowa and Trinity College Dublin. She is currently serving as the Editor-in-Chief for Survey Practice.

References

Aizpurua

Copp

Ricarte

J. J.

Vázquez

(2017). Controlling behaviors and intimate partner violence among women in Spain: An examination of individual, partner, and relationship risk factors for physical and psychological abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723744

Aizpurua

O’Connell

(2021). Men’s psychological violence against women. In Shackelford

T. K.

(Ed), The Sage Handbook of Domestic Violence (pp. 98–112). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529742343

Antai

(2009). Collective violence and attitudes of women toward intimate partner violence: Evidence from the Niger Delta. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 9(12), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-698X-9-12

Auspurg

Hinz

(2015). Factorial survey experiments. Sage Publications Ltd.

Auspurg

Hinz

Walzenbach

(2019). Are factorial survey experiments prone to survey mode effects? In Lavrakas

Traugott

Kennedy

Holbrook

de Leeuw

West

(Eds), Experimental methods in survey research: Techniques that combine random sampling with random assignment (pp. 371–392). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119083771.ch19

Baldry

A. C.

Pagliaro

(2014). Helping victims of intimate partner violence: The influence of group norms among lay people and the police. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034844

Baldry

A. C.

Winkel

F. W.

(Eds) (2008). Intimate partner violence prevention and intervention: The risk assessment and management approach. Nova Science Publishers.

Blood

R. O.

Jr. Wolfe

D. M.

(1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of family living. Free Press Glencoe.

Capezza

N. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2008a). Factors associated with acceptance of psychological aggression against women. Violence Against Women, 14(6), 612–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208319004

10.

Capezza

N. M.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2008b). You can degrade but you can’t hit: Differences in perceptions of psychological versus physical aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507087957

11.

Capezza

N. M.

D’Intino

L. A.

Flynn

M. A.

Arriaga

X. B.

(2017). Perceptions of psychological abuse: The role of perpetrator gender, victim’s response, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), 1414–1436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517741215

12.

Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas . (2020). Macroencuesta de violencia contra la mujer 2019. https://violenciagenero.igualdad.gob.es/violenciaEnCifras/macroencuesta2015/pdf/Macroencuesta_2019_estudio_investigacion.pdf

13.

Centro Reina Sofía. (2021). Barómetro juventud y género 2021. Ideas, representaciones y experiencias de una realidad compleja. https://www.adolescenciayjuventud.org/publicacion/barometro-juventud-genero-2021/

14.

Dennison

S. M.

Thompson

C. M.

(2011). Intimate partner violence: The effect of gender and contextual factors on community perceptions of harm, and suggested victim and criminal justice responses. Violence & Victims, 26(3), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.347

15.

Dülmer

(2016). The factorial survey: Design selection and its impact on reliability and internal validity. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(2), 304–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115582269

16.

Ekehammar

Akrami

Araya

(2000). Development and validation of Swedish classical and modern sexism scales. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41(4), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00203

17.

Ermer

A. E.

Roach

A. L.

Coleman

Ganong

(2017). Deconstructing attitudes about intimate partner violence and bystander intervention: The roles of perpetrator gender and severity of aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 896–919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517737556

18.

Esqueda

C. W.

Harrison

L. A.

(2005). The influence of gender role stereotypes, the woman’s race, and level of provocation and resistance on domestic violence culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 53(11–12), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/11199s-005-8295-1

19.

Estébanez

Vázquez

(2013). La desigualdad de género y el sexismo en las redes sociales. Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco.

20.

European Institute for Gender Equality. (2023). Gender Equality Index. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2022

21.

European Commission. (2010). Special Eurobarometer 344: Domestic violence against women. http://transcena.ro/wp-content/uploads/Domestic-violence-against-women-report-Eurobarometer-2010.pdf

22.

European Commission. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 449: Gender-based violence. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2115

23.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2017). Second European Union minorities and discrimination survey. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8320df02-da39-11e7-a506-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search

24.

Ferrer-Pérez

V. A.

Bosch-Fiol

(2014). Gender violence as a social problem in Spain: Attitudes and acceptability. Sex Roles, 70(11–12), 506–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0322-z

25.

Flood

Pease

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

26.

Follingstad

D. R.

Helff

C. M.

Binford

R. V.

Runge

M. M.

White

J. D.

(2004). Lay persons’ versus psychologists’ judgments of psychologically aggressive actions by a husband and wife. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(8), 916–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504266229

27.

Follingstad

D. R.

Rogers

M. J.

(2014). The nature and prevalence of partner psychological abuse in a national sample of adults. Violence & Victims, 29(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.09-160

28.

Gonzalo

(2009). La aplicación de la ley de medidas de protección integral contra la violencia de género [The enforcement of the Act on Comprehensive Protection Measures against Gender Violence]. Participación Educativa, 11, 105–109.

29.

Gracia

Herrero

(2006). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(3), 759–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00288.x

30.

Gracia

Lila

Santirso

F. A.

(2020). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 25(2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000392

31.

Graham

Bernards

Wilsnack

S. C.

Gmel

(2011). Alcohol may not cause partner violence, but it seems to make it worse: A cross national comparison of the relationship between alcohol and severity of partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1503–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510370596

32.

Grigaitė

Karalius

Jankauskaitė

(2019). Between experience and social ‘norms’, identification and compliance: Economic and sexual intimate partner violence against women in Lithuania. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 3(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868019X15623411271876

33.

Hammock

G. S.

Richardson

D. S.

Williams

Janit

A. S.

(2015). Perceptions of psychological and physical aggression between heterosexual partners. Journal of Family Violence, 30(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9645-y

34.

Harrison

L. A.

Esqueda

C. W.

(2000). Effects of race and victim drinking on domestic violence attributions. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 1043–1057. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007040701889

35.

Herrero

Rodríguez

F. J.

Torres

(2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870

36.

Hutchinson

K. M.

(2012). Predictors of college students’ dating violence perceptions and help-seeking recommendations [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Akron.

37.

Karlsson

Wemrell

Merlo

Ivert

(2020). Intimate partner violence against women in the EU: A multilevel analysis of the contextual and individual impact on public perceptions. Women & Criminal Justice, 32(5), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2020.1835792

38.

Kposowa

A. J.

Aly Ezzat

(2016). Religiosity, conservatism, and acceptability of anti-female spousal violence in Egypt. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(12), 2525–2550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516660976

39.

Krosnick

J. A.

(1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

40.

León

C. M.

Aizpurúa

(2021). Tipologías basadas en la adhesión a los mitos sobre la violencia de género: Evidencias de un análisis de clases latentes. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 79(1), e179. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2021.79.1.19.135

41.

Leon

C. M.

Aizpurua

Rollero

(2021). None of my business? An experiment analyzing willingness to formally report incidents of intimate partner violence against women. Violence Against Women, 28(9), 2163–2185. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211025990

42.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Lila

(2022). Measuring perceived severity of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) among the general population and IPVAW offenders. Psychosocial Intervention, 31(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2022a8

43.

Megías

J. L.

Toro-García

Carretero-Dios

(2018). The acceptance of myths about intimate partner violence against women (AMIVAW) scale: Development and validation in Spanish and English. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 44–61. https://doi:10.1177/0361684317742638

44.

Merrill

G. S.

(1996). Ruling the exceptions: Same sex battering and domestic violence theory. In Renzetti

C. M.

Harvey Miley

(Eds), Violence in Gay and Lesbian Partnerships (pp. 9–23). Harrington Park Press.

45.

Nardi-Rodríguez

Pastor-Mira

M. A.

López-Roig

Ferrer-Pérez

(2018). Identifying beliefs behind boys’ use of mobile phones to monitor girlfriends and girls’ acceptance: A reasoned-action approach. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(7), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2017.1422600

46.

Pagliaro

Pacilli

M. G.

Baldry

A. C.

(2020). Bystanders’ reactions to intimate partner violence: An experimental approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1776031

47.

Redondo

Ramis

Girbis

Schubert

(2011). Attitudes on gender stereotypes and gender-based violence among youth. Daphne III programme: Youth4Youth: Empowering young people in preventing gender-based violence through peer education. https://medinstgenderstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/report_dapnhe-Spain_CREA.pdf

48.

Rollero

Bergagna

Tartaglia

(2019). What is violence? The role of sexism and social dominance orientation in recognizing violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), 11349–11366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888525

49.

Saeed Ali

Abbas

Ather

(2014). Associations of controlling behavior, physical and sexual violence with health symptoms. Journal of Women’s Health Care, 03(06), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0420.1000202

50.

Sánchez-Hernández

M. D.

Herrera-Enríquez

M. C.

Expósito

(2020). Controlling behaviors in couple relationships in the digital age: Acceptability of gender violence, sexism, and myths about romantic love. Psychosocial Intervention, 29(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a1

51.

Stefanelli

Lukac

(2020). Subjects, trials, and levels: Statistical power in conjoint experiments. https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/spkcy.html

52.

Sylaska

K. M.

Walters

A. S.

(2014). Testing the extent of the gender trap: College students’ perceptions of and reactions to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 70(3–4), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0344-1

53.

Taylor

C. A.

Sorenson

S. B.

(2005). Community-based norms about intimate partner violence: Putting attributions of fault and responsibility into context. Sex Roles, 53(7–8), 573–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7143-7

54.

Testa

Derrick

J. L.

(2014). A daily process examination of the temporal association between alcohol use and verbal and physical aggression in community couples. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 28(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032988

55.

Vázquez

Aizpurua

Copp

Ricarte

J. J.

(2019). Perceptions of violence against women in Europe: Assessing individual and country-level factors. European Journal of Criminology, 18(4), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819859462

56.

Vives-Cases

La Parra-Casado

Gil-González

Caballero

(2018). Acceptability of violence against women among the Roma population in Spain. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), 5795–5812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518807910

57.

Walker

Sleath

Tramontano

(2017). The prevalence and typologies of controlling behaviors in a general population sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 474–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517731785

58.

Walzenbach

(2019). Hiding sensitive topics by design? An experiment on the reduction of social desirability bias in factorial surveys. Survey Research Methods, 13(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i1.7243

59.

Wilchek-Aviad

Neeman-Haviv

Shagan

Ota-shushan

(2019). The public perception of female and male violence in marital relationships. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 88(4), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377317.2019.1561025

60.

Witte

T. H.

Kopkin

M. R.

Hollis

S. D.

(2015). Is it dating violence or just “drunken behavior”? Judgments of intimate partner violence when the perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(11), 1421–1426. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1018539

61.

Worden

A. P.

Carlson

B. E.

(2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: II. Beliefs about causes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1219–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278531

62.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256

63.

Zapata-Calvente

(2017). Macrosocial, ideological, and individual factors in intimate partner violence against women (Ref. AP2012-2824) [Doctoral dissertation]. Universidad de Granada.

64.

Zapata-Calvente

Megías

J. L.

(2017). Social perception of intimate partner violence according to the motivations and sex of the aggressor and the ideology and sex of the observers/Percepción social de la violencia de pareja en función de las motivaciones y sexo del/a agresor/a y de la ideología y sexo de los/as observadores/as. Revista de Psicología Social, 32(2), 301–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2017.1297355

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

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

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

0.00 MB

0.14 MB