Assessing Victim-Blaming Attitudes in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence against Women: Development and Validation of the VB-IPVAW Scale

Abstract

IPVAW "is a complex phenomenon that needs to be understood within the wider social context and within the social and cultural norms that permeate it. Public attitudes and responses regarding violence against women reflect these norms and play an important role in shaping the social climate in which the violence occurs" (p. 13). Researchers increasingly acknowledge the importance of paying attention to attitudes towards IPVAW, as they are linked, for example, to IPVAW incidence, victims' help-seeking behavior, or public and law enforcement responses (

The Willingness to Intervene in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (WI-IPVAW) Scale: Development and Validation of the Long and Short Versions

“…The A-IPVAW scale was cross-validated in the general Spanish population, and also with IPVAW male offenders. This scale has showed adequate internal and external validity, as it has been related to perceived severity of IPVAW and ambivalent sexism ( Martín-Fernández et al, 2018b ). Our results showed reasonable internal consistency across Samples 2, 3, and 4 (Cronbach’s α = 0.75, 0.72, 0.68, respectively).…”

“…For validity purposes, we will explore the relationship between the long and short versions of the WI-IPVAW scale and other relevant constructs regarding attitudes toward IPVAW such as IPVAW acceptability, victim-blaming attitudes, perceived severity of IPVAW, and hostile sexism ( Taylor and Sorenson, 2005 ; Gracia and Herrero, 2006 ; Flood and Pease, 2009 ; Lila et al, 2013 ; Gracia, 2014 ; Herrero et al, 2017 ; Martín-Fernández et al, 2018b ). Gender, age and education differences in willingness to intervene in cases of IPVAW will be also explored ( Carlson and Worden, 2005 ; Fincham et al, 2008 ; Flood and Pease, 2009 ; Gracia et al, 2009 ; Gracia et al, 2015b ).…”

“…Gender, age and education differences in willingness to intervene in cases of IPVAW will be also explored ( Carlson and Worden, 2005 ; Fincham et al, 2008 ; Flood and Pease, 2009 ; Gracia et al, 2009 ; Gracia et al, 2015b ). Attitudes of acceptability of IPVAW have been considered a key issue to understand IPVAW prevalence in society ( Flood and Pease, 2009 ; Gracia et al, 2015b ; Copp et al, 2016 ; Martín-Fernández et al, 2018b ). These attitudes have been linked to public, professionals, and victims’ perceptions and responses to IPVAW ( Taylor and Sorenson, 2005 ; Gracia and Herrero, 2006 ; Rizo and Macy, 2011 ; Gracia et al, 2014 ).…”

Considering the Effect of Sexism on Psychological Intimate Partner Violence: A Study with Imprisoned Men

“…A key mechanism why sexist attitudes may lead to greater IPV is the fact that hostile sexist attitudes should promote positive attitudes toward the use of violence toward women. Although the study of IPV has lacked research of attitudinal variables beyond sexist attitudes (and other related attitudes as, for example, victim-blaming; see Martín-Fernández, Gracia, & Lila, 2018), general attitudes toward the use of violence have been studied in depth with regard to more general violent behavior (DeWall & Anderson, 2011). As Anderson and Bushman (2002) pointed out, although positive attitudes toward violence in general are related with high rates of aggression in general, specific attitudes toward the use of violence against certain groups (i.e., women) more precisely predict aggressive behavior against members of that group (i.e., intimate partner).…”

Improving empathy with motivational strategies in batterer intervention programmes: Results of a randomized controlled trial

“…The research on the effects of Standard Batterer Intervention Programs (SBIP) has focused to a large extent on the effectiveness of these programmes in reducing IPV recidivism, which is considered the final outcome (Bowen, ). However, certain studies have paid attention to proximal outcomes, that is, those variables that are meaningful in the risk of IPV recidivism, such as alcohol consumption, self‐esteem, attitudes towards violence, impulsivity, anger (state and trait), psychological adjustment, social support, and awareness of serious offences, among others (Arias et al ., ; Babcock et al ., ; Eckhardt et al ., ; Lila, Gracia, & Herrero, ; Lila, Gracia, & Murgui, ; Martín‐Fernández, Gracia, & Lila, ). Because court‐ordered interventions for IPV perpetrators are mandatory sentences ordered by a judge, IPV perpetrators’ engagement in them tends to be low (Eckhardt, Holtzworth‐Munroe, Norlander, Sibley, & Cahill, ; Kistenmacher & Weiss, ).…”