Attitudes Toward Violence Scale

Davidson, M. Meghan; Canivez, Gary L.

doi:10.1177/0886260512447578

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Response choices are as follows: Very much disagree = 1, Mostly disagree = 2, Slightly disagree = 3, Neither agree nor disagree = 4, Slightly agree = 5, Mostly agree = 6, and Very much agree = 7. A recent study (Davidson & Canivez, 2012) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .88. In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .80.…”

Section: Attitudes Toward Partner Violencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…The subscale Attitudes Toward Partner Violence (PV) in the General Attitudes Toward Violence (ATV; Davidson & Canivez, 2012;Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995) was used to measure attitudes toward partner violence. The subscale comprises four items describing physical violence in intimate relationships in the form of hitting and slapping.…”

Section: Attitudes Toward Partner Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attribution of Blame to Victim and Attitudes toward Partner Violence: Cross-National Comparisons across the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria

Fakunmoju¹,

Bammeke²,

Oyekanmi³

et al. 2015

IJGWS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although knowledge about attribution of blame and partner violence has increased over the past decades, comparative knowledge across countries is sparse. This cross-sectional survey examined cross-national differences in attribution of blame and attitudes toward partner violence among 363 respondents in the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria. Results suggest that female respondents were less likely than male respondents to attribute blame to the female victim or endorse partner violence. Respondents in Nigeria were more likely than respondents in the other countries to attribute blame to the female victim. Similarly, respondents in the United States or South Africa were less likely than respondents in Nigeria to endorse partner violence. Age, gender, race, and attitudes toward partner violence were associated with attribution of blame. Country moderated the relation between attitudes toward partner violence and attribution of blame. For respondents in South Africa, high attitudes toward partner violence were related to greater attribution of blame; however, for respondents in the United States there was a much smaller difference in blame attribution between low and high attitudes toward partner violence. In general, findings suggest that differences in gender and country are relevant to understanding blame attribution to female victim and attitudes toward partner violence.

show abstract

Section: Attitudes Toward Partner Violencementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Attitudes Toward Partner Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Attribution of Blame to Victim and Attitudes toward Partner Violence: Cross-National Comparisons across the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria

Fakunmoju¹,

Bammeke²,

Oyekanmi³

et al. 2015

IJGWS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six items from the Attitude towards Violence (ATV) scale (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), abbreviated by Davidson and Canivez (2012), were adapted to measure participants' support for Muslim military violence. The participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as, "Muslim nations should be ready with a strong military at all times."…”

Section: Support For Muslim Military Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as, "Muslim nations should be ready with a strong military at all times." Responses were scored on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) rating scale as used by Davidson & Canivez (2012). The 6items scale did not achieve measurement invariance (see SOM).…”

Section: Support For Muslim Military Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Threat, Anti-Western Hostility and Violence among European Muslims: The Mediating Role of Acculturation

Tahir¹,

Kunst²,

Sam³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many Western countries, the public has extensively debated factors potentially leading Muslim minoritygroup members to support violence by foreign extremist states or to commit violence themselves. Here, one central question has been whether their acculturation orientations may play a role. Combining perspectives from integrated threat theory and acculturation psychology, the present study investigated whether one reason for why threat perceptions lead to higher violent behavioral intentions among Muslims, as evidence by previous research, may be that they are related to distinct acculturation orientations. It tested this proposition in two samples comprising of Norwegian (N = 253) and British Muslims (N = 194). The more Norwegian Muslims perceived realistic threat, the more violent behavioral intentions they showed, but this relation was not mediated by acculturation. Among British Muslims, mainstream acculturation orientation was related to more violent intentions, while threat was not. In both samples, symbolic threat was associated with more support for Muslim military violence and this relationship was mediated by religious acculturation in the U.K. In contrast to previous research, symbolic threat was linked with less personal intentions to commit violence in the U.K., mediated by religious acculturation. Complementary analyses calculating acculturation strategies indicated that assimilated, and to some extend integrated, Muslims in both countries tended to show the highest violent behavioral intentions. By contrast, separated individual showed the highest level of support for Muslim military violence.Ways in which these findings can be used to counter violence and improve intergroup relations in Western ethnically diverse societies are discussed.

show abstract

“…It is noted that "youth violence is a complex social problem," including violence between coevals, as well as between dating partners, and between groups (Davidson & Canivez, 2012). Thus, a number of risk factors for violence among young people have been described in foreign literature and include a history of violent victimization (Latham et al, 2019), antisocial beliefs and attitudes, exposure to violence and conflict in the family and society (Farrington et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%