Legitimizing Intimate Partner Violence: Moral Evaluations, Attribution of Responsibility, and (Reduced) Helping Intentions

Napoli

et al. 2020

Violence and Gender

This study investigated the social and cultural representations that employees of the Municipality of Naples hold concerning violence against women. The aim of this research was to explore if and how they attribute blame for gender-based violence and their perception of the effectiveness of resolution strategies focused on either preventing or actively combating violence against women. Their results showed that when respondents attribute violence to sociocultural factors, they recognize the importance of implementing effective resolution strategies. Conversely, those who primarily place the blame for violence against women on male individual characteristics generally do not support and propose strategies to stop this kind of violence. Moreover, violence perpetrators not resulting in the work context or in the neighborhood of the respondents and implications of these data will be further discussed.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Violence Against Women: A Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) Phenomenon

Napoli

et al. 2020

Violence and Gender

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

“…These operationalizations were chosen because they reflect subtle but commonplace manifestations of women's (and men's) biases against sexually available women (Gramazio, Cadinu, Pagliaro, & Pacilli, 2018;Pagliaro et al, 2018).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

You’re making us all look bad: Sexism moderates women’s experience of collective threat and intra-gender hostility toward traditional and non-traditional female subtypes

Lizzio‐Wilson

Masser

Hornsey

et al. 2020

Across two studies ( Ns = 265 and 735), we investigated whether women’s endorsement of hostile (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) moderates their experience of collective threat and subsequent hostility toward traditional and non-traditional female subtypes. As expected, HS was positively associated with intra-gender hostility toward the non-traditional subtype, and these effects were mediated by collective threat. HS was negatively associated with collective threat and hostility toward the traditional subtype, but only when the target endorsed prescriptive gender beliefs that explicitly reinforced gender inequality. BS was associated with collective threat and hostility toward the non-traditional subtype, but these effects did not emerge consistently across both studies. These results suggest that women are not a homogeneous group whose members all find the same subtypes collectively threatening. Rather, the extent to which women internalize patriarchal attitudes and stereotypes influences the behaviors they find threatening and deserving of hostility.

“…The influence of blame. The placement of blame for an IPV incident impacts bystander intention and behavior (Pagliaro et al, 2021). Bystanders blame victims more when they are considered out-group (Harrison & Abrishami, 2004), when they are told the victim stays with the abuser (Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos, & Swindler, 2012), and when the victim is drunk (Harrison & Esqueda, 2000;Witte, Kopkin, & Hollis, 2015).…”

Section: Hypothesis 2 (H2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Victims are blamed less when the bystanders are told they are first-time victims (the violence has never occurred before; Harrison & Abrishami, 2004) and when the perpetrator is non-White (Harrison & Esqueda, 2000). When victim-blaming is low, bystanders intervene more than when victim-blaming is high (Pagliaro et al, 2021). In addition, victim-blaming has influences beyond contextual factors and is influenced by the attitudes and beliefs of the bystander.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bruise Without a Name: Investigating College Student Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Terminology

Nordin

2019

J Interpers Violence

When it comes to intimate partner violence, words matter. The abuse terminology used in efforts to target collegiate victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) can impact the effectiveness of prevention messages. The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to identify the relationship between abuse labels (such as domestic violence, dating violence, and IPV), and bystander intervention recommendations. Second, this study aims to understand how situational factors (perpetrator gender, couple marital status, provocation) impact the perceived appropriateness of those terms. Perceptions of severity, victim/perpetrator blame, and bystander intervention recommendations were also measured. In all, 498 college students from a large southern public university participated in a 2 × 2 × 2 experiment where they read a vignette depicting IPV. Participants were then asked a serious of questions about the appropriateness of the abuse terminology, what actions they would recommend for a bystander, the severity of the incident, and the degree to which they blamed victim and perpetrator. Results indicated the bystander intervention actions that are perceived as appropriate are related to what the most appropriate label is for the situation. Contextual factors surrounding the IPV situation, such as perpetrator gender, couple marital status, and provocation, influenced bystander recommendations and what labels were considered appropriate. The results of the study indicate the need to expand collegiate definition of what “counts” as IPV and point to ways in which IPV context can be a barrier to bystander intervention. Implications of the study argue that efforts to increase bystander intervention must include training on how to identify IPV situations with a broad variety of contexts. Limitations of the study and implications for theory and practice are discussed.