Perceptions of Domestic Violence

Abstract

Researchers in this study examined the attitudes toward domestic violence, the victim, and her perpetrator. A total of 194 participants were randomly assigned to one of 4 hypothetical scenarios to evaluate how observers' perceptions were influenced by their own sex and myths about domestic violence, by the victim's decision to return to the abusive relationship, and by the relationship status of the victim (dating or married to the perpetrator). Results demonstrated significant main effects of participant's sex, domestic violence myths, and of the victim's relationship status and decision to return. That is, participants blamed the victim who reportedly returned to her abuser more than the victim about whom there is no such information. Further, participants with greater domestic violence myths tended to blame the victim more than those with less myths, and male participants blamed the victim and minimized the incident more than female participants. Implications, limitations of the study, and future research are discussed.

Psychometric Properties of the Inventory of Beliefs about Intimate Partner Violence (IBIPV)

“…34, nº 1 (january) Cantera & Blanch, 2010;Valor-Segura et al, 2011). A vast number of studies have revealed that people with traditional beliefs about gender roles are more likely to endorse justifications of IPV than people with egalitarian beliefs (e.g., Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos, & Swindler, 2012). Regarding sexist beliefs, hostile sexism (legitimisation of violence against women challenging the power of men) supports the justification of IPV, victim blaming and exonerating perpetrators (Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, & de Souza, 2002;Sakalli, 2001).…”

Researching domestic violence and abuse in healthcare settings: Challenges and issues

“…(Sarkar, 2008;Yamawaki et al, 2012) or questions which ask what are the barriers to healthcare professionals undertaking enquiry about DVA? (Baig et al, 2012;Jenner et al, 2015;Rose et al, 2011;Sprague et al, 2012).…”

College Student Reporting Responses to Hypothetical and Actual Safety Concerns

“…College students have exhibited lower willingness to report in response to vignettes with intimate partner conflict, fewer concerning behaviors, and no threatening verbalizations (Hollister et al, 2014;Tarling & Morris, 2010;Weller et al, 2013;Yamawaki et al, 2012). College students most willing to report in response to vignettes have had greater campus connectedness and trust in campus authorities.…”

“…Studies utilizing vignettes of concerning behavior within college student samples have further clarified incident-related and attitudinal influences (Hollister et al, 2014;Sulkowski, 2011;Weller et al, 2013;Yamawaki et al, 2012), but may have limited applicability to actual reporting decisions (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007;Shaffer, Peller, Laplante, Nelson & Labrie, 2010). College students have exhibited lower willingness to report in response to vignettes with intimate partner conflict, fewer concerning behaviors, and no threatening verbalizations (Hollister et al, 2014;Tarling & Morris, 2010;Weller et al, 2013;Yamawaki et al, 2012).…”

“…College students are unlikely to report offending behavior if committed by a friend or intimate partner due to concerns about harming loved ones (Buhi et al, 2009;Thompson et al, 2007); yet, perpetrators most often display problematic behaviors to close friends or family (Fein & Vossekuil, 1999;Pollack, Modzeleski, & Rooney, 2008). College bystanders that see conflicts within intimate relationships are less likely to consider pathway behavior problematic or report their observations (Weller, Hope, & Sheridan, 2013;Yamawaki, Ochoa-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos, & Swindler, 2012), despite intimate contexts accounting for a substantial proportion of general criminal activity on campus (Drysdale et al, 2010;Noonan & Vavra, 2007). Thus, several incident and attitudinal factors that impact collegiate reporting have been explored (Deisinger et al, 2014;Griffith et al, 2004;Hollister et al, 2014;Sulkowski, 2011), and subsequent recommendations have involved requests to strengthen awareness of campus resources, enhance prosocial student attitudes, and support intimate partner victims.…”