We investigated the effect of assailant gender on injunctive social norms (i.e., beliefs about what ought to happen) regarding violence toward an intimate heterosexual partner. In a random-digit-dialed survey conducted in four languages, 3,769 community-residing adults were presented with five vignettes in which we experimentally manipulated characteristics of the assailant, victim, and incident. We examined the vignette variables and measured respondent characteristics using multivariate logistic regressions. Judgments about women's violence against male intimates (vs. men's violence against female intimates) were less harsh and took contextual factors more fully into account. The type of violence and the presence of a weapon played a central role in respondent judgments. Respondent demographic characteristics were largely unrelated to their judgments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherJ. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.
2.
BethkeT. M.DeJoyD. M. (1993). An experimental study of factors influencing the acceptability of dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 36–51.
3.
BeyersJ. M.LeonardJ. M.MaysV. K.RosenL. A. (2000). Gender differences in the perception of courtship violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 451–466.
4.
BourgeoisM. J.PerkinsJ. (2003). A test of evolutionary and sociocultural explanations of reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 49, 343–351.
5.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.
6.
California Health Interview Survey. (2002). CHIS 2001 methodology series: Report 4–response rates. Retrieved on August 20, 2003 from http://www.chis.ucla.edu/chismethods.html.
7.
CookC.A.HarrisR.J. (1995). Attributions about spouse abuse in cases of bidirectional battering. Violence and Victims, 10, 143–151.
8.
DalyK.BordtR. L. (1994). Gender, race, and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12, 142–175.
9.
DalyK.TonryM. (1997). Gender, race, and sentencing. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 201–252). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
DeutschM.GerardH. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.
11.
DugoniB. L.BaldwinA. K. (2000). Cognitive lab report, research project (#4943) on DV vignettes. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at University of Chicago.
12.
FeatherN. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender, and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507–519.
13.
HannonR.HallD. S.NashH.FormatiJ.HopsonT. (2000). Judgments regarding sexual aggression as a function of sex of aggressor and victim. Sex Roles, 43, 311–322.
14.
HarrisR. J.CookC. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565.
15.
HarrisonL. A.EsquedaC. W. (2000). Effects of race and victim drinking on domestic violence attributions. Sex Roles, 42, 1043–1057.
16.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E. (2003). Adolescents' perceptions of the seriousness of sexual aggression: Influence of gender, traditional attitudes, and self-reported experience. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Trauma, 15, 201–214.
17.
JeffriesS.FletcherG. J. O.NewboldG. (2003). Pathways to sex-based differentiation in criminal court sentencing. Criminology, 41, 329–353.
18.
LehmannM.SantilliN. R. (1996). Sex differences in perceptions of spousal abuse. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 229–238.
19.
LockeL. M.RichmanC. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender issues. Sex Roles, 40, 227–247.
20.
MouldsE. F. (1978). Chivalry and paternalism: Disparities of treatment in the criminal justice system. Western Political Quarterly, 31, 416–430.
21.
PedhazurE. J.KerlingerF. N. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
22.
RossiP. H.AndersonA. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In RossiP. H.NockS. L. (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach (pp. 15–67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
SimonT. R.AndersonM.ThompsonM. P.CrosbyA. E.ShelleyG.SacksJ. J. (2001). Attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence among U.S. adults. Violence and Victims, 16, 115–126.
24.
SorensonS. B. (2003). Funding public health: Community willingness to pay for domestic violence prevention programming. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1934–1938.
25.
SorensonS. B.TaylorC. A. (2003). Personal awareness of domestic violence: Implications for health care providers. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, 58, 5–9.
26.
SorensonS. B.TellesC. A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a Mexican American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3–16.
27.
SteinmetzS. K. (1977). Wife beating, husband beating—a comparison of the use of physical violence between spouses to resolve marital fights. In RoyM. (Ed.), Battered women: A psychosociological study of domestic violence (pp. 63–72). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
28.
TaylorC. A.SorensonS. B. (2004a). Intimate partner violence: Judgments about fault, responsibility, and expected action. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
TaylorC. A.SorensonS. B. (2004b). Normative beliefs of adults about teen dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 468–479.
