The measures available for assessing the acceptance of myths about intimate partner violence against women (AMIVAW) are characterized either by a lack of sufficient psychometric support or by being based on unclear theoretical propositions. In this article, we present a 15-item self-report scale: the Acceptance of Myths About Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (AMIVAW) Scale. We examined the reliability and validity of the scores of the Spanish and English versions of this scale across six different samples (N = 1,650) consisting of adult participants from Spain and the United States. Scores on both versions demonstrated high reliability. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a one-dimensional structure. Invariance tests across genders demonstrated that the scale was invariant at the configural, metric, and scalar levels. The scale was also invariant at the configural level across countries. The AMIVAW scores were independent of social desirability, positively correlated with sexism and other scales used to measure attitudes toward abuse or sexual aggression, and negatively correlated with feminist ideologies. Finally, by using fictitious scenarios of intimate partner violence against women, we observed that participants with higher AMIVAW scores placed more of the blame on the victim and less responsibility on the perpetrator than those with lower AMIVAW scores. Taken together, the results provide strong validity evidence for the AMIVAW Scale. The AMIVAW Scale is a useful instrument to analyze the functions of myths in maintaining intimate partner violence against women. It is also a relevant tool for practitioners involved in programs to prevent and eradicate this form of violence.
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
AngleitnerA.JohnO. P.LöhrF. J. (1986). It’s how you ask and what you ask: An item metric analysis of personality questionnaires. In AngleitnerA.WigginsJ. S. (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 61–108). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70751-3_5
3.
BlackM. C.BasileK. C.BreidingM. J.SmithS. G.WaltersM. L.MerrickM. T.…StevensM. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
4.
BohnerG. (1998). Vergewaltigungsmythen: sozialpsychologische untersuchungen über täterentlastende und opferfeindliche überzeugungen im bereich sexueller gewalt [Rape myths: social-psychological studies about beliefs that exonerate perpetrators and blame the victim of sexual violence]. Landau, Germany: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.
5.
BohnerG.EysselF.PinaA.SieblerF.VikiG. T. (2009). Rape myth acceptance: Cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator. In HorvarthM. A. H.BrownJ. (Eds.), Rape challenging contemporary thinking (pp. 17–45). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00701_2.x
6.
BohnerG.JarvisC. I.EysselF.SieblerF. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men’s rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 819–828. doi:10.1002/ejsp.284View/save
7.
BoschE.FerrerV. A. (2012). Nuevo mapa de los mitos sobre la violencia de género en el siglo XXI [A new map of myths on gender violence]. Psicothema, 24, 548–554. doi:10.1080/02134748.2014.972709
8.
BoschE.FerrerV. A.FerreiroV.NavarroC. (2013). La violencia contra las mujeres. El amor como coartada [Violence against women. Love as excuse]. Barcelona, Spain: Anthropos Editorial. doi:10.14198/fem.2014.23.14
9.
BriereJ. (1987). Predicting self-reported likelihood of battering: Attitudes and childhood experience. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 61–69. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(87)90026-2
10.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
11.
BrummelmanE.ThomaesS.NelemansS. A.Orobio de CastroB.BushmanB. J. (2015). My child is God’s gift to humanity: Development and validation of the parental overvaluation scale (POS). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 665–679. doi:10.1037/pspp0000012
12.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
13.
BurtM. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217
14.
ButchartA.Garcia-MorenoC.MiktonC. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women. Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
15.
CapezzaN. M.ArriagaX. B. (2008). Factors associated with acceptance of psychological aggression against women. Violence Against Women, 14, 612–633. doi:10.1177/1077801208319004
16.
CarlsonB. E.WordenA. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: I. Definitions of domestic violence, criminal domestic violence, and prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1197–1218. doi:10.1177/0886260505278531
17.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
18.
DavisL. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194–197. doi:10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
19.
DevriesK. M.MakJ. Y.García-MorenoC.PetzoldM.ChildJ. C.FalderG.…WattsC. H. (2013). Global health. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340, 1527–1528. doi:10.1126/science.1240937
20.
Dill-ShackelefordK. E.GreenM. C.SharrerE.WettererC.ShacklefordL. E. (2015). Setting the stage for social change: Using live theater to dispel myths about intimate partner violence. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 969–976. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1018622
21.
DinnoA. (2009). Exploring the sensitivity of Horn’s parallel analysis to the distributional form of simulated data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 362–388. doi:10.1080/00273170902938969
22.
EllsbergM.JansenH. A.HeiseL.WattsC. H.Garcia-MorenoC. (2008). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women study team. Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: An observational study. Lancet, 371, 1165–1172. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60522-X
23.
EstrichS. (1987). Real rape. Harvard, CT: Harvard University Press.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Brussels, Belgium: FRA. doi:10.2811/62230
26.
ExpósitoF.MoyaM.GlickP. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. [Ambivalent sexism: Assessment and correlates]. Revista de Psicología Social, 55, 893–905. doi:10.1174/021347498760350641
27.
FeatherN. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507–519. doi:10.1007/BF01544134
28.
FerrandoP. J.ChicoE. (2000). Adaptación y análisis psicométrico de la escala de deseabilidad social de Marlowe y Crowne [Adaptation and psychometric analysis of Marlowe and Crowne social desirability scale]. Psicothema, 12, 383–389.
29.
FloodM.PeaseB. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, Abuse, 10, 125–142. doi:10.1177/1524838009334131
30.
García-MorenoC.TemmermanM. (2015). Commentary: Actions to end violence against women: A multi-sector approach. Global Public Health, 10, 186–188. doi:10.1080/17441692.2014.986163
31.
GarridoL. E.AbadF. J.PonsodaV. (2016). Are fit indices really fit to estimate the number of factors with categorical variables? Some cautionary findings via Monte Carlo simulation. Psychological Methods, 21, 93–111. doi:10.1037/met0000064
32.
GergerH.KleyH.BohnerG.SieblerF. (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA) scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 422–440. doi:10.1002/ab.20195
33.
GigerJ. C.GonçalvesG.AlmeidaA. S. (2016). Adaptation of the domestic violence myth acceptance scale to Portuguese and tests of its convergent, divergent, and predictive validities. Violence Against Women. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1077801216666724
34.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1007/BF00287265
35.
GraciaE. (2014). Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92, 380–381. doi:10.2471/BLT.13.131391
36.
GraciaE.HerreroJ. (2006). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 759–768. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00288.x
37.
GraciaE.TomasJ. M. (2014). Correlates of victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner violence against women among the Spanish general population. Violence Against Women, 20, 26–41. doi:10.1177/1077801213520577
38.
Haj-YahiaM. M. (2011). Contextualizing interventions with battered women in collectivist societies: Issues and controversies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.005
39.
HambletonR. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
HarrisR. J.CookC. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565. doi:10.1007/BF01420802
41.
HattieJ. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139–164. doi:10.1177/014662168500900204
42.
HeiseL.García-MorenoC. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. In KrugE. G.DahlbergL. L.MercyJ. A. (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 88–121). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
43.
HerreroJ.RodríguezF. J.TorresA. (2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23, 351–367. doi:10.1177/1077801216642870
44.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447
45.
KaplanD. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
KossM. P.GoodmanL. A.BrowneA.FitzgeraldL. F.KeitaG. P.RussoN. F. (1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
47.
LeidigM. K. W. (1981). Violence against women: A feminist psychological analysis. In CoxS. (Ed.), Female psychology (2nd ed., pp. 190–205). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
48.
LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x
49.
MacCallumR. C.AustinJ. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
50.
Marques-FagundesA. L.MegíasJ. L.GarcíaD. M.PetkanopoulouK. (2015). Ambivalent sexism and egalitarian ideology in perception of psychological abuse and (in)vulnerability to violence. Revista de Psicología Social, 30, 31–59. doi:10.1080/02134748.2014.991519
51.
MastagliaB.ToyeC.KristjansonL. J. (2003). Ensuring content validity in instrument development: Challenges and innovative approaches. Contemporary Nurse, 14, 281–291. doi:10.5172/conu.14.3.281
52.
MegíasJ. L.Romero-SánchezM.DuránM.MoyaM.BohnerG. (2011). Spanish validation of the acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale (AMMSA). Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 912–925. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.37
53.
MillsapR. E.KwokO. M. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93–115. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93
MorenoR.MartínezR. J.MuñizJ. (2006). New guidelines for developing multiple-choice items. Methodology, 2, 65–72. doi:10.1027/1614-1881.2.2.65
56.
MorganB. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a liberal feminist attitude and ideology scale (LFAIS). Sex Roles, 34, 359–390. doi:10.1007/BF01547807
57.
MuthénB. (2004). Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In KaplanD. (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 345–368). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412986311.n19
58.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
59.
NayakM. B.ByrneC. A.MartínM. K.AbrahamA. G. (2003). Attitudes toward violence against women: A cross-nation study. Sex Roles, 49, 333–342. doi:10.1023/A:1025108103617
60.
PetersJ. (2008). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and initial validation of the domestic violence myth acceptance scale. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 16, 1–21. doi:10.1080/10926770801917780
61.
SaundersD. G.LynchA. B.GraysonM.LinzD. (1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2, 39–57.
62.
SireciS.Faulkner-BondM. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26, 100–107. doi:10.7334/psicothema2013.256
63.
SmithG.FischerS.FisterS. (2003). Incremental validity principles in test construction. Psychological Assessment, 15, 467–477. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.467
64.
SpaanM. (2006). Test and item specifications development. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3, 71–79. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0301_5
65.
TemkinJ.KrahéB. (2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Oxford, England: Hart. doi:10.1017/S0008197309000749
66.
Ten BergeJ. M. F. (1986). Some relationships between descriptive comparisons of components from different studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 29–40. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2101_2
67.
ThorntonB. (1984). Defensive attribution of responsibility: Evidence for an arousal-based motivational bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 721–734. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.721
68.
TraceyT. J. (2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 224–232. doi:10.1037/cou0000135
69.
TuckerL. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Personnel research section report, 984. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.
70.
United Nations (2006). In-depth study on all forms of violence against women: Report of the Secretary General. Geneva: United Nations.
Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM. (2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence: The role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 195–206. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.17
73.
Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM.LópezK. (2014). Violence against women in Spain and Cuba: The same reality, two different visions. Revista de Psicología Social/International Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 150–179.
74.
van de VijverF. J. R.LeungK. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 33–51. doi:10.1177/0022022100031001004
75.
van de VijverF. J. R.TanzerN. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. Revue Européenne de psychologie appliquée [European Review of Applied Psychology], 54, 119–135. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
76.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 4–70. doi:10.1177/109442810031002
77.
Vidal-FernandezA.MegíasJ. L. (2014). Attributions of blame to battered women when they are perceived as feminists or as “difficult to deal with.”The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, 1–10. doi:10.1017/sjp.2014.26
78.
WalkerL. E. A. (1999). Psychology and domestic violence around the world. American Psychologist, 54, 21–29. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.1.21
79.
WaltermaurerE. (2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13, 167–175. doi:10.1177/1524838012447699
80.
World Health Organization, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, & South African Medical Research Council. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women. Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
81.
YamawakiN.Ochoa-ShippM.PulsipherC.HarlosA.SwindlerS. (2012). Perceptions of domestic violence: The effects of domestic violence, myth, victim’s relationship with her abuser, and the decision to return to her abuser. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3195–3212. doi:10.1177/0886260512441253
82.
YllöK. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In GellesR. J.LosekeD. R. (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi:10.1177/089124301015003003
