Intimate partner violence (IPV) is present even during adolescence, and both victims and perpetrators may sometimes perceive it as justifiable. This study investigated gender differences in adolescents’ justification of IPV and examined the role of gender essentialism. A sample of 710 cisgender, heterosexual adolescents completed self-report measures assessing justification of various violent behaviors and endorsement of gender essentialist beliefs. Boys were more likely to justify sexually coercive acts enacted by boys, whereas girls more often justified verbal and physical aggression enacted by girls. Gender essentialism was positively associated with all forms of IPV justification and mediated the relationship between participants’ gender and IPV attitudes. These findings highlight the importance of addressing gendered beliefs in prevention programs targeting adolescents.
AdamsH. L.WilliamsL. R. (2014). “It’s not just you two”: A grounded theory of peer-influenced jealousy as a pathway to dating violence among acculturating Mexican American adolescents. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034294
2.
AgadullinaE.LovakovA.BalezinaM.GulevichO. A. (2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5–6), 819–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855
3.
AliP. A.DhingraK.McGarryJ. (2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.008
4.
BallarinoG.PanichellaN.TriventiM. (2014). School expansion and uneven modernization: Comparing educational inequality in Northern and Southern Italy. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 36, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2014.01.002
5.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003
6.
BatesE.KlementK. R.KayeL. K.PenningtonC. R. (2019). The impact of gendered stereotypes on perceptions of violence: A commentary. Sex Roles, 81, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rx6up
7.
BlakemoreS.-J. (2018). Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738144
8.
BrescollV. L.LaFranceM. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15(8), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x
9.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L.NewmanG. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701
10.
BurtonV.GormallyS. (2024). “How dare you call that playground banter?!”: Service provider perspectives on coercive control and young people. Children & Society, 38(2), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12724
11.
CantaliniS.PanichellaN.PietrolucciA.TriventiM. (2025). Regional disparities, geographical marginality, and educational pathways: A study on upper secondary education in Italy. Social Inclusion, 13, 9555. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.9555
12.
CaricatiL.BonettiC.RossiF. (2024). Are gender identities and gender ideologies associated with the variety and type of owned sex toys? Evidence from a large Italian sample of cisgender individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(8), 3043–3060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02944-z
13.
ChenZ.FiskeS. T.LeeT. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9
14.
ChierchiaG.Piera Pi-SunyerB.BlakemoreS.-J. (2020). Prosocial influence and opportunistic conformity in adolescents and young adults. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1585–1601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620957625
15.
ChingB.XuJ.ChenT.KongK. (2020). Gender essentialism, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and filial piety as predictors for transprejudice in Chinese people. Sex Roles, 83(7–8), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01123-3
CinquegranaV.MariniM.GaldiS. (2022). From endorsement of ambivalent sexism to psychological IPV victimization: The role of attitudes supportive of IPV, legitimating myths of IPV, and acceptance of psychological aggression. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 922814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.922814
18.
CislaghiB.HeiseL. (2020). Gender norms and social norms: Differences, similarities and why they matter in prevention science. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(2), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13008
19.
ColemanJ. M.HongY.-Y. (2008). Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity, 7(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860600980185
20.
De LemusS.SpearsR.MoyaM. (2012). The power of a smile to move you: Complementary submissiveness in women’s posture as a function of gender salience and facial expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11), 1480–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212454178
21.
Diaz-AguadoM. J.MartinezR. (2015). Types of adolescent male dating violence against women, self-esteem, and justification of dominance and aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(15), 2636–2658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553631
22.
EatonD. K.KannL.KinchenS.ShanklinS.RossJ.HawkinsJ.HarrisW. A.LowryR.McManusT.ChyenD.LimC.WhittleL.BrenerN. D.WechslerH., & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 59(5), 1–142.
23.
EllsbergM.ArangoD. J.MortonM.GennariF.KiplesundS.ContrerasM.WattsC. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say?The Lancet, 385(9977), 1555–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7
24.
Fernández-GonzálezL.CalveteE.OrueI. (2019). The role of acceptance of violence beliefs and social information processing on dating violence perpetration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(3), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12414
25.
FloodM.PeaseB. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131
26.
FríasS. M. (2013). Strategies and help-seeking behavior among Mexican women experiencing partner violence. Violence Against Women, 19(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212475334
27.
FriesenJ. P.LaurinK.ShepherdS.GaucherD.KayA. C. (2019). System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12278
28.
GergenK. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press.
29.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
30.
GommansR.SandstromM. J.StevensG. W. J. M.Ter BogtT. F. M.CillessenA. H. N. (2017). Popularity, likeability, and peer conformity: Four field experiments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.001
31.
GraciaE.LilaM.SantirsoF. A. (2020). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 25(2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000392
32.
GutiérrezB. C.LeaperC. (2024). Linking ambivalent sexism to violence-against-women attitudes and behaviors: A three-level meta-analytic review. Sexuality & Culture, 28, 851–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-023-10127-6
33.
HaaseR.WorthingtonR. (2023). “Influencers”: A study investigating the messages people receive about coercive control on social media. Journal of Forensic Practice, 25(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-12-2022-0063
HaegerichT. M.DahlbergL. L. (2011). Violence as a public health risk. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(5), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827611409127
36.
HegdeA.ChandranS.PattnaikJ. I. (2022). Understanding adolescent sexuality: A developmental perspective. Journal of Psychosexual Health, 4(4), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/26318318221107598
HickmanL. J.JaycoxL. H.AronoffJ. (2004). Dating violence among adolescents: Prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262332
39.
JeffreyN. K.BarataP. C. (2019). “She didn’t want to. . .and I’d obviously insist”: Canadian university men’s normalization of their sexual violence against intimate partners. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1500406
40.
JohnsonW. L.GiordanoP. C.ManningW. D.LongmoreM. A. (2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z
41.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
42.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
Kaufman-ParksA. M.DeMarisA.GiordanoP. C.ManningW. D.LongmoreM. A. (2018). Intimate partner violence perpetration from adolescence to young adulthood: Trajectories and the role of familial factors. Journal of Family Violence, 33(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9924-5
45.
KellerJ. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686
46.
KimJ. L.Lynn SorsoliC.CollinsK.ZylbergoldB. A.SchoolerD.TolmanD. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660
47.
KlysingA. (2020). Exposure to scientific explanations for gender differences influences individuals’ personal theories of gender and their evaluations of a discriminatory situation. Sex Roles, 82(5–6), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01060-w
48.
KrayL.HowlandL.RussellA.JackmanL. (2017). The effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000124
49.
KrivoshchekovV.GulevichO.BlagovI. (2023). Traditional masculinity and male violence against women: A meta-analytic examination. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000426
50.
KuijpersK. F.BloklandA. A. J.MercerN. C. (2021). Gendered perceptions of intimate partner violence normality: An experimental study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1412–1440NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517746945
51.
LeeK. Y.ReisH. T.RoggeR. D. (2020). Seeing the world in pink and blue: Developing and exploring a new measure of essentialistic thinking about gender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 83(11–12), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01141-1
52.
LelaurainS.FonteD.AimM.-A.KhatmiN.DecarsinT.Lo MonacoG.ApostolidisT. (2018). “One doesn’t slap a girl but. . .” Social representations and conditional logics in legitimization of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 78(9–10), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0821-4
53.
LundgrenR.AminA. (2015). addressing intimate partner violence and sexual violence among adolescents: Emerging evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(1), S42–S50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.012
54.
LysA.StudzinskaA.Bargiel-MatusiewiczK. (2021). Beliefs on sexual violence in the context of system justification theory: The role of hostile sexism and beliefs in biological origins of gender differences. Social Justice Research, 34(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00373-0
55.
MachadoC.CaridadeS.MartinsC. (2010). Violence in juvenile dating relationships self-reported prevalence and attitudes in a Portuguese sample. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9268-x
56.
Martín-SalvadorA.Saddiki-MimounK.Pérez-MorenteM. Á.Álvarez-SerranoM. A.Gázquez-LópezM.Martínez-GarcíaE.Fernández-GómezE. (2021). Dating violence: Idealization of love and romantic myths in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105296
57.
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito. (2025). Indagine sulla realizzazione di progetti/attività per il contrasto alla violenza contro le donne: Esiti monitoraggio 15–29 maggio 2025. [Ministry of Education and Merit. (2025). Survey on the implementation of projects/activities to combat violence against women: Results of the monitoring conducted from 15 to 29May2025.] https://www.mim.gov.it/documents/20182/8952594/25-11-04+Statistiche_contrasto_violenza_+donne_mim.pdf
58.
MortonT.PostmesT.HaslamS.HornseyM. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012966
59.
MouafoA. V. D.NzekaihH. K. E. (2021). Gender system justification, gender differences and attitudes towards women’ victimization. Social Sciences, 10(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20211002.14
60.
MullaM. M.WitteT. H.RichardsonK.HartW.KassingF. L.CoffeyC. A.HackmanC. L.SherwoodI. M. (2019). The causal influence of perceived social norms on intimate partner violence perpetration: Converging cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental support for a social disinhibition model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218794641
61.
Muñoz-RivasM. J.GrañaJ. L.O’LearyK. D.GonzálezM. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137
62.
Ocampo BernasconiI.Espinar-RuizE.La Parra-CasadoD.Vives-CasesC. (2024). From general rejection to individual normalization: Ambivalences in discourses on intimate partner violence by young Spaniards. PLoS One, 19(9), Article e0310745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310745
63.
PanichellaN. (2022). Diseguaglianze territoriali e stratificazione sociale. [Territorial inequalities and social stratification]. Il Mulino, 71(4), 61–69.
64.
Penado AbilleiraM.Rodicio-GarcíaM. L.Corrás VázquezT.Ríos De DeusM. P.Iglesias CortizasM. J. (2019). Personality characteristics of a sample of violent adolescents against their partners. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 32(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-019-0122-7
65.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. https://www.R-project.org/
68.
ReevesP. M.OrpinasP. (2012). Dating norms and dating violence among ninth graders in northeast Georgia: Reports from student surveys and focus groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(9), 1677–1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511430386
69.
RevelleW. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (Version 2.3.3) [R package]. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
70.
RolleroC.De PiccoliN. (2020). Myths about intimate partner violence and moral disengagement: An analysis of sociocultural dimensions sustaining violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218139
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
73.
RossiF.CaricatiL. (2025). Relationship between gender essentialism and system-justifying beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000796
74.
RubinM.Kevin OwuamalamC.SpearsR.CaricatiL. (2023). A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive. European Review of Social Psychology, 34(2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422
ScandurraC.MonacoS.DolceP.NothdurfterU. (2021). Heteronormativity in Italy: psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(3), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00487-1
77.
ScarduzioJ. A.CarlyleK. E.HarrisK. L.SavageM. W. (2017). “Maybe she was provoked”: Exploring gender stereotypes about male and female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 23(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216636240
78.
SchiltK.WestbrookL. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209340034
79.
ScothorneH.TzaniC.IoannouM.LesterD.RogersL.WilliamsT. J. V.SynnottJ.Darmanin KissaunG. (2025). Are social media platforms blurring the lines between coercive control and healthy relationships? A study investigating perceptions of coercive control. Computers in Human Behavior, 168, Article 108649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108649
80.
Serrano-MontillaC.LozanoL. M.BenderM.PadillaJ. L. (2020). Individual and societal risk factors of attitudes justifying intimate partner violence against women: A multilevel cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 10(12), e037993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037993
81.
SidaniusJ.LiuJ. H.ShawJ. S.PrattoF. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 338–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00586.x
82.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
83.
SkewesL.FineC.HaslamN. (2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS One, 13(7), Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921
SmithA. (2011). Conformity among adolescents. In GoldsteinS.NaglieriJ. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 402–403). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_662
86.
SotiriouP.NtinapogiasS.PetroulakiK. (2011). Attitudes on gender stereotypes and gender-based violence among youth: Country report: Greece. European Anti-Violence Network. Daphne III Programme: Youth4Youth: Empowering Young People in Preventing Gender-based Violence through Peer Education. https://eige.europa.eu/resources/Y4Y_Research-report_Greece.pdf
87.
StorerH. L.SchultzK.HambyS. L. (2020). The role of gender in adolescent dating abuse: An interpretive meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature. Social Work, 65(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swaa032
88.
SundaramV. (2013). Violence as understandable, deserved or unacceptable? Listening for gender in teenagers’ talk about violence. Gender and Education, 25(7), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.858110
89.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
90.
WaltermaurerE. (2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447699
WidmanL.Choukas-BradleyS.HelmsS. W.PrinsteinM. J. (2016). Adolescent susceptibility to peer influence in sexual situations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(3), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.10.253
93.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033
94.
WilsonM. S.LiuJ. H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127175
95.
WolfeD. A.ScottK.Reitzel-JaffeD.WekerleC.GrasleyC.StraatmanA. L. (2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277
96.
XiaM.FoscoG. M.LippoldM. A.FeinbergM. E. (2018). A developmental perspective on young adult romantic relationships: Examining family and individual factors in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1499–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0815-8
97.
YzerbytV.CorneilleO.EstradaC. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_5
98.
YzerbytV. Y.RocherS. (2002). Subjective essentialism and the emergence of stereotypes. In McGartyC.YzerbytV. Y.SpearsR. (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 38–66). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.004
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
