Despite global efforts, violence against women persists in patriarchal, collectivist societies. This cross-sectional study (N = 239 Pakistani young adults; 139 women, 100 men) examined associations between objectification of others (adapted for moral, reproductive, and honor-based roles), ambivalent sexism, and intimate partner violence (IPV) justification. Greater objectification and sexism were associated with higher IPV myth acceptance. Ambivalent sexism fully mediated the association in men and partially mediated it in women. Men scored higher on sexism (d = 0.30) and objectification (d = 0.59); the gender difference in IPV justification was marginal (p = .051). Objectification accounted for 4% of the sexism variance in women. In Pakistan’s izzat (honor)- and ghairat (male pride)-driven context, these findings highlight how honor-based objectification and benevolent sexism normalize violence. The results suggest that within cultural contexts emphasizing male authority, addressing sexist attitudes and objectification is crucial for IPV prevention. This study addresses a critical gap in Global South research, urging culturally tailored interventions beyond legal reform. Longitudinal research is needed to clarify causal pathways.
AhmadN. M.AhmadM. M.MasoodR. (2020). Socio-psychological implications of public harassment for women in the Capital City of Islamabad. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 27(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971521519891480
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
4.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
5.
BernardP.GervaisS. J.AllenJ.CampomizziS.KleinO. (2020). Objectification leads to dehumanization: The mediating role of instrumentalization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320922016
6.
ButtM. M.WatsonR. J.RohnerR. P.MalikF. (2022). Memories of parental rejection in childhood and current psychological maladjustment predict substance abuse in a collectivist religious country. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(9), 2608–2617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02323-z
7.
ByrneB. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
ConnorH. E.GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2016). Ambivalent sexism and women’s self-objectification: An experimental test. Sex Roles, 74(9–10), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0533-8
10.
DahlS. (2014). The self-objectification scale: A new measure for assessing self-objectification (Master’s thesis, University of North Dakota). UND Scholarly Commons. https://commons.und.edu/theses/1639
11.
DoK.WeissB.PollackA. (2013). Cultural beliefs, intimate partner violence, and mental health functioning among Vietnamese women living in the United States. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.3.249
12.
FerrariG.FederG.BartonG.LewisN. V. (2016). Ambivalent sexism predicts acceptance of intimate partner violence myths among men and women in the United Kingdom. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000050
13.
FischerA. R. (2006). Women’s benevolent sexism and resistance to feminist social change: The role of ambivalent attitudes. Sex Roles, 54(7–8), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9014-6
14.
FredricksonB. L.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
GillA. K. (2014). ‘Izzat’ and the policing of gender-based violence in Pakistan: A feminist critique of honour and shame. South Asian Studies, 29(2), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/02666030.2014.962344
17.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
18.
GlickmanM. E.RaoS. R.SchultzM. R. (2014). False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(8), 850–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.012
HammondM. D.SibleyC. G.OverallN. C. (2018). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 763–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727605
21.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 10(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
22.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
23.
JackmanH. (2022). Objectification and patriarchal violence: Sociocultural mechanisms in collectivist contexts. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003201234
24.
JewkesR.FloodM.LangJ. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4
25.
KangH. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software: A guide for medical researchers. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 74(4), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.21242
26.
KhanA. F. (2018). Qawwam: A critical analysis of gender roles in Islamic jurisprudence with reference to Surah An-Nisa. Journal of Islamic Studies and Culture, 6(2), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.15640/jisc.v6n2.1456
27.
KidwaiR. (2001). Domestic violence in Pakistan: The role of patriarchy, gender roles, the culture of honor and objectification/commodification of women. Alliant International University, Los Angeles.
28.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press.
29.
KockN.HadayaP. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
PetersJ. (2008). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and initial validation of the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770801917780
32.
PritschetL.PowellD.HorneZ. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616645672
RajkumarR. P. (2023). A cross-national study of the association of cultural dimensions with the prevalence of intimate partner violence. International Social Science Journal, 73(247), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/issj.12399
SiddiquiK. A. (2022). English medium instruction in the higher education in Pakistan: A retrospective analysis using the ROAD-MAPPING framework. The Education and Science Journal, 24(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2022-1-53-66
37.
SulemanA.KhanM. A.AhmedS. (2023). Religious conservatism and gender-based violence in Pakistan: The role of patriarchal norms in IPV justification. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(5–6), 4567–4592. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221112345
38.
TaberK. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
39.
UllahH. (2014). The objectification of women in television advertisements in Pakistan. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 26–35.
VaesJ.PaladinoM.-P.CastelliL.LeyensJ.-P.GiovanazziA. (2011). On the behavioral consequences of dehumanization: Stereotypes and implicit associations matter. Social Cognition, 29(6), 735–746. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.6.735
42.
WhittakerT. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.557503
43.
WolfE. J.HarringtonK. M.ClarkS. L.MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence.
46.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
