How does the public define interpersonal violence? A conjoint experiment

Abstract

Public understanding of what constitutes interpersonal violence has been the topic of much conceptual debate. In this study, we aim to contribute to this literature by generating empirical insight. We recruit a quota representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 724) and expose participants to vignettes describing interpersonal conflict. We use a conjoint design to manipulate six features of the vignettes and examine how these impact participants’ willingness to label the incident as violent. Results showed that – in line with ideal victim effects – events involving more vulnerable victims and more blameworthy perpetrators are more likely to be labelled as violence. Further, ‘traditional’ representations of interpersonal violence as events that produce physical injury to the victim, generated high violence ratings. Still, public understanding of interpersonal violence was relatively inclusive – various non-physical confrontations were also considered to be violent.