Unveiling the Gender Symmetry Debate: Exploring Consequences, Instructions, and Forms of Violence in Intimate Partner Violence.

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1177/08862605241289477
Antonella Ludmila Zapata-Calvente, Miguel Moya, Jesús L Megías
{"title":"Unveiling the Gender Symmetry Debate: Exploring Consequences, Instructions, and Forms of Violence in Intimate Partner Violence.","authors":"Antonella Ludmila Zapata-Calvente, Miguel Moya, Jesús L Megías","doi":"10.1177/08862605241289477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Official statistics and data from police and judicial systems consistently show that intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide problem predominantly affecting women perpetrated by male partners. Yet, certain behavioral checklists yield similar IPV rates for both genders, sparking the gender symmetry/asymmetry debate. Some possible explanations for this discrepancy reside in (a) considering or not the consequences of violence, (b) possible inadequacies of the instructions given to participants when answering checklists, and (c) considering or not certain behaviors typically asymmetrical (e.g., economic violence). In order to test these three hypotheses, we conducted two studies in the Spanish context using the Partner Victimization Scale (PVS). In Study 1, participants (<i>n</i> = 449) answered a Spanish version of the PVS (with the instructions \"Not including horseplay or joking around\") and reported consequences of violence on their self-esteem and health. In Study 2 (<i>n</i> = 172), we experimentally manipulated the instructions given to participants when answering the PVS (including those of Study 1 or not) and also added some items of typically asymmetrical violence. Other measures of consequences of violence were assessed. Results of Study 1 replicated the original PVSs factor structure and showed gender asymmetry (more female than male victimization) in four of five items, and the victimization rates were related to consequences of violence, providing construct validity to this version of the scale. Results of Study 2 underlined the relevance of the instructions and of the addition of certain types of violence in the symmetry/asymmetry rates informed. Additionally, the IPV reported was associated with worse consequences for women than for men. Our findings suggest that the detection of IPV increases when the instructions are clarified, when certain items are added, and when the consequences of IPV are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":" ","pages":"4346-4371"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241289477","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Official statistics and data from police and judicial systems consistently show that intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide problem predominantly affecting women perpetrated by male partners. Yet, certain behavioral checklists yield similar IPV rates for both genders, sparking the gender symmetry/asymmetry debate. Some possible explanations for this discrepancy reside in (a) considering or not the consequences of violence, (b) possible inadequacies of the instructions given to participants when answering checklists, and (c) considering or not certain behaviors typically asymmetrical (e.g., economic violence). In order to test these three hypotheses, we conducted two studies in the Spanish context using the Partner Victimization Scale (PVS). In Study 1, participants (n = 449) answered a Spanish version of the PVS (with the instructions "Not including horseplay or joking around") and reported consequences of violence on their self-esteem and health. In Study 2 (n = 172), we experimentally manipulated the instructions given to participants when answering the PVS (including those of Study 1 or not) and also added some items of typically asymmetrical violence. Other measures of consequences of violence were assessed. Results of Study 1 replicated the original PVSs factor structure and showed gender asymmetry (more female than male victimization) in four of five items, and the victimization rates were related to consequences of violence, providing construct validity to this version of the scale. Results of Study 2 underlined the relevance of the instructions and of the addition of certain types of violence in the symmetry/asymmetry rates informed. Additionally, the IPV reported was associated with worse consequences for women than for men. Our findings suggest that the detection of IPV increases when the instructions are clarified, when certain items are added, and when the consequences of IPV are considered.

揭开性别对称辩论的神秘面纱:探索亲密伴侣暴力的后果、指令和暴力形式。
来自警方和司法系统的官方统计和数据一致表明,亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)是一个世界性问题,主要影响女性,施暴者为男性伴侣。然而,某些行为核对表显示,男女两性的 IPV 发生率相似,从而引发了性别对称/不对称的争论。造成这种差异的一些可能原因在于:(a)是否考虑了暴力的后果;(b)在回答核对表时给予参与者的指导可能存在不足;以及(c)是否考虑了某些典型的非对称行为(如经济暴力)。为了验证这三个假设,我们使用伴侣受害量表(PVS)在西班牙进行了两项研究。在研究 1 中,参与者(n = 449)回答了西班牙文版本的 PVS(说明 "不包括马戏或开玩笑"),并报告了暴力对其自尊和健康造成的后果。在研究 2(n = 172)中,我们通过实验操纵了参与者在回答 PVS 时给出的说明(包括研究 1 中的说明或不包括的说明),并增加了一些典型的非对称暴力项目。我们还对暴力后果的其他测量指标进行了评估。研究 1 的结果复制了原始 PVS 的因子结构,并在 5 个项目中的 4 个项目上显示出性别不对称(受害女性多于受害男性),而且受害率与暴力后果相关,为这一版本的量表提供了建构效度。研究 2 的结果强调了说明的相关性,以及在对称/不对称比例中增加某些类型暴力的相关性。此外,所报告的 IPV 对女性造成的后果比对男性造成的后果更严重。我们的研究结果表明,如果对说明进行了澄清,增加了某些项目,并考虑到了 IPV 的后果,那么 IPV 的检测率就会提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信