Gender differences in attribution of guilt to the
Participants of typical and atypical marital violence scenarios
Ulybina E.V.,
PhD (Psychology), P rofessor, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia, evulbn@gmail.com
Abbasova S.E.,
PhD Student, Chair of Psychology, Department of General Psychology, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia, sara.abbasova09@gmail.com
The article analyzes the gender differences of respondents in attribution of guilt to the aggressor and the victim during the husband’ aggression towards the wife, which, according to previous studies, is perceived as a typical situation of marital violence, and the wife’ aggression towards the husband situation is perceived as an atypical situation. The research hypotheses are: 1) the victim’s fault is directly related to Belief in a Just World (BJW) only in typical situation of marital violence and 2) gender favouritism is manifested when attributing the guilt of the characters in a typical situation but not in an atypical situation. The sample consisted of 1157 people (female – 679, age - 18 to 66) who completed an online questionnaire that included a Belief in a Just World scale (Nartova-Bochavera et al., 2013), and read a vignette describing the situation of marital violence. In the scenario either the husband or the wife was the perpetrator of the physical violence. Analysis of the results showed that attribution of guilt to the wife-victim is directly related to the scales of BJW for all and BJW for themselves only for women respondents, for men - it has reversed connection. Also, gender favoritism is manifested only in attributing the guilt in a typical marital violence where aggressor is a husband, however in atypical scenarios guilt attribution has no connection with BJW scales.
Keywords: marital violence, attribution of guilt to the victim, attribution of guilt to the aggressor, belief in a just world, gender favoritism
REFERENCES
1. Gorshkova I.D., Shurygina I.I. Nasilie nad zhenami v rossijskih sem'jah // Materialy obshherossijskogo issledovanija, predstavlennye na konferencii maja 2003 g. v MGU im. M.V.Lomonosova i Gorbachev-Fonde 2, 2003. Vol. 5, pp. 33-37.
2. Lysova A.V. Fizicheskoe nasilie nad zhenami v rossijskih sem'jah // Sociologicheskie issledovanija, 2008a. No. 9, pp. 121-128.
|
|
|
3. Lysova A.V. Zhenskaja agressija i nasilie v sem'e // Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost', 2008b. No. 3, pp. 167-176.
4. Lysova A.V. Dominirovanie i nasilie v supruzheskih otnoshenijah // Vserossijskij kriminologicheskij zhurnal, 2014. No. 2, pp. 113 – 141.
5. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Podlipnjak M.B., Hohlova A.Ju. Vera v spravedlivyj mir i psihologicheskoe blagopoluchie u gluhih i slyshashhih pod-rostkov i vzroslyh // Klinicheskaja i special'naja psihologija, 2013. No. 3, pp. 1-14.
6. Nartova-Bochaver S. K., Astanina N. B. Psihologicheskie problemy spravedlivosti v zarubezhnoj personologii: teorii i jempiricheskie issledovanija // Psihologicheskij zhurnal, 2014. Vol. 1, no. 35, pp. 16-32.
7. Timko S.A., Timko V.P. Muzhchina - zhertva semejnogo nasilija: aktual'nost' problemy v Rossii // Viktimologija, 2016. Vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 33-40.
8. Fahretdinova, A.B. Faktory, provocirujushhie nasilie nad zhenshhinoj v supruzheskih vzaimootnoshenijah // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. NI Lobachevskogo. Serija: Social'nye nauki. 2008, pp. 123-129.
9. Harlamov, V.S. Prestupnoe nasilie v otnoshenii muzhchin v semejnoj sfere // Social'naja rabota s muzhchinami, SPb., 2017, pp. 98-107.
10. Shipunova T.V. Supruzheskoe nasilie v kontekste viktimizacii zhenshhin // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 18. Sociologija i politologija, 2016. Vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 142-158.
11. Allen E., Bradley M.S. Perceptions of harm, criminality, and law enforcement response: comparing violence by men against women and violence by women against men // Victims & Offenders. 2017. Vol. 13(3), pp. 373–389.
12. Ansara D.L., Hindin M.J. Exploring gender differences in the patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: A latent class approach // Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 2010. Vol. 64(10), pp. 849-854.
13. Archer J. Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review // Aggression and violent behavior, 2002. Vol. 7(4), pp. 313-351.
14. Bal M., van den Bos K. The role of perpetrator similarity in reactions toward innocent victims // European Journal of Social Psychology. 2010. Vol. 40(6), pp. 957-969.
|
|
|
15. Bastounis M., Leiser D., Roland-Lévy C. Psychosocial variables involved in the constructions of lay thinking about the economy: Results of a crossnational survey // Journal of Economic Psychology. 2004. Vol.25, pp. 263–278.
16. Begue L., Bastounis M. Two spheres of belief in justice: Extensive support for the bidimensional model of belief in a just world //Journal of Personality. 2003. – Vol.71(3), pp. 435-463.
17. Bègue, L., Charmoillaux, M., Cochet, J., Cury, C., & De Suremain, F. Altruistic behavior and the bidimensional just world belief //The American journal of psychology. 2008, Vol.121(1), pp. 47-56.
18. Bryant S.A., Spencer G.A. University students' attitudes about attributing blame in domestic violence // Journal of Family Violence. 2003. Vol. 18(6), pp. 369-376.
19. Cannon C., Lauve-Moon K., Buttell F. Re-theorizing intimate partner violence through post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender // Social Sciences, 2015. Vol.4 (3), pp.668-687.
20. Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., Arias, I. Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar behavior imply similar constructs? // Violence and victims, 2005. Vol. 20(2), pp. 207-218.
21. Chan K.L. Gender symmetry in the self-reporting of intimate partner violence // Journal of interpersonal violence, 2012. Vol. 27(2), pp. 263-286.
22. Choma B., Hafer C., Crosby F., Foster M. Perceptions of personal sex discrimination: The role of belief in a just world and situational ambiguity // The Journal of Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 152(5), pp. 568-585.
23. Correia, I., Alves, H., Morais, R., & Ramos, M. The legitimation of wife abuse among women: The impact of belief in a just world and gender identification // Personality and Individual Differences, 2015. Vol. 76, pp. 7-12.
24. Correia, I., Alves, H., Sutton, R., Ramos, M., Gouveia-Pereira, M., & Vala, J. When do people derogate or psychologically distance themselves from victims? Belief in a just world and ingroup identification //Personality and Individual Differences. 2012. Vol. 53(6), pp. 747-752.
|
|
|
25. Dalbert C. The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 1999. Vol. 12, pp. 79—98.
26. Dalbert C., Lipkus I.M., Sallay H., Goch, I. A just and an unjust world: Structure and validity of different world beliefs // Personality and Individual Differences. 2001. Vol. 30(4), pp. 561-577.
27. Dobash R.P., Dobash R.E., Wilson M., Daly M. The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence // Social problems, 1992. Vol.39(1), pp. 71-91.
28. Dutton D.G., White K.R. Male victims of domestic violence // New male studies: An international journal, 2013. Vol.2(1), pp.5-17.
29. Feather N.T. Domestic violence, gender, and perceptions of justice // Sex Roles, 1996. Vol. 35(7-8), pp. 507-519.
30. Furnham A., Procter E. Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature // British journal of social psychology. 1989. Vol. 28(4), pp. 365-384.
31. Hafer C. L., Rubel A. N. The why and how of defending belief in a just world //Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, 2015. Vol.51. pp. 41-96.
32. Hafer C.L., Choma B.L. Belief in a just world, perceived fairness, and justification of the status quo // Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. 2009. pp.107-125.
33. Hafer C.L., Sutton R. Belief in a just world // Handbook of social justice theory and research. Springer New York. 2016. pp. 145-160.
34. Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. Experimental research on just-world theory: problems, developments, and future challenges // Psychological bulletin. 2005, Vol. 131(1), pp. 128-167.
35. Hamby S., Jackson A. Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence // Sex Roles. 2010. Vol. 63(5-6), pp. 324-331.
36. Harris R.J., Cook C.A. Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are // Sex Roles. 1994. Vol. 30(7-8), pp. 553-565.
37. Janoff‐Bulman R. Esteem and control bases of blame: “Adaptive” strategies for victims versus observers // Journal of Personality. 1982. Vol. 50(2), pp. 180-192.
|
|
|
38. Janoff‐Bulman R., & Frieze I.H. A theoretical perspective for understanding reactions to victimization. Journal of social issues. 1983. Vol. 39(2), pp. 1-17.
39. Jost J., Hunyady O. The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology // European review of social psychology. 2003. Vol. 13(1), pp. 111-153.
40. Jost J.T., & Banaji M.R. The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness // British Journal of Social Psychology. 1994. Vol. 33(1), pp. 1-27.
41. Kay A.C., Gaucher D., Peach J.M., Laurin K., Friesen J., Zanna M.P., & Spencer S.J. Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009. Vol. 97(3), pp. 421–434.
42. Kay A.C., Jost J.T., Mandisodza A.N., Sherman S.J., Petrocelli J.V., & Johnson A.L. Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. Advances in experimental social psychology. 2007. Vol. 39, pp. 305-358.
43. Kay A.C., Whitson J.A., Gaucher D., & Galinsky A.D. Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2009. Vol. 18(5), pp. 264-268.
44. Kimmel, M.S. “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review // Violence against women, 2002. 8(11), pp. 1332-1363.
45. Kristiansen C.M., Giulietti R. Perceptions of wife abuse: Effects of gender, attitudes toward women, and just-world beliefs among college students // Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1990. Vol. 14(2), pp. 177-189.
46. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J., Shlien-Dellinger R.K., Huss M.T., Kramer V.L. Attributions about perpetrators and victims of interpersonal abuse: Results from an analogue study // Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2004. Vol. 19(4), pp. 484-498.
47. Lerner M.J., Miller D.T. Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead // Psychological Bulletin. 1978. Vol. 85(5), pp. 1030-1051.
48. Lipkus I.M., Dalbert C., Siegler I.C. The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1996. Vol. 22(7). С. 666-677.
49. Lipkus I.M., Siegler I.C. The belief in a just world and perceptions of discrimination // The Journal of Psychology. 1993. Vol. 127(4), pp. 465-474.
50. Liviatan I., Jost J.T. Special issue: System justification theory: Motivated social cognition in the service of the status quo // Social Cognition. 2011. Vol. 29(3), pp. 231-237.
51. Locke L.M., Richman C.L. Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender issues // Sex Roles. 1998. Vol. 40(3-4), pp. 227-247.
52. Lowe M., Khan R., Thanzami V., Barzy M., & Karmaliani R. Attitudes toward intimate partner “honor”- based violence in India, Iran, Malaysia and Pakistan // Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research. 2018. Vol. 10(4), pp. 283-292.
53. Poorman P.B., Seelau E.P., Seelau S.M. Perceptions of domestic abuse in same-sex relationships and implications for criminal justice and mental health responses // Violence and Victims. 2003. Vol. 18(6), pp. 659-669.
54. Rhatigan D.L., Stewart C., & Moore T.M. Effects of gender and confrontation on attributions of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence // Sex Roles. 2011. Vol. 64(11-12), pp. 875-887.
55. Saunders D.G. Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social problem? A review of the literature // Violence against women, 2002. Vol. 8(12), pp. 1424-1448.
56. Schuller R.A., Smith V.L., Olson J.M. Jurors' decisions in trials of battered women who kill: the role of prior beliefs and expert testimony // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1994. Vol. 24(4), pp. 316-337.
57. Schuller, R. A., Smith, V. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Jurors' Decisions in Trials of Battered Women Who Kill: The Role of Prior Beliefs and Expert Testimony 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 316-337.
58. Seelau E.P., Seelau S.M. Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence // Journal of family violence. 2005. Vol. 20(6), pp. 363–371.
59. Seelau E.P., Seelau S.M., Poorman P.B. Gender and role‐based perceptions of domestic abuse: Does sexual orientation matter? // Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2003. Vol. 21(2), pp. 199-214.
60. Shaver K.G. Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1970. Vol. 14 (2), pp. 101-113.
61. Sorenson S.B., Taylor C.A. Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample // Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2005. Vol. 29(1), pp. 78-96.
62. Straus M.A. Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment // Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2011. Vol.16(4), pp. 279-288.
63. Straus M.A., Scott K. Gender symmetry in partner violence: evidence and implications for prevention and treatment // In J.R. Lutzkerand D.J. Whitaker (Eds.) Prevention of Partner Violence. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, 2009. pp. 245 – 271.
64. Sutton R. M., Douglas K. M. Justice for all, or just for me? More evidence of the importance of the self-other distinction in just-world beliefs //Personality and Individual Differences. 2005. Vol. 39(3), pp. 637-645.
65. Sylaska K.M., Walters A.S. Testing the Extent of the Gender Trap: College Students’ Perceptions of and Reactions to Intimate Partner Violence // Sex Roles. 2014. Vol. 70(3-4), pp. 134–145.
66. Taylor J., Bradbury‐Jones C., Kroll T., Duncan F. Health professionals’ beliefs about domestic abuse and the issue of disclosure: a critical incident technique study // Health & Social Care in the Community. 2013. Vol. 21(5), pp. 489-499.
67. Taylor S.E., Brown J.D. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health // Psychological Bulletin. 1988. Vol. 103(2), pp. 193-210.
68. Valor-Segura I., Expósito F., Moya M. 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. 2011. Vol. 14(1), pp. 195-206.
69. Walker J., Ashby J., Gredecki N., Tarpey E. Gender representations of female perpetrators of intimate partner violence // Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research. 2018. Vol. 10(3), pp. 170-180.
70. Yamawaki N., Ochoa-Shipp M., Pulsipher C., Harlos A., & Swindler S. Perceptions of domestic violence: The effects of domestic violence myths, victim’s relationship with her abuser, and the decision to return to her abuser // Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2012. Vol. 27(16), pp. 3195-3212.
71. Yamawaki N., Ostenson J., Brown C.R. The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students // Violence Against Women. 2009. Vol. 15(9), pp. 1126-1142.
72. Yamawaki N., Riley C., & Gardner N. The effects of gender-role traditionality and gender of abuser on attitudes toward intimate partner violence and perceived body size of the victim and abuser // Partner Abuse. 2018. Vol. 9(3), pp. 230-248.
Дата добавления: 2019-11-16; просмотров: 140; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!