Gender Differences in Attribution of Guilt to the Participants of Typical and Atypical Marital Violence Scenarios

412

Abstract

Objectives. Analysis of gender differences in attribution of guilt to the aggressor and the victim of spousal violence, depending on the victim’ and the aggressor’ gender. Background. Studies of spousal aggression show that a man’s aggression towards a woman is perceived as typical aggression, attribution of guilt to the victim-wife is directly related to the faith in a just world and the aggressor-husband is attributed more guilt than the aggressor-wife. The connection of the attribution of guilt to the victim-husband with faith in a just world and the correlation between the attribution of guilt to the victim-husband and the attribution of guilt to the victim-wife, depending on the gender of the respondents, has not been sufficiently studied. Study design. We evaluated 1) correlation of attribution of guilt to participants in a typical and atypical situation of violence through the sample as a whole and separately for men and women, and 2) differences in the level of attribution of guilt to participants in their own and opposite gender group using the method of variance analysis. Participants. 1,157 people, including 679 women, aged 18 to 66. Measurements. The questionnaire included a survey form «Faith in a just world» (Dalbert C.) and a vignette describing the situation of marital violence in different-sex couples, the gender of the victim varied. Results. The attribution of guilt to the victim-wife is directly related to faith in a just world only among women; the connection of the victim-wife’s guilt with faith in a just world is reversed among men. Much guilt for a representative of its gender group is only shown when assessing the typical victim and aggressor. Conclusions. The results suggest that attribution of guilt to the victim and gender favoritism are only shown in case of the possibility of identification with the victim’s position.

General Information

Keywords: belief in a just world, gender favoritism, marital violence, attribution of guilt to the victim, attribution of guilt to the aggressor

Journal rubric: Empirical Research

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2020110304

For citation: Ulybina E.V., Abbasova S.E. Gender Differences in Attribution of Guilt to the Participants of Typical and Atypical Marital Violence Scenarios. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2020. Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 51–69. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2020110304. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

1. Gorshkova I.D., Shurygina I.I. Nasilie nad zhenami v rossiiskikh sem’yakh [Violence against

wives in Russian families]. Materialy obshcherossiiskogo issledovaniya, predstavlennye na konferentsii

maya 2003 g. v MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova i Gorbachev-Fonde 2 [Materials of an all-Russian study

presented at a conference in May 2003 at Lomonosov Moscow State University and Gorbachev-

Fund 2], 2003. Vol. 5, pp. 33—37.

2. Lysova A.V. Fizicheskoe nasilie nad zhenami v rossiiskikh sem’yakh [Physical abuse against

wives in Russian families]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya = Sociological research, 2008a, no. 9,

pp. 121—128.

3. Lysova A.V. Zhenskaya agressiya i nasilie v sem’e [Female aggression and abuse in violence].

Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ = Social sciences and modernity, 2008b, no. 3, pp. 167—176.

4. Lysova A.V. Dominirovanie i nasilie v supruzheskikh otnosheniyakh [Domination and violence

in marital relations]. Vserossiiskii kriminologicheskii zhurnal = All-Russian Criminological Journal,

2014, no. 2, pp. 113—141.

5. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Podlipnyak M.B., Khokhlova A.Yu. Vera v spravedlivyi mir i

psikhologicheskoe blagopoluchie u glukhikh i slyshashchikh podrostkov i vzroslykh [Belief in a just

world and psychological well-being among deaf and hearing teenagers and adults]. Klinicheskaya i

spetsial’naya psikhologiya = Clinical and spexual psychology, 2013, no. 3, pp. 1—14.

6. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Astanina N.B. Psikhologicheskie problemy spravedlivosti v

zarubezhnoi personologii: teorii i empiricheskie issledovaniya [Psychological problems of justice

in foreign personology: theories and empirical studies]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological

Journal, 2014, no. 1 (35), pp. 16—32.

7. Timko S.A., Timko V.P. Muzhchina-zhertva semeinogo nasiliya: aktual’nost’ problemy v Rossii

[A male man is a victim of domestic violence: the relevance of the problem in Russia]. Viktimologiya =

Victimology, 2016, no. 3 (9), pp. 33—40.

8. Fakhretdinova A.B. Faktory, provotsiruyushchie nasilie nad zhenshchinoi v supruzheskikh

vzaimootnosheniyakh [Factors provoking violence against women in marital relationships]. Vestnik

Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. NI Lobachevskogo. Seriya: Sotsial’nye nauki = Bulletin of the

Lobachevsky Nizhny Novgorod University. Series: Social Sciences, 2008, pp. 123—129.

9. Kharlamov V.S. Prestupnoe nasilie v otnoshenii muzhchin v semeinoi sfere [Domestic violence

against men]. Sotsial’noe obsluzhivanie semei i detei: nauchno-metodicheskii sbornik = Social services

for families and children: a scientific and methodological collection. Vyp. 11: Sotsial’naya rabota s

muzhchinami = Social work with men, 2017, pp. 98—107.

10. Shipunova T.V. Supruzheskoe nasilie v kontekste viktimizatsii zhenshchin [Spousal violence

in the context of women victimization]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 18. Sotsiologiya

i politologiya = Bulletin of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Series 18. Sociology and Political

Science, 2016, no. 22 (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 metaanalytic

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 poststructural

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. 2 7(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. Vol. 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), pp. 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. Jurors’ Decisions in Trials of Battered Women Who

Kill: The Role of Prior Beliefs and Expert Testimony 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1994.

Vol. 24 (4), pp. 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.

Information About the Authors

Elena V. Ulybina, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-9006, e-mail: evulbn@gmail.com

Sara E. Abbasova, 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, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-9986, e-mail: sara.abbasova09@gmail.com

Metrics

Views

Total: 728
Previous month: 14
Current month: 19

Downloads

Total: 412
Previous month: 9
Current month: 13