Unveiling the Gender Symmetry Debate: Exploring Consequences, Instructions, and Forms of Violence in Intimate Partner Violence
Identificadores
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10481/101268Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemEditorial
Sage Journals
Materia
intimate partner violence against women gender symmetry debate Partner Victimization Scale consequences
Fecha
2024Referencia bibliográfica
Zapata-Calvente, A. L., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2024). Unveiling the Gender Symmetry Debate: Exploring Consequences, Instructions, and Forms of Violence in Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 08862605241289477. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241289477
Patrocinador
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/ or authorship of this article: Grant PID2023-152038-I00 funded by MCIU/ AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER,UE (Spain) and grant PAIDI 2020— DOC_00136 funded by Consejería de Universidad, Investigación e Innovación de la Junta de Andalucía to the first author.Resumen
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.





