The Spanish Journal of Psychology Copyright 2011 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology

2011, Vol. 14 No. 1, 195-206 ISSN 1138-7416

doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.17

Victim Blaming and Exoneration of the Perpetrator

in Domestic Violence: The Role of Beliefs in a Just
World and Ambivalent Sexism

Inmaculada Valor-Segura, Francisca Expósito, and Miguel Moya

Universidad de Granada (Spain)

The existence of domestic violence is closely linked to several ideological factors that include sexism and other beliefs
about society in general, namely the belief in a just world. In this study, which involved 485 people of both sexes aged
between 18 and 70 years, we analyzed the influence of these ideological variables of the perceivers and characteristics of
the situation on judgments of a gender aggression – blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator. Results showed
differences in the reactions of observers depending on the cause that triggered the aggression. Participants blamed the victim
and exonerated the aggressor more when no cause of the aggression was mentioned than when a cause was mentioned (the
woman wanted to separate, to see an old male friend, or simply to take a trip with her female friends). We also found clear
effects of hostile sexism and just world beliefs on the dependent variables. Results showed that the influence of just world
beliefs depended on the fact of mention or not a cause for the aggression.
Keywords: domestic violence, ambivalent sexism, just world beliefs.

La existencia de violencia doméstica está estrechamente relacionada con una serie de factores ideológicos entre los que
se encuentran el sexismo y otras creencias sobre la sociedad en general como son las creencias en el mundo justo. En
este estudio, en el que participaron 485 personas de ambos sexos con edades comprendidas entre los 18 y 70 años, se
analizó la influencia que en los juicios sobre una agresión de género (culpar a la víctima y minimizar la importancia de la
agresión) tenían tanto algunas variables ideológicas de los perceptores como ciertas características de la situación. Los
resultados mostraron diferencias en las reacciones de los observadores en función de la causa desencadenante de la
agresión descrita. Los participantes culparon más a la víctima y exoneraban más al agresor cuando no se presentaba causa
de la agresión que cuando la causa era mencionada (la mujer quería separarse, iba a ver a un viejo amigo o simplemente
hacer un viaje con amigas). También se obtuvieron claros efectos del sexismo hostil y de las creencias en el mundo justo
en las variables dependientes. Los resultados mostraron que la influencia de las creencias en el mundo justo dependía del
hecho de mencionar o no la posible causa de la agresión.
Palabras clave: violencia doméstica, sexismo ambivalente, creencias en el mundo justo.

This research was supported by Grants No. P06-HUM-01437 “Gender Violence: Psychosocial analysis of its causes and reduction
strategies” from the Gobierno Regional Andaluz, SEJ2007-65816/PSIC from the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, and I+D+I
064/07 from the Spanish Instituto de la Mujer. It received the Juan Huarte de San Juan Applied Psychology Award in its fifth edition,
granted by the Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Andalucía Oriental in Spain (COPAO).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Inmaculada Valor-Segura. Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad
de Psicología. Universidad de Granada. Campus de Cartuja. 18011 Granada. (Spain). Phone: +34-958244259. Fax: +34-958243746
E-mail: [email protected]

195
 196 VALOR-SEGURA, EXPÓSITO, AND MOYA

Every day, thousands of women and girls in the world can use one or more of several possible strategies (Lerner,
are victims of some kind of violence mainly because they 1980). One of the most studied strategies is that perceivers
are women. According to international studies carried out can decide that the victims deserved to suffer; for instance,
by the World Health Organization in 35 countries, between their misfortune can be attributed to reckless behavior, or
24 and 53 per cent of women have been physically abused in they can be judged to be bad, unworthy persons whose
their lifetime; a great part of this violence is perpetrated by suffering is not unjust, even if they did not cause the
men who are or were their intimate partners (WHO, 2005). outcome directly. Making these rationalizations allows
This kind of violence has deep historic roots and is people to maintain their belief that a similar misfortune will
present in almost every society (Alberdi & Matas, 2002; not occur to them, as long as they are careful and are of
Straus, 2006; Vieraitis, Brito, & Kovandzic, 2007; Yoshioka, ‘‘good’’ character (Lerner & Miller, 1978).
Dinoia, & Ullah, 2001). The socio-cultural structure has There is empirical evidence that relates Belief in a Just
an influence on violence against women, essentially by World to negative reactions towards people considered to be
maintaining a set of widely shared beliefs, values and myths victims or in a disadvantaged situation: victims of domestic
related not only to gender violence in particular but also to violence, poor people in the third world, the handicapped,
the social system in general and to relationships between AIDs patients, accident cases, rape victims, cancer patients,
men and women (Bhanot & Senn, 2007). etc. (Castillo, Asún, & Aceituno, 2002; De Judicibus &
Attitudes towards domestic violence are important to McCabe, 2001; Furnham, 2003; Montada, 1998).
understand how people react or behave towards victims Numerous studies have examined whether stronger
and perpetrators of these aggresions (Gracia, García, & Lila, beliefs in a just world are associated with more acceptance
2009). These attitudes are often characterized by blaming of physical and sexual aggression against women, but the
the victim, minimizing the importance of the aggresion and support for this relationship is mixed (Capezza & Arriaga,
justifying or exonerating the perpetrator and may be shown 2008). According to the just world hypothesis, if the world
by perpetrators as well as victims (Yamawaki, Darby, & is a just place, then there must be a justifiable reason that a
Queiroz, 2007). Attitudes towards domestic violence person perpetrates an aggressive act, absolving the person
are linked to other ideologies, as gender ideology. Thus, of any personal responsibility (e.g., he hit her because she
traditional gender beliefs are associated with increased deserved it or she did something to provoke it). Supporting
sympathy for perpetrators of physical aggression (Pavlou this idea, Schuller, Smith and Olson (1994) found that
& Knowles, 2001; Willis, Hallinan, & Melby, 1996), less people who have a strong Belief in a Just World tend to
blame for perpetrators (Hillier & Foddy, 1993; Kristiansen blame victims of domestic violence more than those who
& Giulietti, 1990; Pavlou & Knowles, 2001), more victim have a weaker belief that the world is a just place, and
blame (Valor-Segura, Expósito,& Moya, 2008) and lower Sakalli-Ugurlu, Yalcin, and Glick (2007) found that Belief
perceptions that the behaviors are abusive (Willis et al., in a Just World predicted less positive attitudes towards
1996). Moreover, attitudes towards domestic violence seem rape victims. Other studies have found that individuals
to be linked to other broader ideologies, as Just World who adopt more just world beliefs perceive a perpetrator
Beliefs (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008). Our research will focus as less culpable (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). However, other
on these ideologies: Belief in a Just World (BJW) and Sexist studies have not found this association between beliefs
Beliefs. These two ideologies are used as tools to legitimize in a just world and acceptation of physical and sexual
the status quo. However, Belief in a Just World influences aggression against women (Hammock & Richardson, 1993;
judgments and behaviors related to various types of victims Kristiansen & Giulietti, 1990; Lambert & Raichle, 2000).
(of poverty, illness – HIV/AIDS –, spousal abuse,…), For example, some research (e.g., Kleinke & Meyer, 1990)
whereas sexism especially legitimize gender inequality. has shown that women scoring high in just world beliefs
have more favorable reactions to rape victims, which seems
Just World Beliefs opposite to what just world theory would predict.
Although victimg blame is one of the most studied
Belief in a Just World is an ideology according to which strategy that people use to maintain their beliefs in a just
individuals or groups of people get what they deserve world, the perpetrator of injustice may also be the focus
(Lerner, 1980). The theory postulates that people need to of just-world-restoring strategies. Correlational literature
believe that they live in a just world where people usually shows a relatively consistent association between explicit
obtain what they are entitled to. This ideology can be applied individual-difference measures of belief in a just world
to very different situations such as poverty and economic and punitive, or antidefendant, attitudes in matters of
well-being, accidents, fortune when gambling, and so on, criminal justice (Hafer & Bégue, 2005), attitudes that can
and seems to be especially applicable to domestic violence. be summarize under the label “exonerating the aggressor”.
Perceivers’ just-world beliefs are typically threatened when Hafer and Bégue (2005) consider that there are two
something terrible happens to another person. To protect main conceptualizations of the Belief in a Just World. In the
their sense of justice and to reaffirm their beliefs, people first one, the assumption is that people differ in the extent
 SOCIO-CULTURAL BELIEFS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 197

to which they believe that the world is a just place and for women with praise at the same time, which does not
these variations can be measured with standard self-report imply the absence of discrimination. One of these theories
instruments. Scores on individual difference scales are is that of Ambivalent Sexism, developed by Glick &
correlated with a number of criteria, including attitudinal Fiske (1996), which postulates that sexism is ambivalent
and personality variables and measures of well-being because it is formed by two clearly differentiated, yet
(Furnham, 2003). According to Hafer and Bégue (2005) related, components: Hostile Sexism and Benevolent
this conceptualization represents a major shift in focus from Sexism. Sexism has traditionally been understood as
the essence of the theory, that proposes that people develop contempt for women and the belief that women should be
a general justice motive for a variety of reasons, the most dominated and forced to submission, and also limited to
well specified and unique of which is that people need to certain roles. Hostile Sexism (HS) basically matches this
believe in a just world in order to maintain their personal conception. Benevolent Sexism (BS) is defined as a set
contract (Lerner, 1977; Lerner, Miller, & Holmes, 1976). of interrelated attitudes towards women which are sexist
In this conceptualization, virtually all people develop a in the sense that women are considered in a stereotypical
commitment to deserving their outcomes and to organizing way. Yet, these attitudes elicit a positive affective tone in
their lives around principles of deservingness. For this the perceiver and tend to lead to behavior that is typically
commitment to be maintained, people need to believe in a categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy seeking
just world, and, therefore, they are threatened by instances (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Hostile sexism legitimates
of injustice and motivated to reduce this threat to maintain violence against women who challenge the power of
the appearance that the world metes out resources and ill men, women who “take advantage” of men sexually, and
fate as deserved. women who “soil” the honor of men. Benevolent sexism,
Experimental research rather than correlational however, legitimates negative reactions towards women
investigations is the appropiate methodology toward testing who do not fulfill traditional gender role expectations,
the motivational implications of an underlying need to when they do not follow the “right” path, by withdrawing
believe in a just world (Lerner, 1980, p. 30, 1998, 2003). In male “protection.” Various studies have shown the relation
experimental studies measures can be more easily gathered between hostile sexism and different aspects of gender-
during and/or shortly after exposure to emotionally based violence, such as rape proclivity in men (Abrams,
arousing stimuli, ensuring that the motivations proposed by Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003), justification of rape
just-world theory are still engaged and uncontaminated by or less positive attitudes towards rape victims (Durán,
other, more thoughtful processes (see Lerner, 2003). Moya, Megías, & Viki, 2010; Sakalli-Ugurlu et al., 2007),
Some research has combined these two justification of violence in a couple after betrayal (Forbes,
conceptualizations of just world beliefs and experimental Jobe, White, Bloesch, & Adams-Curtis, 2005), and
manipulations are assessed in combination with an attitudes towards domestic violence (Valor-Segura et al.,
individual-difference measure of belief in a just world. The 2008). Other studies have shown that benevolent sexism
general notion is that, if a need to believe in a just world is related to prejudices against women who engage in
leads to certain types of responses in a given experimental premarital sex (Sakalli-Ugurlu & Glick, 2003), tolerance
condition, then this response should occur primarily for of sexual abuse (Russell & Trigg, 2004) or blaming the
people expressing a strong endorsement of such a belief victim in a case of rape (Abrams et al., 2003; Durán et al.,
(Hafer & Begué, 2005). 2010; Sakalli-Ugurlu et al., 2007; Viki & Abrams, 2002).
As previously mentioned, to threat people beliefs about Abrams et al. (2003), for example, found that individuals
deservingness the stimulus should contain elements of who defended ideas implying benevolent sexism attributed
injustice in order to challenge the notion of a just world. a greater responsibility to women that were victims of
Thus, victims would have to appear, at some level, as sexual violence when they perceived that the women did
undeserving of their fate. For instance, Gilmartin-Zena not fulfill traditional gender role expectations; in other
(1983) presented participants with a respectable versus words, the predictive capacity of benevolent sexism about
nonrespectable victim of sexual assault and, on the basis of blaming the victim is mediated by the perception of the
past research by Jones and Aronson (1973), predicted that victim’s behavior as appropriate or inappropriate.
the respectable victim would be deemed more responsible Although some studies have analyzed the relation
for her victimization than the less respectable victim, thus between sexism (hostile and benevolent) and attitudes
restoring some element of deservingness and fairness to the towards violence against women, most of them have
good person’s bad outcomes. focused on sexual abuse. Very little information is
available about the relation between these constructs and
Sexism domestic violence.
Nevertheless, as shown by some of the results of the
Regarding sexism, there are new conceptions that studies mentioned above, although sexist beliefs and
make it possible to reconcile the existence of contempt ideology have an influence on the perception of domestic
 198 VALOR-SEGURA, EXPÓSITO, AND MOYA

violence, this influence is probably not direct and enhance justification of the aggression by perceivers.
permanent but depends on certain characteristics of the Obviously, this justification and legitimacy is stronger in
situation of violence (an analogous reasoning and results people who assume the traditional and sexist ideologies
concerning sexual aggression can be found in Frese, Moya, mentioned above: hostile and benevolent sexism and
& López-Megías, 2004). beliefs in a just world.
According to some line of research, victim blaming Finally, gender is an important variable concerning
and exonerating the aggressor could be accentuated when people reactions to domestic violence and frequently
no-justification or explanation about the violent episode gender interact with people’s ideology. Thus, previous
is given. Such a condition is of special interest because studies have shown that, overall, men are more tolerant to
it maximizes ambiguity about the male actor’s motives gender violence (Nayak, Byrne, Martín, & Abraham, 2001;
and female actor’s behavior and might therefore increase Newcombe, van den Eynde, Hafner, & Jolly, 2008; Valor-
the likelihood that individual differences in endorsement Segura et al., 2008). As an ilustration of the interaction
of ideological measures would predict people’s reactions between gender and people’s ideology, Kristiansen
(see Snyder & Ickes, 1985). For instance, Moya, Glick, and Giulietti (1990) found different perceptions and
Expósito, De Lemus, and Hart, (2007) found that when attributions of men and women regarding the perpetrator
women faced restrictions proceding from their partners and victim of an instance of wife abuse as well as different
and the partner offered no justification for his opposition, relations in both gender among sex role attitudes and
individual differences in women’s Benevolent Sexism victim blame: males blamed and derogated the wife/
mattered – high Benevolent Sexism women responded victim more as their attitudes toward women became
to no justification positively. Thus, the ambiguous no less favorable whereas among females, in contrast, those
justification condition appeared to provide fertile ground with positive attitudes toward women blamed, but did not
for women to interpret the partner’s motives, allowing derogate, the wife/victim more as their just-world beliefs
their own ideologies to color their construals. The absence became stronger. The authors interpreted the latter finding
of cause or justification in an episode of aggresion suggesting that women may blame a victim of violence
against women can be especially significant according to toward women in an effort to gain perceived control over
Just World Beliefs theory, because this situation can be the possibility of their own potential victimization.
perceived as threaten.
However, according to other line of reasoning, the The present research
tendency to blame the victim of domestic violence and
exonerate the perpetrator may be greater when the woman In our study, people of both sexes with very different
does not fulfill her traditional role or challenges the male socio-demographic characteristics dealt with four
dominant position in the relationship. In Spain, cases of
different accounts of situations of domestic aggression
domestic violence shown by the mass media are often
in a between-groups design. Three of these situations
linked to situations in which women are challenging
included a possible reason or cause of the aggression that
traditional roles. Research about domestic violence has
reflected the situational aspects we just mentioned: the
shown the relevance of certain situational variables when
woman wanted to separate, to see an old male friend, or
judging or assessing a domestic violence situation. First
simply to take a trip with her female friends. No cause
of all, separation or divorce might be the only possible
choice to end a situation of abuse for some women. or reason was mentioned in the fourth situation. Our first
However, starting the separation process may represent a hypothesis, derived from Just World Beliefs theory, was
risk factor and trigger the anger of certain violent men that observers would blame the victim and exonerate the
(Adelman, 2000; Kurz, 1996). perpetrator more when no cause was mentioned than when
Another situational factor that often appears in cases a possible cause was mentioned.
of domestic violence and is closely related to the factor The second hypothesis was related to the effects of the
mentioned above is jealousy (Babcock, Costa, Green, & two types of ideology studied on the social perception of
Eckhardt, 2004; Foran & O´Leary, 2008). Some studies situations of domestic aggression: observers with a higher
have shown that violence perpetrated by the husband has degree of sexism – especially hostile sexism –, and beliefs
been justified by perceivers in situations in which the wife in a just world were expected to blame the victim and
is seen as being at risk of committing adultery or being exonerate the perpetrator more. As part of this hypothesis,
unfaithful (Haj-Yahia, 2003; Haj-Yahia & Uysal, 2008; Hostile Sexism was expected to be the best ideological
Viki & Abrams, 2002; Yoshioka et al., 2001). In general, predictor; in fact, people with hostile sexist beliefs are
we can say that any element of the situation that suggests especially prone to justify discrimination and aggression
that the woman does not follow her stereotypical role – against women.
that of being dominated by her husband or partner – and The third hypothesis was aimed at analyzing how
appears as challenging, independent, and the like, may these ideological measures could predict the reactions of
 SOCIO-CULTURAL BELIEFS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 199

participants facing an episode of abuse depending on the Method

cause mentioned as a possible trigger of the aggression.
Different patterns were expected depending on the Participants
ideological measure. In the case of Belief in a Just World
Belief (BJW) we expected than when no justification The study involved the participation of 485 people
of the aggression was provided (compared to those aged between 18 and 70 years. Mean age was 31.35 years
episodes where a cause of the aggression was mentioned), (SD = 12.47); 41.8% of the participants were male and
participants who were high (but not low) in Just World 58.2% were female. Regarding educational level, 38% had
Beliefs were more likely to justify the aggression; people university studies, 21% had higher secondary education,
with this ideology were expected to feel more threatened 24.6% of participants had basic secondary education, and
and less in control and tend to think “she must have done 16.4% had primary education. As for the occupations of
something to deserve that” (hypothesis 3.a). Regarding the participants, 62.5% had full-time or part-time jobs and
sexism we expected that when a cause of the aggression 37.5% did not have a job.
was provided (compared to the episode where no cause
of the aggression was mentioned), participants who were Procedure
high (but not low) in hostile and benevolent sexism were
more likely to justify the aggression. Thus, Benevolent The sample was obtained through incidental
Sexism (BS) and Hostile Sexism (HS) are especially sampling in which researchers requested the participants’
relevant when the wife was meeting an old male friend, cooperation in the study. Participants were informed
planning a trip with some female friends, or asking for that their responses would be anonymous and total
a divorce, because all of these causes implied in some confidentiality was guaranteed in the treatment of the data.
way that the woman was disrupting traditional relations Participants voluntarily accepted to answer the measures
between men and women (hypothesis 3.b). We also expect shown individually at the request of the researchers. An
an interaction between BJW and sexism. According to independent variable called “cause of the aggression” was
Furnham (2003), various studies have shown that other manipulated at four levels and between groups, so that each
related belief systems such as attitudes towards women participant only dealt with one single level of the variable.
are more powerful predictors of reactions to traumatic The experimental condition was randomly assigned.
events than BJW and may act as moderator or mediating
variables. Thus, we expect that the relation between BJW Instruments
and victimg blaming or exonerating the aggressor would
be stronger when the participants are high in sexism The battery of questionnaires included the following
(hypothesis 3.c). measures, among others:
As mentioned above, the present study involved Socio-demographic characteristics. Participants were
participants of both sexes. Previous studies have shown asked about their sex, age, level of completed studies
that, overall, men are more tolerant to gender violence. In (primary education, basic secondary education, vocational
addition, males are less likely than females to experience training, higher secondary education or university studies)
domestic violence, and based on the findings of Jensen and occupational status (no paid job, full-time job, part-
and Gutek (1982), and Shaver’s (1970) theory that time job, occasional job all-year round, work by the hour
similarity with the victim lessens victim-blame, it would or holiday job).
predict among men lower levels of blame for the target Episode of aggression. After the previous questions a
of domestic violence. However, men also tend to have a situation was described. It was supposedly the transcription
more traditional gender ideology (Glick & Fiske, 1996), of a phone call made by a woman to a victim support help
and greater Belief in a Just World (O’Connor, Morrison, line. The situation was an account of a violent attack by the
McLeod, & Anderson, 1996). Therefore, it is not clear woman’s husband. Four different situations were presented
whether gender itself is directly related to acceptance in a between-groups design. The control condition is
of gender violence or traditional gender differences are presented next, followed by the differences with the other
mainly due to ideological differences between men and conditions (which replace the text in bold in the control
women. Moreover, as previously mentioned (Kristiansen condition):
& Giulietti, 1990) sometimes gender is a moderated 1) Control. “Hello, my name is Maria....I’m sorry but....,
factor in the relationship between JWB, gender ideology I’m very nervous and I don’t know where to start.
and victim blaming. Consequently, the effect of gender What happened is that,... well..., yesterday evening
on the dependent measures, and its interaction with the my husband hit me. We’ve been married for 13 years
experimental manipulation and participants’s ideology and our relationship is normal, you know, we argue
will be analyzed with no especific hypotheses formulated. sometimes, but I suppose it’s just like everybody
 200 VALOR-SEGURA, EXPÓSITO, AND MOYA

else. But we’d never reached this point... Yesterday, justified?” (1, “totally unjustified” and 7 “totally justified”);
well, ... yesterday when he came home from work “How likely do you think it is that the aggression will happen
and we started to have dinner, .... I’m sorry but ......, again?” (1, “not likely at all” and 7 “completely sure it will
well, we started to talk about the usual things, happen again”) (reversed item). Scores in these six items
you know, ... work, the children, the mortgage... were averaged (the alpha coefficient obtained for this scale
and I told him a few things I thought and he .... was .79). Higher scores indicated that the consequences
well.... he became more and more aggressive and of the aggression were minimized and the woman in the
.... he started to yell at me...., he said I was stupid, situation was blamed for the aggression.
that I didn’t know what I was talking about and Exoneration of the perpetrator. To measure how the
only said stupid things. At one point he stood participants exonerated the husband, we included three
up and started to yell at me at me and insult me. I questions with a 7-point Likert response format: “Do you
didn’t know what to do, I asked him why he was think the husband’s behavior is due to the following?”: “In
treating me that way and told him we should try to fact, he is worried about her” and “he is a responsible person”
talk calmly.... It made him even more furious and he (1, “totally disagree” and 7 “totally agree”), “To what extent
became more aggressive, to the point that he slapped do you consider the man may be partly to blame for what
me in the face and threw me to the floor and .... he happened?” (1, “not to blame at all” and 7 “completely to
shouted at me to shut up over and over again. I don’t blame”) (reversed item). Scores in these three items were
know what to do, we’ve been married for many averaged (the alpha coefficient obtained for this scale was
years and have two children. This kind of argument
.69). Higher scores indicated that participants exonerated
is more and more frequent, although this time he’s
the husband more of the aggression.
gone way too far. I’m scared of staying home in case
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) (Glick & Fiske, 1996
he hits me again, but I’m also scared of leaving him.
– validated in Spain by Expósito, Moya, & Glick, 1998). The
What can I do?”
ASI comprises two 11-item subscales that measure hostile
2) Jealousy. “…. well, the phone rang. It was a male
sexism (HS) (e.g., “Women are too easily offended,”) and
friend from childhood whom I’ve always got
benevolent sexism (BS) (e.g., “Many women have a quality
along very well with, who was in town and was
of purity that few men possess.”). All items are statements
going to be alone for a couple of days and wanted
to take me out for dinner. I accepted and told my to which participants respond on a 0 (strongly disagree) to
husband when I came back to the table. At one 5 (strongly agree) scale. The alpha coefficient of the hostile
point he stood up and started to yell at me and insult sexism subscale was .91; that of the benevolent sexism
me…” subscale was .87. These results are similar to those obtained
3) Separation. “… well… I felt it was a good time to by Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, and Aguiar (2002).
tell him something I had been thinking about for Global Belief in a Just World Scale (GBJWS) (Lipkus,
a long time, and I told him I couldn’t go on this 1991). It consists of 7 items with a 6-point Likert response
way, that our relationship didn’t make sense any format where 1 means total disagreement with the statement
more and I had decided the best thing would be and 6 means total agreement with it. A few examples of
to separate …” these items are “I feel that people get what they are entitled
4) Female friends. “… well, we started to talk about to,” and “I basically feel the world is a just place.” The
the holidays and how we were going to organize internal consistency of the measure in our sample was .78,
them. I told him this year I felt like doing similar to that obtained by Lipkus (1991), which was .82 in
something different, that my female friends were a sample of 402 participants.
planning to take a trip inland and I’d like to join
them….” Results
Victim blaming. After presenting the violent episode, we
included a set of questions with a 7-point Likert response Preliminary analysis
format: “Do you think she is exaggerating the facts?” (1, “I
think she is not exaggerating at all” and 7 “I think she is Before presenting the results of our experimental
exaggerating a lot”); “Do you think she caused the argument manipulation, we compared the answers of men and women
in any way?” (1, “I think she did not cause it at all” and 7 in the ideological measures included in the study (HS, BS,
“I think she caused it completely”); “How serious do you and BJW) and the two dependent variables considered.
consider the episode described to be?” (1, “not serious at The results are shown in Table 1. Men scored higher than
all” and 7 “very serious”) (reversed item); “To what extent women in Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism and Beliefs
do you consider the woman may be partly to blame for what in a Just World, and blamed the victim and exonerated the
happened? (1, “not to blame at all” and 7 “completely to perpetrator to a greater extent (all the comparisons, ps < .01,
blame”);” “To what extent do you think the aggression is except in JWB, p = .01).
 SOCIO-CULTURAL BELIEFS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 201

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of main measures

Men Women

M SD M SD
Hostile Sexism 2.54 1.14 1.66 1.08
Benevolent Sexism 2.37 1.08 2.04 1.16
Belief in a Just World 2.91 .99 2.69 .84
Victim Blaming 2.21 .94 1.77 .85
Exoneration of Perpetrator 2.27 1.22 1.81 1.08

The results reveal that the ideological measures Independent variables included categorical variables
correlated positively and significantly with each other. (our manipulation of cause of the aggression) and
In order to control the statistical effect of sexism, the continuous variables (Hostile Sexism, Benevolent Sexism,
correlations of HS and BS with BJW scores are partial. HS and Belief in a Just World scores); therefore, we conducted
correlated significantly with BS (r = .58, p < .001) and BJW multiple regression analyses using dummy-coded variables
(r = .15, p < .01). BS also correlated significantly with BJW for cause of the argument (control or no cause = 0, jealousy,
(r = .10, p < .05). = 1, separation = 1, and female friends = 1). Experimental
conditions were clustered this way because we expected the
Differences in victim blaming and exoneration of the main differences in participants’ perceptions of the episodes
perpetrator depending on the cause of the aggression to depend on whether a cause of the aggression was
and ideological predictors mentioned or not. Following the procedures recommended
by Aiken and West (1991), we entered the dummy variable
To study how participants reacted to different situations representing our experimental manipulation in Step 1.
of aggression, we carried out two one-way analysis of Participants’ gender and their centered scores in the Global
variance with one between groups factor. We considered Belief in a Just World (BJW), Hostile Sexism (HS) and
the cause of the aggression as an independent variable and Benevolent Sexism (BS) scales were entered in Step 2. Step
the mean score of each of the two measures used – blaming 3 included the two-way interactions between the dummy-
the victim and exonerating the perpetrator – as a dependent coded variable for cause of the argument (control or no
variable.
cause = 0, jealousy, = 1, separation = 1, and female friends
The results showed a significant effect of the cause
= 1) and the other variables included in Step 2. This was
of the aggression in the variable “blaming the victim,”
done to verify if ideological variables affected dependent
F(3,480) = 4.18, p = .006. Participants in the control
variables differently depending on whether a cause of the
situation obtained a mean score of 2.2 (SD = .93), those
argument was mentioned or not. For reports of regression
in the separation situation obtained a score of 1.83, (SD =
contrasts involving ASI scores, we used comparisons at +1
.88), those in the female friends situation obtained a score of
1.85(SD = .82), and those in the jealousy situation obtained and -1 standard deviations.
a mean score of 1.96 (SD = .99). Data showed a tendency We found three significant main effects in our dependent
to blame the victim for the aggression when no cause was measure blaming the victim. Participants blamed the
shown (control condition) as the trigger of the episode of victim more if (a) no cause was mentioned, t(475) = -3.55,
violence and a similar pattern in the three conditions in β = -.16, p < .001; if they were: (b) high (rather than low)
which a cause attributed to the woman was mentioned. The in HS, t(475) = 7.53, β = .39, p < .001; and (c) high (rather
post-hoc analysis (DMS) showed that differences between than low) in BJW, t(475) = 3.55, β = .15, p < .001. Three
the control condition and the other three conditions were two-way interactions were also significant: the interaction
significant in all cases (all p < .05); differences among these between BJW and cause of the argument, t(471) = -1.99,
three conditions were not significant in any case. β = -.17, p < .05, between BS and HS, t(471) = 2.28 β = .10,
A similar trend was observed in the variable “exonerating p < .05, and between HS and BJW, t(471) = 2.14 β = .10, p
the perpetrator,” but the effect of the cause of the aggression < .05. Participants’ Beliefs in a Just World scores predicted
presented was not significant, F(3,484) = 2.32, p = .16. victim blaming more when no cause of the argument was
Participants in the control situation obtained a mean score mentioned, β = .33, t = 3.7, p < .001 than when a cause was
of 2.2 (SD = 1.02), those in the female friends situation mentioned, β = .23, t = 4.5, p < .001. To understand the
had a mean score of 1.9 (SD = 1.21), those in the jealousy HSxBS interaction we followed the process suggested by
situation had a score of 2.02 (SD = 1.3), and the score Aiken and West (1991). Test of simple slopes revealed that
obtained in the separation situation was 1.91(SD = 1.08). participants’ HS predicted victim blaming when they were
 202 VALOR-SEGURA, EXPÓSITO, AND MOYA

high in BJW (+1SD), β = .30, t(475) = 3.52, p < .001, but no We conducted a similar regression analysis using the
when they were low in BJW (-1SD), β = .17, t(475) = 1.12, score that represented exonerating the perpetrator as a
p = .26 (figure 1). That is, as higher was the participants belief dependent variable. We found three significant main effects.
in HS more they blamed the victim but only if they belief Participants exonerated the perpetrator more if (a) no
in Just World Beliefs. In the case of the interaction HSxBS cause was mentioned, t(475) = -2.21, β = -.10, p = .027, if
test of simple slopes revealed that participants’ HS predicted they were (b) high (rather than low) in HS, t(475) = 4.83,
victim blaming when they were also high in BS (+1SD), β = β = .27, p < .001, and (c) high (rather than low) in BJW,
.37, t(479) = 6.26, p < .001, but no when they were low in BS t(475) = 3.21, β = .14, p < .01. No two-way interactions
(-1SD), β = .21, t(479) = 1.64, p = .10 (figure 2). were significant.

3,5

3
Victim Blaming

2,5 Low HS
Scale 1-5

High HS

1,5

1
Low JWB High JWB

Figure 1. Interaction between BJW and HS on Victim Blaming.

3,5

2,5 Low BS
Victiming Blaming

High BS
Scale: 1-5

1,5

1
Low HS High HS

Figure 2. Interaction between HS and BS on Victim Blaming.

 SOCIO-CULTURAL BELIEFS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 203

Thus, our first hypothesis was partially confirmed by the cause is mentioned as the trigger of an aggression, it may
data: observers blamed the victim more when no cause of increase the ambiguity of the situation and allow people’s
the argument was mentioned (the same trend was observed sexist ideology and beliefs of to be expressed, justifying
in exonerating the perpetrator, but this effect did not reach the aggression in this case (Frese et al., 2004). This result
the significance level). support just world beliefs theory. Perceivers’ just-world
The second hypothesis of our study (that victim blaming beliefs are typically threatened when something terrible
and exoneration of the perpetrator would be greater the happens to another person; one strategy to protect their
higher the perceiver’s degree of sexism – especially hostile sense of justice and to reaffirm their beliefs is victim
sexism – and the more the perceiver believed in a just blaming (and exonerating the aggressor). Making these
world) was confirmed by the data: Hostile Sexism and rationalizations allows people to maintain their belief that
Belief in a Just World (but no Benevolent Sexism) were a similar misfortune will not occur to them, as long as they
significantly related to victim blaming and exonerating are careful and are of ‘‘good’’ character (Lerner & Miller,
the aggressor. The part of the second hypothesis according 1978). The threat to people beliefs about deservingness is
to which we expected the best ideological predictor to be higher when the situation contain elements of injustice and
Hostile Sexism was confirmed: people with hostile sexist the victims would have to appear as undeserving of their
beliefs are especially prone to justify discrimination and fate (Gilmartin-Zena, 1983; Jones & Aronson, 1973). In
aggression against women. our study, that seems to be the case when no cause of the
Our third hypothesis (that BJW would predict victim aggression was mentioned.
blaming and exonerating the perpetrator with greater Another finding that supports beliefs in just world theory
intensity in the episode where no cause was provided – is the relationhip found between the scores in BJW and the
control condition – and that sexism would be more related two dependent measures, although research no always has
to the justification of the aggression when a cause was shown this pattern of findings (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008).
mentioned) received mixed support. In the case of BJW, Especially important is the result showing that the relation
the hypothesis was supported by the data in the case of between BJW and victim blaming was stronger when no
victim blaming (but no in the measure of exonerating the cause of the argument was presented; this may be because
aggressor), since Belief in a Just World led to blaming people with this ideology need to explain reality in this case,
the victim more where no cause was provided (control supporting in that way the general notion that, if a need to
condition). According to our hypothesis, people with this believe in a just world leads to certain types of responses in
ideology feel more threatened and less in control and tend a given experimental condition, then this response should
to think “she must have done something to deserve that.” occur primarily for people expressing a strong endorsement
However, no differences were found in the relation between of such a belief.
Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism and victim blaming Our results show that sexist beliefs contribute to blaming
and exoneration of the perpetrator depending on whether victims of domestic violence and exonerating perpetrators.
the cause of the aggression was mentioned or not. Thus, people with more traditional beliefs show a reaction
that tends to legitimize abuse more than others (Haj-Yahia,
Discussion 2003; Haj-Yahia & Uysal, 2008; Khawaja, Linos, & El-
Roueiheb, 2008; Vieraitis et al., 2007; Yoshihama, 2005;
In the context of the social changes that have taken place Yoshioka et al., 2001). In the present study, we also found
over the last few decades, people seem unlikely to dare that hostile sexism is the ideology that better predicts
admit publicly or explicitly that a situation of aggression to blaming women who are victims of gender-based violence.
women might be legitimated or justified. The results of this This is consistent with earlier studies that found that
study show that participants do not generally tend to blame participants with higher scores in sexism assess violence
the victim for what happened or exonerate the perpetrator. against women more positively (Abrams et al., 2003;
However, the results show that when no specific cause Glick et al., 2002; Russell & Trigg, 2004; Sakalli, 2001;
is presented as having triggered the aggression there is Sakalli-Ugurlu & Glick, 2003). This result matches the
a tendency to blame victims of domestic violence and to findings of the research carried out by Glick et al. (2002)
exonerate the perpetrators. In other words, when faced and Sakalli (2001), who found that participants with high
with doubt or uncertainty people tend to be suspicious of scores in hostile sexism showed more positive reactions
women and give some credibility to male perpetrators of to violence against women than those with lower scores
abuse about a possible reason for their behavior. This result in this variable. As ideology specially related to gender
might be explained by the existence of a social context that relationships, hostile sexism appeared as a better predictor
is contrary to any kind of justification of domestic violence of reactions to domestic violence than beliefs in just world
and makes any excuse seem unacceptable (in Spain there beliefs, an ideology of broader scope. Although BS was
has been a clear social campaign to condemn this type correlated with victim blaming and aggressor exoneration,
of aggression for some years now). However, when no this relation disappeared when the effect of HS was took
 204 VALOR-SEGURA, EXPÓSITO, AND MOYA

into account. However, an important finding is that HS Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008). Factors associated
needs to be combined with other ideologies to blame the with acceptance of psychological aggression against
victim of domestic violence as show the interactions found women. Violence Against Women, 14, 612-633.
between HS and BJW and between HS and BS: participants’ doi:10.1177/1077801208319004
HS was related with victim blame only when participants Castillo, J. C., Asún, D., & Aceituno, M. (2002). Atribución.
also belief in Just World Beliefs and were high in BS. Creencias en la justicia en el mundo: un estudio preliminar
Finally, an important finding of this study is that en relación a actitudes de intolerancia y discriminación.
male participants blamed the victim and exonerated the [Attribution. Beliefs in justice in the world: a preliminary study
perpetrator more than female participants. Males were of attitudes of intolerance and discrimination]. In J. F. Morales,
also found to have more traditional ideologies. However, D. Páez, A. L. Kornblit, & D. Asún, (Eds.). Psicología Social
when participants’ gender and ideological variables were (pp. 139-144). Buenos Aires: Pearson Education.
included in a regression analysis to predict victim blaming De Judicibus, M., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Blaming the
and exoneration of the perpetrator, gender was never found target of sexual harassment: Impact of gender role,
to have a significant predictive value. Thus, it is reasonable sexist attitudes, and work role. Sex Roles, 44, 401-417.
to conclude that gender differences in victim blaming and doi:10.1023/A:1011926027920
exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence can Durán, M., Moya, M., Megías, J. L. & Viki, G. T. (2010). Social
be explained by ideological differences between men and perception of rape victims in dating and married relationships:
women and not by gender differences. the role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62,
All the arguments put forward so far support the thesis 505-519. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9676-7
that domestic violence contains certain structural elements Expósito, F., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (1998) Sexismo ambivalente:
based on cultural principles and social customs that have medición y correlatos. [Ambivalent sexism: measurement
defended and even instilled women’s subjugation to men and correlates]. Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 159-170.
since ancestral times (Haj-Yahia, 2003; Haj-Yahia & Uysal, doi:10.1174/021347498760350641
2008; Vieraitis et al., 2007; Yoshihama, 2005). These
Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Problem drinking,
structural characteristics may lead to a situation in which
jealousy, and anger control: Variables predicting physical
many individuals feel it is legitimate to perpetrate violence
aggression against a partner. Journal of Family Violence, 23,
against women and society tolerates it as if it were natural
141-148. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9136-5
(Alberdi & Matas, 2002; Straus, 2006).
Forbes, G. B., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Bloesch, E., & Adams-
Curtis, L. E. (2005). Perceptions of dating violence following
References a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender,
sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation.
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Sex Roles, 52, 165-173. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6
Perception of a stranger and acquaintance rape: The role Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2004). Social perception
of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence
proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,
111-125. doi:10.1177/1077801206291663 143-161. doi:10.1177/0886260503260245
Adelman, M. (2000). No way out. Divorce-related domestic Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over
violence in Israel. Violence Against Women, 6, 1223-1254. the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
doi:10.1177/10778010022183613 795- 817. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing Gilmartin-Zena, P. (1983). Attribution theory and rape victim
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage responsibility. Deviant Behavior, 4, 357-374. doi:10.1080/016
Publications. 39625.1983.9967622
Alberdi, I., & Matas, N. (2002). La violencia doméstica. Informe Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism
sobre los malos tratos a mujeres en España. [Domestic Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
violence. Report on woman abuse in Spain]. Barcelona: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
Fundación La Caixa. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Babcock, J. C., Costa, D. M., Green, C. E., & Eckhardt, C. I. Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & Aguiar de Souza,
(2004). What situations induce intimate partner violence? A M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife
reliability and validity study of the proximal antecedents to abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
violent episodes (PAVE) Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 291-296. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068
18, 433-442. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.433 Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J, Abrams, D., Masser,
Bhanot, S., & Senn, Y. (2007). Attitudes towards violence against B.,... López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple
women in men of south Asian ancestry: Are acculturation and antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures.
gender role attitudes important factors? Journal of Family Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.
Violence, 22, 25-31. doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9060-0 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
 SOCIO-CULTURAL BELIEFS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 205

Gracia, E., García, F., & Lila, M. (2009). Public responses to and belief in a just world (pp. 247–269). New York, NY:
intimate partner violence against women: The influence of Plenum Press.
perceived severity and personal responsibility. The Spanish Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: where social
Journal of Psychology, 12, 648-656. psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may
Hafer, C. L., & Bégue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just- not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7,
world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. 388-399. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_10
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167. doi:10.1037/0033- Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the
2909.131.1.128 attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2003). Beliefs about wife beating among Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030
Arab men from Israel: The influence of their patriarchal Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Holmes, J. G. (1976). Deserving
ideology. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 193-206. and the emergence of forms of justice. In L. Berkowitz, & E.
doi:10.1023/A:1024012229984 Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology
Haj-Yahia, M. M., & Uysal, A. (2008). Beliefs about wife beating (Vol. 9, pp. 133-162). New York, NY: Academic Press.
among medical students from Turkey. Journal of Family Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation
Violence, 23, 119-123. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9134-7 of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory
Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1993). Blaming analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale.
drunk victims: Is it just world or sex role violation? Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171-1178.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1574-1586. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01048.x Montada, L. (1998). Belief in a just world: a hybrid of justice
Hillier, L., & Foddy, M. (1993). The role of observer attitudes in motive and self-interest. In L. Montada, & M. Lerner (Eds.),
judgements of blame in cases of wife assault. Sex Roles, 29, Responses to victimizations and belief in the just world (pp.
629-644. doi:10.1007/BF00289209 217-245). New York, NY: Plenum.
Jensen, I. W., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Attributions and assignment Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., De Lemus, S., & Hart, J.
of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent Sexism and
Issues, 38, 121-136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01914.x women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions.
Jones, C., & Aronson, E. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421-1434.
victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of doi:10.1177/0146167207304790
Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415-419. doi:10.1037/ Nayak, M. B., Byrne, C. A., Martin, M. K., & Abraham, A. G. (2003).
h0034463 Attitudes toward violence against women: a cross-nation study.
Khawaja, M., Linos, N., & El-Roueiheb, Z. (2008). Attitudes Sex Roles, 49, 333-342. doi:10.1023/A:1025108103617
of men and women towards wife beating: Findings from Newcombe, P., van den Eynde, J., Hafner, D., & Jolly, L (2008).
Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. Journal of Family Attributions of responsibility for rape: Differences across
Violence, 23, 211-218. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9146-3 familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape
Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victims myths. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1736-1754.
by men and women with high and low belief in a just doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00367.x
world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343-353. O’Connor, W., Morrison, T., McLeod, L., & Anderson, D. (1996).
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00024.x A meta-analitic review of the relationship between gender
Kristiansen, C. M., & Giulietti, R. (1990). Perceptions of wife abuse: and belief in a just world. Journal of Social Behaviour and
Effects of gender, attitudes toward women, and just world beliefs Personality, 11, 141-148.
among college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, Pavlou, M., & Knowles, A. (2001). Domestic violence: Attributions,
177-189. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00013.x recommended punishments and reporting behavior related to
Kurz, D. (1996). Separation, divorce, and woman abuse. Violence provocation by the victim. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 8,
Against Women, 2, 63-81. doi:10.1177/1077801296002001004 76-85. doi:10.1080/13218710109525006
Lambert, A. J., & Raichle, K. (2000). The role of political ideology Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in
in mediating judgments of blame in rape victims and their a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65-89.
assailants: A test of the just world, personal responsibility, and doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x
legitimization hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual
Bulletin, 26, 853-863. doi:10.1177/0146167200269010 harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50,
to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1-52. 565-573. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental students: the effects of patriarchy, sexism and sex differences.
delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Sex Roles, 44, 599-610. doi:10.1023/A:1012295109711
Lerner, M. J. (1998). The two forms of belief in a just world. In L. Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., & Glick, P. (2003). Ambivalent sexism
Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital
 206 VALOR-SEGURA, EXPÓSITO, AND MOYA

sex in Turkey. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 296-302. Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful:
doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9313-2 Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate
Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Glick, P., & Yalcin, Z. S. (2007). Ambivalent traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289-293.
sexism, Belief in a Just World, and empathy as predictors of doi:10.1023/A:1021342912248
Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57, World Health Organization (2005). WHO multi-country study
889-895. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9313-2 on women’s health and domestic violence against women.
Schuller, R. A., Smith, V. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Juror’s Geneva: World Health Organization.
decision in trials of battered women who kill: The role of Willis, C. E., Hallinan, M. N., & Melby, J. (1996). Effects of sex
prior beliefs and expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social role stereotyping among European American students on
Psychology, 24, 316-337. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994. domestic violence culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 34, 475-
tb00585.x
491. doi:10.1007/BF01545027
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity
Yamawaki, N., Darby, R., & Queiroz, A. (2007). The moderating
and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident.
roles of ambivalent sexism: The influence of power status on
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.
perception of rape victim and rapist. The Journal of Social
doi:10.1037/h0028777
Psychology, 147, 41-56. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.1.41-56
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior.
In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social Yoshihama, M. (2005). Web in the patriarchal clan system: Tactics of
psychology: Third edition (Vol. 2, pp. 883-947). New York, intimate partners in the sociocultural context. Violence Against
NY: Random House. Women, 11, 1236-1262. doi:10.1177/1077801205280179
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in Yoshioka, M. R., Dinoia, J., & Ullah, K. (2001). Attitudes
physical assaults on partners. Violence Against Women, 12, toward marital violence: An examination of four Asian
1086-1097. doi:10.1177/1077801206293335 communities. Violence Against Women, 7, 900-926.
Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., & Moya, M. (2008). Atribución doi:10.1177/10778010122182820
del comportamiento del agresor y consejo a la víctima en un
caso de violencia doméstica [Attribution of the aggressor’s
behavior and advice to the victim in a case of domestic
violence]. Revista de Psicología Social, 23, 171-180.
doi:10.1174/021347408784135896
Vieraitis, L. M., Brito, S., & Kovandzic, T. V. (2007). The impact
of women’s status and gender inequality on female homicide Received September 23, 2009
victimization rates: Evidence from U.S. Counties. Feminist Revision received June 6, 2010
Criminology, 2, 57-73. doi:10.1177/1557085106294187 Accepted July 1, 2010