Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T23:07:43.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Responses to Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Influence of Perceived Severity and Personal Responsibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Enrique Gracia ,
Fernando García  and
Marisol Lila
Enrique Gracia*
Affiliation:
Universitat de València (Spain)
Fernando García
Affiliation:
Universitat de València (Spain)
Marisol Lila
Affiliation:
Universitat de València (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed Enrique Gracia, Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universitat de València, Avda. Blasco Ibáñez 21, 46010 Valencia (Spain). E-mail: enrique.gracia@uv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explored public willingness to act when exposed to cases of intimate partner violence against women, by analyzing the influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility on two types of responses: mediating and reporting to the police. Results (N = 419) yielded main effects of personal responsibility for both types of responses. No main effects of perceived severity were found. A significant interaction between perceived severity and personal responsibility was found only for reporting responses. Results are discussed in light of the helping behavior research tradition. Implications for public education and advocacy programs are also considered.

Este trabajo analizó la influencia que la gravedad percibida y el sentimiento personal de responsabilidad tienen en dos tipos de respuestas públicas ante escenarios hipotéticos de violencia doméstica contra la mujer: la mediación y la denuncia. Los resultados (N = 419) mostraron efectos principales del sentimiento de responsabilidad personal para ambos tipos de respuesta. No se observaron efectos principales de la gravedad percibida. Se observó una interacción significativa entre lagravedad percibida y la responsabilidad personal únicamente para las respuestas de denuncia. Los resultados se discuten en términos de la tradición investigadora de la conducta de ayuda. Se consideran las implicaciones de los resultados para la educación pública y la intervención social.

Keywords

intimate partner violencepublic responsesperceived severitypersonal responsibilityviolence against womentolerancegravedad percibidaresponsabilidad personarespuestas públicasviolencia contra la mujerviolencia del compañero íntimotolerancia
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 2009 , pp. 648 - 656
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Medical Association (1994). Diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence. Chicago, IL: Author.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. (1996). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Violence and the Family. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Apsler, R., Cummins, M. R., & Carl, S. (2003). Perceptions of the police by female victims of domestic partner violence. Violence Against Women, 9, 1318–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. E. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey. NCJ-154348 Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol II, pp. 282–316). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bennet, L., & Williams, O. J. (1999). Men who batter. In Hampton, R. L. (Ed.), Family violence: Prevention and treatment (2nd Edition) (pp. 227–259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biden, J. R. Jr. (1993). Violence against women: The congressional response. American Psychologist, 48, 1059–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners. American Psychologist, 48, 1077–1085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. (2004). Barómetro de Marzo. Estudio n° 2.558 [Barometer of March. Study n° 2.558]. Madrid, Spain: Author.Google Scholar
Christy, C. A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 824–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2002). Recommendation Rec(2002)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of women against violence adopted on 30 April 2002 and Explanatory Memorandum. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M.& Latané, B. (1970). Norms and normative behavior: Field studies of social interdependence. In Macauley, J. & Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 83–101). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission (1999). Europeans and their views on domestic violence against women. Eurobarometer 51.(0). Brussels, Belgium: Author.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fritzsche, B. A., Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2000). To help or not to help: Capturing individuals' decision policies. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 561–578.Google Scholar
García, J. F., Pascual, J., Frías, M. D., Van Krunckelsven, D., & Murgui, S. (2008). Design and power analysis: nand confidence intervals of means. Psicothema, 20, 933–938.Google Scholar
García, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, E. (2004). Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: Towards an epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 536–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, E., García, F.& Lila, M. (2008). Police involvement in cases of intimate partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. Violence Against Women, 14, 697–714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006a). Acceptability of domestic violence against women in the European Union: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006b). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 759–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2007). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes toward reporting domestic violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 737–752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gracia, E., Herrero, J., Lila, M., & Fuente, A. (2009). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes toward domestic violence against women among Latin-American immigrants. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 1,25–43.Google Scholar
Hadeed, L. F., & El-Bassel, N. (2006). Social support among Afro-Trinidadian women experiencing intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 740–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Instituto de la Mujer (2003). La violencia contra las mujeres. Resultado de la Macroencuesta de 2002. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer (http: //www.migualdad.es/mujer/).Google Scholar
James, S. E., Johnson, J., & Raghavan, C. (2004). “I couldn't go anywhere”. Contextualizing violence and drug abuse: A social network study. Violence Against Women, 10, 991–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, P. (1996). Threads that link community and family violence: Issues for prevention. In Hampton, R. L., Jenkins, P. & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.), Preventing violence in America (pp. 33–52). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman-Kantor, G., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Response of victims and the police to assaults on wives. In Straus, M. A. & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 473–487). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Klein, E., Campbell, J., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). Ending domestic violence: Changing public perceptions/halting the epidemic. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kury, H., Obergfell-Fuchs, J., & Woessner, G. (2003). The extent of family violence in Europe. Violence Against Women, 10, 749–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help ? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, M. (1999). Rethinking bystander nonintervention: Social categorization and the evidence of witnesses at the James Bulger murder trial. Human Relations, 52, 1133–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loseke, D. R. (1989). “Violence” is “violence…or is it? The social construction of “wife abuse” and public policy. In Best, J. (Ed.), Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems (pp. 191–206). New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Loseke, D. R., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). Conclusion: Social problems, social policy, and controversies on family violence. In Gelles, R. J. & Loseke, D. R. (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 357–366). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mahlstedt, D., & Keeny, L. (1993). Female survivors of dating violence and their social networks. Feminism and Psychology, 3, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Kimes, L. A. (1999). The social construction of violence: The case of sexual and domestic violence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadine, C., Wathen, M. A., Harriet, L., & MacMillan, M. D. (2003). Interventions for violence against women: Scientific review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 589–600.Google Scholar
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., III. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Raghavan, C., Mennerich, A., Sexton, E., & James, S. E. (2006). Community violence and its direct, indirect, and mediating effects on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1132–1149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, N. R., & McKenzie, E. B. (1998). Why do battered women stay? Three decades of research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, A. L., & Chandek, M. S. (2000). The domestic violence arrest decision: Examining demographic, attitudinal, and situational variables. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuller, R. A., & Stewart, A. (2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shotland, R. L., & Straw, M. K. (1976). Bystander response to an assault: when a man attacks a woman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 990–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipsma, E., Carrobles, J. A., Cerrato, I.& Everaerd, W. (2000). Sexual aggression against women by men acquaintances: Attitudes and experiences among Spanish university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3, 14–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorenson, S. B., & Taylor, C. A. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staub, E. (2003). Social and prosocial behavior: Personal and situational influences and their interactions. In Staub, E. (Ed.), The psychology of good and evil (pp. 103–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1974 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, L. E. (1999). Psychology and domestic violence around the world. American Psychologist, 54, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. L., & Tharp, R. G. (1993). Self-directed behavior: Self modification for personal adjustment (3rd edition). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.Google Scholar
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: an analysis of judgments of help giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, A., & Wandrei, M. L. (2002). Intimate partner violence: A model for predicting interventions by informal helpers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 972–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worden, A. P., & Carlson, B. E. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey. II. Beliefs about causes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1219–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar