The Gender Directionality And Its Effect In Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence(IPV)refers to the violence between existing or former intimate relationship(such as dating,cohabitation and marriage)partners,including physical assault,emotional injury,sexual assault,coercive control,and other forms.Since the 1970 s,foreign feminist scholars and domestic violence researchers have been engaged in a fierce and lasting discussion on the issue of gender symmetry of IPV.There is a correlation between attitudes towards intimate partner and actual violent behaviors.A large number of studies have focused on various aspects of cognitive attitudes towards intimate partner violence,such as awareness,tolerance,justification attitude,and responsibility attribution of IPV,but most of them focus on unidirectional IPV,especially men’s violence towards women.In addition,intimate partner violence is strongly associated with certain positive relationship variables,including relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment.Negative relationship quality variables,such as communication problems and conflict,are also associated with intimate partner violence.Therefore,this series of studies focuses on both unidirectional and bidirectional violence in a sample of heterosexual adults in China,and explores gender directionality in intimate partner violence and its effects.Study 1 used tow experimental scenarios designs to explore the effects of gender directionality on justification and responsibility attribution of IPV.Experiment 1explored the effects of gender directionality and other situational factors(including motivation and type of violence)on justification attitudes of IPV,and further found the interaction between these factors.Experiment 2 focused on the effects of gender directionality and other gender factors(including gender role and ambivalent sexism)on the responsibility attribution of IPV,and explored the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism.Study 2 used paired data to explore the gender directionality of IPV behaviors and its impact on relationship quality.Study 2 found a high prevalence of bidirectional IPV,with both male and female partners committing violence against each other and severely damaging relationship quality.Based on the study 1 and study 2,the third study further explored people’s perceptions of intimate partner violence and its gender directionality,as well as the effect of gender directionality on relationship quality and the reasons by means of semi-structured interview.The main results of the study are as follows:(1)Gender directionality,motivation and type of violence together influence the justification of IPV.Men’s violence,control motivation and physical violence are considered less justified.(2)The attribution of male and female responsibility for IPV is influenced by gender directionality and gender roles of both partners,and there are some interactive effects.There are differences in responsibility attributions of IPV between male and female partners in unidirectional and bidirectional violence.The responsibility attribution of male and female partners for IPV is related to ambivalent sexism.(3)There is gender asymmetry in the frequency of IPV among heterosexual couples in China.In terms of psychological violence and physical violence,the frequency of IPV perpetration reported by women is higher than that of men.In terms of IPV victimization,the frequency of psychological violence reported by men was significantly higher than that of women.There is consistency in reporting of IPV perpetration and victimization between male and female partners.For psychological and physical violence,bidirectional violence is the most common pattern of IPV.(4)Intimate partner violence is correlated with relationship quality.Perpetration and victimization of both male and female partners are negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction and commitment,but positively correlated with communication problems and relationship conflict.Men’s and bidirectional IPV had a greater impact on relationship quality than women’ s.(5)Participants had limited perception of IPV and reported less perpetration and victimization overall.Most participants’ attitudes towards IPV were not affected by gender directionality,and the responsibility for IPV was related to perpetration rather than gender.However,some participants believe that men’s or bidirectional IPV is more serious,and there are some gender differences in the attribution of IPV.Overall,there is a typical gender paradigm in IPV,with women as victims and men as perpetrators.It may be influenced by traditional gender concepts,as well as the gender differences between men and women in physical and psychological characteristics,and people’s experience or perception of IPV in reality.Traditional gender roles and other unequal gender perceptions place women in a more vulnerable and submissive position,which combined with male superiority in size and strength,increases women’s risk of IPV and the severity of its consequences.At the same time,violence perpetrated by women is more likely to be justified and their responsibility in bidirectional IPV is underestimated.The effect of women’s IPV on relationship quality was relatively light compared to men’s or bidirectional violence.But whether it is unidirectional or bidirectional,perpetrated by men or women,IPV should not be ignored and tolerated,but needs a more egalitarian perspective on gender directionality in IPV.