Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perceptions of Dating Violence Following a Sexualor Nonsexual Betrayal of Trust: Effects of Gender, Sexism, Acceptance of Rape Myths, and Vengeance Motivation

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

College women’s (N = 220) and men’s (N = 208) perceptions of violence following a betrayal by a romantic partner were studied in an independent groups design that varied gender of the participant, type of betrayal (sexual or nonsexual), and gender of the betrayed individual. Participants read one of four brief vignettes in which the betrayed person slapped his/her partner and made his/her lip bleed. Justification of this action was rated on 10 items. Factor analysis of these items indicated the presence of three factors for men and four for women. Both men and women indicated that hitting the partner, getting even, and being angry were more justifiable following a sexual betrayal. The hitting of a male partner by a betrayed woman was perceived as more justified than the hitting of a female partner by a betrayed man. In absolute terms, hitting and getting even by both women and men were generally viewed as unjustifiable, whereas being angry was viewed as justifiable. For both women and men, scores on the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992) and Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995) were related to getting even. For men, the Hostile Sexism Scale (Glick & Fiske, 2001) was related to getting even or being angry and breaking up. Results indicated that perceptions of reactions to betrayal are related to type of betrayal and to the dispositional characteristics of the perceiver.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams-Curtis, L. E., & Forbes, G. B. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 91–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. B., Cooper, H., & Okamura, L. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 295–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). Number of items, dimensionality, and alpha. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W. Strobe & M. Newstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First- and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women. Violence Against Women, 10, 236–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentemann, K. M. (1984). Wife beating: Attitudes of a non-clinical population. Victimology, 9, 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. B., & Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996). Personal aggression: Gender and aggression, part 2. Sex Roles, 35, 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions of spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, L., & Foddy, M. (1993). The role of observer attitudes in judgments of blame in cases of wife assault. Sex Roles, 29, 629–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1263–1332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koski, P. R., & Mangold, W. D. (1988). Gender effects in attitudes about family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 225–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incident and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social problem?: A review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 8, 1424–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. G., & Size, P. B. (1986). Attitudes about woman abuse among police officers, victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, D., & Marolla, J. (1985). “Riding the bull at Gilley’s”: Convicted rapists describe the rewards of rape. Social Problems, 32, 251–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance abuse, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 573–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure the attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67 (Ms. No. 153).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S. (2002). Gender, the perception of aggression, and the overestimation of gender bias. Sex Roles, 46, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stormo, K. J., Lang, A. R., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (1997). Attributions about acquaintance rape: The role of alcohol and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 279–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J. W., Smith, P. H., Koss, M. P., & Figuerado, A. J. (2000). Intimate partner aggression–What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 690–696.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon B. Forbes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Forbes, G.B., Jobe, R.L., White, K.B. et al. Perceptions of Dating Violence Following a Sexualor Nonsexual Betrayal of Trust: Effects of Gender, Sexism, Acceptance of Rape Myths, and Vengeance Motivation. Sex Roles 52, 165–173 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6

Keywords

Navigation