Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 81, Issue 7–8, pp 439–455 | Cite as

Automatic Associations and Conscious Attitudes Predict Different Aspects of Men’s Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Harassment Proclivities

  • Antonella L. Zapata-CalventeEmail author
  • Miguel Moya
  • Gerd Bohner
  • Jesús L. Megías
Original Article
  • 370 Downloads

Abstract

Intimate partner violence against women (IPV) and sexual harassment are both widespread. Research on their causes and attitudinal correlates has rarely examined implicit, automatic cognitive associations related to the partner (in IPV aggressors) or to women (in sexual harassment offenders). The aim of the present research was to study these implicit associations in 129 male German students. Participants completed scales of hostile sexism (HS), masculine gender role stress (MGRS), short-term (STMO) and long-term mating orientation (LTMO), and proclivity to both IPV and sexual harassment. Next they performed a primed lexical decision task that measured whether concepts of violence, power, hostility, and sexuality were differentially associated with representations of women, men, and the participant’s own intimate partner. Results showed that implicit associations of own partner with violence as well as hostility were generally high but did not correlate strongly with the proclivity measures. Furthermore, the proclivity measures were positively predicted by HS, MGRS, and STMO, whereas LTMO negatively predicted IPV proclivity. Practice implications point to the need to address early socialization processes that may shape men’s negative associations with female partners. Some strategies to prevent and reduce these types of implicit associations are discussed.

Keywords

Intimate partner violence Implicit associations Implicit measures Lexical decision task Semantic priming Sexual harassment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present study was performed as part of projects PSI2013-45041-P and PSI2016-79812-P funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and as part of the Scholarship for Teacher Training University [FPU 2012, AP2012-2824] funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport to the first author. Gerd Bohner gratefully acknowledges support from the Gender Studies Program of the Ministry for Innovation, Science, and Research of the State of North-Rhine Westfalia, Germany. The authors would like to thank Luz María Saldarriaga and Miriam Seidel for their help with preparing materials and data collection, as well as Benjamin Liersch for technical and computing assistance, and Dr. Pedro Macizo for his expertise and assistance with the data analysis.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [Grants no. PSI2013–45041-P; PSI2016–79812-P] and by the grant AP2012–2824 from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport awarded to the corresponding author.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of Bielefeld University and the ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychology.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1006_MOESM1_ESM.docx (57 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 56 kb)

References

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrindell, W. A., van Well, S. Kolk, A. M., Barelds, D. P. H., Oei, T. P. S., Lau, P. Y., … Group, C. C. P. S. (2013). Higher levels of masculine gender role stress in masculine than in feminine nations: A thirteen-nations study. Cross-Cultural Research, 47, 52–67.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397112470366.
  3. Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power --> sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.68.5.768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baugher, A. R., & Gazmararian, J. A. (2015). Masculine gender role stress and violence: A literature review and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 107–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, A. T. (1996). Beyond belief: A theory of modes, personality, and psychopathology. In P. M. Salkovskis (Ed.), Frontiers of cognitive therapy (pp. 1–25). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, D. S., Sullivan, M. W., & Lewis, M. (2006). Relations of parental report and observation of parenting to maltreatment history. Child Maltreatment, 11, 63–75.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505283589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohner, G., Reinhard, M.-A., Rutz, S., Sturm, S., Kerschbaum, B., & Effler, D. (1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on men's self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257–269.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2<257::AID-EJSP871>3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123–152.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butchart, A., García-Moreno, C., & Mikton, C. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety, and acceptability. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241564007_eng.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Cameron, C. D., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., & Payne, B. K. (2012). Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 330–350.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantera, L. M., & Blanch, J. M. (2010). Percepción social de la violencia en la pareja desde los estereotipos de género [Social perception through gender stereotypes of partner violence]. Psychosocial Intervention, 19, 121–127.  https://doi.org/10.5093/in2010v19n2a3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cárdenas, M., González, C., Calderón, C., & Lay, S. L. (2009). Medidas explícitas e implícitas de las actitudes hacia las mujeres [explicit and implicit measurements of the attitudes toward women]. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 43, 541–546.Google Scholar
  14. Clements, K., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2007). Aggressive cognitions of violent versus nonviolent spouses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 351–369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-007-9139-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Díaz-Aguado Jalón, M. J., Martínez Arias, R., & Martínez Babarro, J. (2014). La evolución de la adolescencia española sobre la igualdad y la prevención de la violencia de género [The evolution of Spanish adolescence on gender equality and the prevention of gender based violence]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad. Centro de Publicaciones. Retrieved from http://www.violenciagenero.msssi.gob.es/violenciaEnCifras/estudios/colecciones/estudio/evolucion2014.htm.Google Scholar
  16. Diehl, C., Rees, J., & Bohner, G. (2012). Flirting with disaster: Short-term mating orientation and hostile sexism predict different types of sexual harassment. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 521–531.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diehl, C., Glaser, T., & Bohner, G. (2014). Face the consequences: Learning about victims' suffering reduces sexual harassment myth acceptance and men’s likelihood to sexually harass. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 489–503.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diehl, C., Rees, J., & Bohner, G. (2018). Predicting sexual harassment from hostile sexism and short-term mating orientation: Relative strength of predictors depends on situational priming of power versus sex. Violence Against Women, 24, 123–143.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216678092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dill, K. E., Brown, B. P., & Collins, M. A. (2008). Effects of exposure to sex-stereotyped video game characters on tolerance of sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1402–1408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. E. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2011). What were they thinking? Men who murder an intimate partner. Violence Against Women, 17, 111–134.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210391219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Durán, M., Moya, M., Megías, J. L., & Viki, G. T. (2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating and married relationships: The role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 505–519.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9676-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und benevolenz: Eine skala zur erfassung des ambivalenten sexismus [hostility and benevolence: A scale for assessing ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211–228.  https://doi.org/10.1024//0044-3514.30.4.211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eckhardt, C. I., & Crane, C. A. (2014). Male perpetrators of intimate partner violence and implicit attitudes toward violence: Associations with treatment outcomes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38, 291–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-013-9593-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eckhardt, C. I., & Dye, M. L. (2000). The cognitive characteristics of maritally violent men: Theory and evidence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 139–158.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005441924292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eckhardt, C., Samper, R., Suhr, L., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2012). Implicit attitudes toward violence among male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 471–491.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511421677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11, 123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455870112001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 133–141.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eisler, R. M., Franchina, J. J., & Moore, T. M. (2000). Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of gender relevance of conflict situations on men’s attributions and affective responses. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 34–41.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.34.Google Scholar
  30. Ellsberg, M., Arango, D. J., Morton, M., Gennari, F., Kiplesund, S., Contreras, M., … Watts, C. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say? The Lancet, 385, 1555–1566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7.
  31. Expósito, F., Moya, M. C., & Glick, P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 159–169.  https://doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eyssel, F., Bohner, G., Süssenbach, P., & Schreiber, P. (2009). Neuentwicklung und Validierung eines szenariobasierten Verfahrens zur Erfassung der Neigung zu sexueller aggression [new development and validation of a scenario-based measure of sexual aggression proclivity]. Diagnostica, 55, 117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.55.2.117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. M. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1169–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506290422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 10, 236–261.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203256002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gaertner, L., & Foshee, V. (1999). Commitment and the perpetration of relationship violence. Personal Relationships, 6, 227–239.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00189.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. García-Moreno, C., Pallitto, C., Devries, K., Stöckl, H., Watts, C., & Abrahams, N. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  40. Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 164–177.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 422–440.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195.
  42. Gilchrist, E. (2009). Implicit thinking about implicit theories in intimate partner violence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 131–145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802190863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.
  44. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., ... Annetje, B. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.
  45. Gracia, E., Rodríguez, C. M., & Lila, M. (2015). Preliminary evaluation of an analog procedure to assess acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: The partner violence acceptability movie task. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1567).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01567.
  46. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hamby, S. L. (1996). The Dominance Scale: Preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 11, 199–212.Google Scholar
  49. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jarvis, B. G. (2012). MediaLab (Version 2012.4.133) [Computer Software]. New York: Empirisoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  53. Johnson, W. L., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). Relationship context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 631–636.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kämpfe, N., Penzhorn, J., Schikora, J., Dünzl, J., & Schneidenbach, J. (2009). Empathy and social desirability: A comparison of delinquent and non-delinquent participants using direct and indirect measures. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802010640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kamphuis, J. H., De Ruiter, C., Janssen, B., & Spiering, M. (2005). Preliminary evidence for an automatic link between sex and power among men who molest children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1351–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leibold, J. M., & McConnell, A. R. (2004). Women, sex, hostility, power, and suspicion: Sexually aggressive men’s cognitive associations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 256–263.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00095-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1996). Prospective prediction of husband marital aggression within newlywed couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 369–380.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lila, M., Gracia, E., & García, F. (2010). Actitudes de la policía ante la intervención en casos de violencia contra la mujer en las relaciones de pareja: Influencia del sexismo y la empatía [Police attitudes toward intervention in cases of partner violence against women: The influence of sexism and empathy]. Revista de Psicología Social, 25, 313–323.  https://doi.org/10.1174/021347410792675570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lippman, J. R. (2018). I did it because I never stopped loving you: The effects of media portrayals of persistent pursuit on beliefs about stalking. Communication Research, 45, 394–421.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. T. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 1264–1270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Factors associated with rape as predictors of laboratory aggression against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 432–442.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Megías, J. L., Montañés P., Romero-Sánchez, M., & Durán, M. (2009). Proclividad a la violencia hacia la mujer en el ámbito familiar: Análisis preliminares de la creación de una escala de medida [Likelihood to intimate partner violence in the domestic context: preliminary analyses of a measurement scale]. In Congreso Nacional de Psicología Social. Libro de actas del XI Congreso Nacional de Psicología Social, volumen II, 8–466.Google Scholar
  64. Mellon, R. C. (2013). On the motivation of quid pro quo sexual harassment in men: Relation to masculine gender role stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2287–2296.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., McNulty, J. K., Addis, M. E., Cordova, J. V., & Temple, J. R. (2010). Domains of masculine gender role stress and intimate partner violence in a clinical sample of violent men. Psychology of Violence, 1, 68–75.  https://doi.org/10.1037/2152-0828.1.S.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Murray, D. R., Jones, D. N., & Schaller, M. (2013). Perceived threat of infectious disease and its implications for sexual attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 103–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [an inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48, 121–129.  https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.48.3.121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mussweiler, T., & Förster, J. (2000). The sex-->aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507–520.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Prospective relationships between workplace sexual harassment and psychological distress. Occupational Medicine, 62, 226–228.  https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqs010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2007). A multitrait-multimethod validation of the implicit association test: Implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs. Experimental Psychology, 54, 14–29.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Reference manual for the BIDR version 6. In Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology: University of British Columbia at Vancouver.Google Scholar
  74. Polaschek, D. L. L., Calvert, S. W., & Gannon, T. A. (2009). Linking violent thinking: Implicit theory-based research with violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 75–96.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508315781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pornari, C. D., Dixon, L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2013). Systematically identifying implicit theories in male and female intimate partner violence perpetrators. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 496–505.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pornari, C. D., Dixon, L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2018). A preliminary investigation into a range of implicit and explicit offense supportive cognitions in perpetrators of physical intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication, 088626051875548.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518755487.
  77. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Results from a national study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 819–843.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508317182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50, 565–573.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Samuels, H. (2004). A defining moment: A feminist perspective on the law of sexual harassment in the workplace in the light of the equal treatment amendment directive. Feminist Legal Studies, 12, 181–211.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FEST.0000043307.48041.64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sanchez-Prada, A., Delgado-Alvarez, C., Bosch-Fiol, E., & Ferrer-Perez, V. A. (2018). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women: An exploratory study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication, 088626051878990.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518789903.
  82. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48- nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–275.  https://doi.org/10.1017/So14o525X05000051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Siebler, F., Sabelus, S., & Bohner, G. (2008). A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about target characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 22–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00404.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 5, 257–273.  https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.5.4.257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stamarski, C. S., & Hing, L. S. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1400).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400.
  86. Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Süssenbach, P., Albrecht, S., & Bohner, G. (2017). Implicit judgments of rape cases: An experiment on the determinants and consequences of implicit evaluations in a rape case. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 291–304.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1247160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Todorov, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). Automatic sources of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 53–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00036-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., & Moya, M. C. (2008). Atribución del comportamiento del agresor y consejo a la víctima en un caso de violencia doméstica [Attribution of aggressor’s behavior and advice to the victim in a case of domestic violence]. Revista de Psicología Social, 23, 171–180.  https://doi.org/10.1174/021347408784135896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., & Moya, M. (2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence: The role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 195–206.  https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vanselow, N., Bohner, G., Becher, M., & Siebler, F. (2010). Die NSB-Skala: Vorstellung und Validierung eines deutschsprachigen Instruments zur Erfassung der Neigung zu sexueller Belästigung [The NSB Scale: Presentation and validation of a German-language instrument assessing sexual harassment proclivity]. Diagnostica, 56, 158–177.  https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ward, T. (2000). Sexual offenders’ cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 491–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00036-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1995). Cognitive distortions and affective deficits in sex offenders: A cognitive deconstructionist interpretation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 67–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02254874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weldon, S., & Gilchrist, E. (2012). Implicit theories in intimate partner violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 761–772.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9465-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yao, M. Z., Mahood, C., & Linz, D. (2010). Sexual priming, gender stereotyping, and likelihood to sexually harass: Examining the cognitive effects of playing a sexually-explicit video game. Sex Roles, 62, 77–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9695-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Yllö, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and violence. In R. J. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47–62). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  97. Yllö, K., & Straus, M. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative norms. In M. Strauss & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 383–398). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  98. Zurbriggen, E. L. (2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 559–581.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mind, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC)University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Social PsychologyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  4. 4.Abteilung für PsychologieUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  5. 5.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations