Sex Roles

, Volume 44, Issue 9–10, pp 599–610 | Cite as

Beliefs About Wife Beating Among Turkish College Students: The Effects of Patriarchy, Sexism, and Sex Differences

  • Nuray Sakall


This paper describes how patriarchy, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and sex of participants influence Turkish College students' attitudes toward wife beating. Two hundred twenty-one Turkish undergraduate students from Middle East Technical University filled out questionnaires measuring attitudes toward wife beating, hostile and benevolent sexism, and support for patriarchy. Participants were from middle or high social classes, and from various region of Turkey. Results demonstrated that male participants exhibited more approval of wife beating than did female participants. Further, male participants who had more favorable attitudes toward patriarchy and who were high on hostile sexism viewed wife beating as more acceptable and blamed women for eliciting the violence. Regression analysis showed that patriarchy and hostile sexism predicted attitudes toward wife beating the best.


Regression Analysis Turkey College Student Social Psychology Social Classis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arıkan, Ç. (1993). Kadın ve şiddet (Women and violence). T.C. Devlet Bakanlığı Kadının Statüusü ve Sorunları Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları (Turkish State Ministry, General Directorate for Status and Problems of Women), 8, 21–23.Google Scholar
  2. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.Google Scholar
  3. Cameron, C. (1977). Sex-role attitudes. In S. Oskamp, (Ed.), Attitudes and opinions (pp. 339–359). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Choi, A., & Edleson, J. L. (1996). Social disapproval of wife assaults: A national survey of Singapure. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27, 73–88.Google Scholar
  5. Gentemann, K. (1984). Wife beating: Attitudes of a non-clinical population. Victimology, 9, 109–119.Google Scholar
  6. Glick, P., & Fiske, T. S. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.Google Scholar
  7. Glick, P., & Fiske, T. S. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.Google Scholar
  8. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, B., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expóosito, F., Moya, M., Foddy, M., Kim, H., Lameiras, M., Sotelo, M. J., Mucchi-Faina, A., Romani, M., Sakallı, N., Udegbe, B., Yamamoto, M., Ui, M., Ferreira, M. C., & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 763–775.Google Scholar
  9. Greenblat, C. S. (1983). A hit is a hit is a hit ::: or it? Approval and tolerance of the use of physical force by spouses. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence research (pp. 235–260). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1997). Predicting beliefs about wife beating among engaged Arab men in Israil. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 530–546.Google Scholar
  11. Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1998a). A patriarchal perspective of beliefs about wife beating among Palestanian men from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 595–622.Google Scholar
  12. Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1998b). Beliefs about wife beating among Palestinian women. Violence Against Women, 4, 533–559.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565.Google Scholar
  14. İlkkaracan, P., & Gülçür, L. (1996). Aile içcinde kadına karşı şiddet (Violence against women in families). In P. İlkkaracan, L. Gülçün, & C. Arın (Eds.), Sıcak Yuva Masalı: Aile içi şiddet ve cinsel taciz (Warm house story: Domestic violence and sexual harassment) (pp. 21–78). Istanbul: Metis Yayınları.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism andcommoncouple violence:Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–295.Google Scholar
  16. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1981). Çocuğun Değeri. İstanbul: B. Ü. İdari Bilimlar Yayını.Google Scholar
  17. Kandiyoti, D. (1995). Patterns of patriarchy: Notes for an analysis of male dominance in Turkish society. In S. Tekeli (Ed.), Women in modern Turkish society. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  18. Lenton, R. (1995). Feminist versus interpersonal power theories of wife abuse revisited. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 567–574.Google Scholar
  19. Locke, L. M., & Richman, C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender issues. Sex Roles, 40, 227–247.Google Scholar
  20. Mugford, J., Mugford, S., & Easteal, P. (1989). Social justice, public perceptions, and assualt in Australia. Social Justice, 16, 102–123.Google Scholar
  21. Mwamwenda, T. (1999). Gender differences in attitudes toward wife battering. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 790–792.Google Scholar
  22. Sakallı, N. (in press). The relationship between sexism and attitudes toward homosexuality in a sample of Turkish College students. Journal of Homosexuality. Google Scholar
  23. Sakallı, N. (2001). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: How do the hostile and benevolent sexism work in a Turkish sample? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: A test of feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 5, 257–274.Google Scholar
  25. Yüksel, S. (1995). A comparison of violent and non-violent families. In Ş. Tekeli (Ed.), Women in Modern Turkish Society (pp. 275–282). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuray Sakall
    • 1
  1. 1.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations