Size Does Matter: The Effects of Gender on

Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9816-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Size Does Matter: The Effects of Gender on Perceptions of Dating Violence Sherry Hamby & Amy Jackson

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Previous research has shown that people perceive intimate partner violence (IPV) as more serious in cases involving a male perpetrator and female victim versus other gender combinations. This study is the first to explore reasons for these differences. 181 undergraduates at a U.S. southeastern college rated one of four dating violence vignettes that varied by perpetrator and victim gender. Participants viewed male-on-female violence as more frightening primarily because males are stronger and bigger than female perpetrators. Physical differences were rated as significantly more important causes of fear than other personality/relationship dynamics. Because males are actually stronger and bigger than females, it appears that gendered perceptions of violence are based in real-world knowledge of gender differences, not merely gender stereotypes. Keywords Dating violence . Intimate partner violence . Asymmetry

Introduction One of the major debates in intimate partner violence (IPV) research is whether violence perpetrated by males and females is equivalent. Although a great deal of debate has addressed the issue of whether male-perpetrated and female-perpetrated IPV occur at similar frequencies (Archer 2000; Hamby 2009; Straus and Gelles 1990), there has also been debate about whether, when it occurs, male-perpetrated and femaleS. Hamby (*) : A. Jackson Department of Psychology, Sewanee, the University of the South, Sewanee, TN 37383, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Jackson e-mail: [email protected]

perpetrated physical IPV should be treated equivalently (e.g., Sorenson and Taylor 2005). Numerous survey studies have established that, among the general public and college students in the U.S. and Canada, IPV perpetrated by males is perceived differently than violence perpetrated by females (e.g., Cormier and Woodworth 2008; Harris and Cook 1994; Poorman et al. 2003; Seelau and Seelau 2005; Sorenson and Thomas 2009). This study is guided by the moderate asymmetry hypothesis, a feminist model which proposes that there are genuine, moderately-sized gender differences in physical IPV (Hamby 2009). This paper will extend previous work in violence perceptions by exploring possible underlying factors for gender-based differences in perceptions of violence among undergraduates in the southeastern U.S. The moderate asymmetry hypothesis asserts that the percent of male and female perpetrators of physical IPV is similar to that of other forms of physical assault and violent crime. Extensive databases suggest that approximately 65% to 80% of physical violence is perpetrated by males, and approximately 20% to 35% perpetrated by females (cf. Hamby 2009 for a review). Criminologists have long known that an imbalance of power can provide opportunities to wouldbe perpetrators (Hamby 2004). The ability to physically overwhelm a victim is one form of power, and men’s greater size and strength means they will more often find themselves in situations where they could overpower a weaker victim. Consistent with the moderate asymmetry hypothesis, past studies have shown that male-on-female physical violence is generally perceived more negatively than all other gender patterns (female-on-male, male-on-male, and female-on-female). In this respect, the public’s perceptions of IPV are similar to those of the staff of most programs and shelters serving IPV victims or otherwise trying to prevent or ameliorate IPV. Although most existing research, including the current study, has been with samples of U.S. undergraduates, at least one study has also shown this

Sex Roles

pattern in a sample of Canadian law enforcement officers (Cormier and Woodworth 2008). Nonetheless, some authors consider any differential perceptions as evidence of gender bias and have argued for acknowledging that female-perpetrated IPV is a much more significant social problem than has generally been acknowledged (Cormier and Woodworth 2008; Hamel 2007; Hamel et al. 2007; Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2010; Straus 1993). There are well-established differences between maleand female-perpetrated violence, both against intimate partners and against other targets. The best known and best-established difference is that injury rates are several times higher for male-perpetrated violence than for femaleperpetrated violence (Straus and Gelles 1990; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Although the difference in injury rates is large and expected, given the physical differences between males and females, it is equally well-documented that most physical IPV does not cause injury, especially IPV reported in community or college samples (Straus 2005; Straus and Gelles 1990; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). This is also similar to the pattern for other physical assaults (e.g., Finkelhor et al. 2009), most of which also do not produce physical injuries. So the question remains whether there are gender differences in IPV for non-injurious physical assaults. One variable that has been proposed as an indicator of gender differences in IPV is fear (Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 1997; Houry et al. 2008). Although most research on fear responses to IPV has focused on women, there is some research suggesting that women are more fearful of violent partners than are men (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006; Houry et al. 2008). Some authors, however, have pointed out that fear is gender stereotyped in U.S. culture, with males taught to suppress expressions of fear (Dutton 2010; Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2010). Thus, these authors suggest that “fear” is not an equitable way to assess gender differences in IPV. We agree that gender differences in IPV-related fear alone do not indicate what the source of those differences are (Hamby 2009). One purpose of this study is to begin to explicate why men’s violence might be more frightening than women’s violence by examining two potential sources of fear: fear from physical differences (in size and strength) and fear from personality/relationship dynamics (such as controlling or unpredictable behavior). Following the moderate asymmetry hypothesis, men’s greater size and strength should play a more important role in fear perceptions than personality or relationship factors. Personality attributes and relationship behaviors vary less between women and men (Hamby 2009; Hyde 2005). This study will extend previous work on perceptions of IPV in several ways. First, most previous work (Cormier and Woodworth 2008; Harris and Cook 1994; Seelau and Seelau 2005; Sorenson and Thomas 2009) has studied attitudes about serious violence between married or cohab-

iting partners. Much of the controversy around gender differences in IPV is based on reports of minor, noninjurious violence by college students, however (Archer 2000). Dating couples have higher rates of violence than married couples. Despite the fact that 18–24 year-olds are only 11.7% of the population, this age group comprised 42% of IPV victims in recent years (Durose et al. 2005). It would be worth exploring how college students evaluate situations that are more similar to those that they are likely to encounter—incidents of relatively minor, non-injurious violence between dating college students. The vignettes used in past research were limited in other ways. Some vignettes (Harris and Cook 1994) described the perpetrator as working in a blue-collar job, which could influence perceptions as much as gender. In Harris and Cook’s study, they included male-on-male violence, but omitted female-on-female, so they did not have a fully crossed design for perpetrator gender and victim gender. Seelau and Seelau (2005) did add a female-on-female vignette, but provided descriptions stating that the perpetrator and victim were the same size and weight in all scenarios, regardless of gender. These descriptions do not mirror real life, because men are usually taller, heavier, and stronger than women (Lindle et al. 1997; Ogden et al. 2004), and in heterosexual relationships the social norm is for men to be taller and bigger than their female partner (Pierce 1996). Finally, some authors (e.g., Sorenson and Thomas 2009) used a repeated measures design. Participants who read several scenarios with varied perpetrator and victim characteristics may try to avoid socially undesirable ratings. In a between-subjects design, even if participants guess or try to guess what is being manipulated in the vignettes, they have no way of knowing how other participants are rating their vignettes, and so these ratings should be less subject to social desirability. Finally, none of these previous studies explored possible underlying causes for the differences in perceptions. Sorenson and Thomas (2009) suggested that some victims, that is women and gay men, are more “worthy” due to possessing less structural power, but did not specifically examine participants’ beliefs about power or other potential sources of differences. Purpose and Hypotheses This study will assess perceptions about IPV incidents with different perpetrator gender and victim gender combinations. 1) We hypothesize that, as previous research has shown, violence involving male perpetrators and female victims will be perceived as more severe and more the responsibility of the perpetrator than violence by female perpetrators and male victims.

Sex Roles

2) We also hypothesize that male-on-female violence will be perceived more negatively than other dyads. 3) We hypothesize that participants will rate physical differences between victim and perpetrator as more important causes of victim fear than other personality or relationship dynamics in scenarios involving male perpetrators and female victims (versus female perpetrators and male victims). 4) We also hypothesize that this effect will be stronger for the male-on-female than for other dyads. 5) We will explore whether the gender of the participant affects any of these ratings.

Method Participants The sample was comprised of 181 undergraduates who were recruited from a college in the southeastern United States. The participants were 31% male and 69% female, and 72% were underclassmen (freshmen or sophomores) with a median age of 19 (range 18 to 22). The majority of the participants’ parents were married to one another (80%) and college-educated (77% of mothers and 81% of fathers had an undergraduate degree or higher). Most of the participants (90%) had been in at least one dating relationship. There were no differences between male and female participants on any demographic variables, see the “Results” for details. Measures Vignettes Each participant was randomly assigned one of four vignettes adapted from Harris and Cook (1994), but describing a college dating relationship, not a married couple. The vignettes presented couples who varied by gender of perpetrator and victim. One vignette presented the “classic” male perpetrator and female victim in a heterosexual relationship, one depicted a female perpetrator and male victim, one showed a male perpetrator and male victim in a same-sex relationship, and one had a female perpetrator and female victim. Below is the vignette depicting male-on-female violence. Tyler and Amber, two college students who have been casually dating for about a month, just returned from a movie. While at the movies, Amber spoke to her friend Mike, which made Tyler upset. When they returned to Tyler’s dorm, Tyler let Amber know how he was feeling. The more Tyler talked, the more he

yelled and cursed, and then he grabbed Amber’s arm tightly. When Amber said he was overreacting, Tyler slapped her in the face. Finally, he stopped and said that she had better be careful the next time she sees Mike, or any boy for that matter. The female-on-male violence vignette also used the names Amber and Tyler. The other vignettes substituted the following names: Tyler and Anthony for the same-sex male pair and Nicole and Amber for the same-sex female dyad. The friend was named “Tracy” in the vignettes depicting female-on-male and female-on-female violence. Names were chosen based on an internet search of common names for individuals who are now college age (i.e., born in the late 1980s or early 1990s). There were no other differences between the vignettes except for names and pronouns. Vignettes were randomly assigned to participants, producing cell sizes between 44 and 47 for the Perpetrator Gender X Victim Gender interaction. Cell sizes ranged from 10 to 37 when Participant Gender was also factored in. Attitude Questions for Vignettes Several follow-up questions were adapted from Harris and Cook (1994) and rated on a 7-point Likert scale, including items on how violent the participant believed the incident to be (endpoints “not violent” to “violent”), perpetrator responsibility, victim responsibility (endpoints “not responsible” to “very responsible”), and whether police or dorm staff should be notified (“definitely not” to “definitely”). Participants were also asked to describe how afraid they thought the victim would be in the scenario they read, and then asked to rate several possible reasons for the victim’s fear, which were based on commonly cited factors in the research literature. The fear questions were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Completely.” A principal factors analysis with a Promax rotation was done on all questions about the vignettes. The KaiserMeyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .79, indicating sufficient sample size. A four-factor solution, all with eigenvalues over 1.0, was produced showing moderate correlations between the factors (.32 to .54), except for a low correlation (.10) between Factors 2 and 4. Together, the four factors accounted for 65% of the variance. Loadings above .4 were retained on a factor. Items on each factor were summed to create an index for subsequent analyses. Fear from Personality/Relationship Dynamics Seven items loaded on Factor 1, all completing the stem, “To what extent do you think [name of victim inserted from vignette] was afraid of [name of perpetrator inserted from

Sex Roles

vignette] because…” Loadings are given in parentheses. The items are: “[perpetrator] might do something else really crazy one day” (.80), “[victim] feels like [perpetrator] owns and controls [her/him]” (.74), “[perpetrator] will probably do things like this to [victim] again” (.77). “[perpetrator] is very unpredictable” (.56), “[perpetrator] has probably done things like this to [victim] before” (.62), “[perpetrator] might really hurt [victim] seriously one day” (.56), and “[victim] is worried this is going to cause [her/him] problems in school or with [her/his] friends” (.55). One item, “[perpetrator] has a terrible temper,” double-loaded on Factors 1 and 2 (.42 and .45 respectively) and was omitted. There were no other double loadings. Coefficient alpha for the index created with the items was .84. Fear from Physical Differences Two other items following the stem, “To what extent do you think [victim] was afraid of [perpetrator] because” loaded on this factor alone: “[perpetrator] is bigger than [victim]” (.91) and “[perpetrator] is stronger than [victim]” (1.00). Alpha for the scale of the combined items was .95. Severity Index Four items loaded on this factor: “As crimes go, how violent was the incident?” (.49), “How afraid do you think [name of victim] was during this incident?” (.56), “If you had witnessed this incident in your dorm, how likely would it have been that you would have called the police?” (.70) and “In this case, should the dorm staff be notified?” (.65). Alpha was .71.

of whether they participated. A drawing was held at the end of each class. The survey ended with a debriefing statement, a chance to ask questions, and information on who to contact for more information or for counseling. All students chose to complete the survey.

Results Gender Differences in Variables Differences between male and female participants for the study variables were examined at the univariate level to provide a descriptive context for later analyses. There were no significant gender differences on any demographic variables. Most men (76.3%) and most women (69.6%) were underclassmen, p>.75. Women averaged 19.6 (±.1) years, men averaged 19.6 (±.2) years, p>.85. Approximately the same percentage of fathers had college educations (81.5% for males, 80.8% for females, p>.90). The same was true for mothers (72.7% for males, 79.2% for females, p>.30). The majority of both groups had married parents (82.4% for females, 74.5% for males, p>.20). Almost all (88.5% of males, 90.4% of females) had been in at least one dating relationship, p>.65. See text below and Table 1 for participant gender differences in severity ratings, responsibility attributions, fear from physical differences, and fear from personality/ relationship dynamics, which were incorporated into the multivariate analyses as they pertain to Purpose #5. Hypotheses 1 and 2: Gender Patterns in Severity Ratings and Responsibility Attributions

Perpetrator Responsibility Two items asking for attributions about “How responsible was [name of perpetrator] for the incident?” (loading .86) and “How responsible for the incident was [name of victim]?” (−.81). The victim rating was reverse-scored to get an index of perpetrator responsibility/lack of victim responsibility that had a coefficient alpha of .82. Demographics The questionnaire ended with a number of items on gender, age, year in school, and similar characteristics. Procedure Participants were recruited from undergraduate classes in psychology and Spanish. Participation was voluntary and confidential, and the students were eligible to enter a drawing for a gift certificate to a local restaurant regardless

A 3-way (Perpetrator Gender X Victim Gender X Participant Gender) between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the severity index and responsibility attributions. All three main effects were significant, p.05. Thus, Hypothesis 2, that male-on-female violence would receive the highest ratings of all dyads, was not confirmed. For both Perpetrator Gender and Victim Gender, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed for severity ratings but not responsibility attributions. Male-perpetrated violence was rated as more severe than female-perpetrated violence; F(1, 172)=24.25, p