Lastly, consistent with Hypothesis 3, which sustained that
ideological variables would affect young men’s social perceptions
of dating violence, regression analyses showed a main effect of
sexism, myths about romantic love, and acceptability of IPVAW
on the dependent variables. Specifically, it was found that high
levels of hostile sexism predicted a greater justification of
violent behavior and a lower perceived severity of the situation.
Additionally, high scores for benevolent sexism predicted a greater
justification of aggressors’ behavior. Furthermore, high A-IPVAW
predicted a greater justification of violent behavior and a lower
perceived severity of the situation, as well as a lower identification
of controlling behavior in the couple. Finally, high scores for myths
about romantic love predicted high justification and low perception
of severity.
Discussion
Study 2 replicated results found in Study 1 regarding the
frequency with which young people experience and perceive control
in relationships. Data showed that 92.5% of men declared that they
had never or hardly ever exercised controlling behaviors in their
relationships. However, 79.5% considered that this type of behaviors
frequently happen within young couples. Consistent with findings of
Study 1 and providing empirical support for previous research, this
study pointed out that men frequently identify control in other young
couples, but few of them recognize to exercise controlling behaviors
As in Study 1, we predicted that men who adopted the role of
observer on the scene (observer condition) would more easily
identify violence against the partner compared with men who
adopted the role of protagonist (protagonist condition). Main results
showed that the Adopted Role on the Scene IV predicted perceived
threat due to loss of power and identification of controlling behavior
in the expected direction, which supported H1c. and H1d. Men who
were allocated to the observer condition perceived a greater threat
and a greater identification of controlling behavior, in comparison
with men who were allocated to the protagonist condition. However,
adopted role on the scene was not found to predict perceived severity
and justification of violent behavior, rejecting H1 (a and b). Again,
these results are consistent with results found in Study 1, so when
controlling behaviors that occur in couples outside of their own
relationships, men more easily identify these abusive behaviors
and recognize to a greater extent that the perpetrator felt that his
power within the relationship was threatened. It seems that male
perpetrators tend not to identify violent behaviors exercised against
their partners or the threat experienced within the relationship as
an adaptive mechanism for reducing their psychological discomfort
On the other hand, the results pointed out the effect of a
statistically significant interaction between adopted role on the
scene and acceptability of IPVAW on perceived severity of the
situation (see Figure 3). In the protagonist condition, lower scores for
A-IPVAW predicted a greater perception of severity in comparison
with higher scores; however, in the observer condition, A-IPVAW
did not predict perceived severity. When men adopted the role of
observer on the scene, the social norm was active and the situation
was perceived as severe, as participants submitted above-average
scores for this. However, when men adopted the role of protagonist,
adaptive mechanisms were activated, so participants with high levels
of A-IPVAW perceived the situation as less severe in comparison with
participants with low levels of A-IPVAW, who rejected violence to
a greater extent. In addition, the effect of a significant interaction
between adopted role on the scene and benevolent sexism on
justification of controlling behavior was found (see Figure 4). In
the protagonist condition, low levels (vs. high levels) of benevolent
sexism predicted less justification of controlling behavior; however,
sexism did not predict this in the observer condition. When men
adopted the role of observer on the scene, they graded above average,
so they tended to justify controlling behaviors. In contrast, men who
adopted the role of protagonist activated adaptive mechanisms,
so when they scored low in benevolent sexism, they rejected the
situation of violence more and justified the aggressor’s behavior less.
Meanwhile, men with high levels justified the controlling behaviors
to a greater extent.
On the other hand, as previous data pointed out, men identified
to a greater extent controlling behavior and perceived threat due to
loss of power within the relationship in other peer couples. However,
at the same time, there appeared to be no effect of ideology on social
perception of dating violence of men who adopted the role of observer.
According to the data, they perceived the severity of the situation, but
at the same time they justified it. This could indicate that they took
on passive attitudes toward dating violence in cases where they were
not directly involved, which happened in the situation of Juan and
Maria. These results are consistent with the findings by Donoso et al.