PRO-Mueve Relaciones Sanas – A Gender-Based Violence Prevention Program for Adolescents: Assessment of Its Efficacy in the First Year of Intervention

PRO-Mueve Relaciones Sanas (PRO-Mote Healthy Relationships) is a gender-based violence and dating violence prevention program targeted at adolescents. The program has been designed to be implemented during three consecutive courses [from the first to third year of Spanish mandatory secondary education (ESO)] in 8 annual sessions, imparted by university students who have been previously trained and supervised by university professors. The present study evaluates the effects of the program after the first year of implementation through a quasi-experimental design (Intervention Group N = 181; Quasi-control group N = 62; Mage = 12.11; SDage = 0.57; 54.7% girls) and assesses whether there are gender differences in the outcomes. The results obtained evidenced a significant reduction in benevolent sexism in the intervention group compared to the quasi-control group. Regarding hostile sexism, it was found to increase significantly in the quasi-control group, while it remained stable in the intervention group. Thus, there were significant differences between both groups after the intervention. Likewise, romantic love myths were found to decrease significantly, and knowledge about gender-based violence increased significantly in the intervention group between the two time points assessed, although there were no significant differences with the quasi-control group. No gender differences in the outcomes of the program were observed. The obtained results supported the efficacy of the program during the first year of intervention in the first course of the ESO and laid the foundation for the following phases of intervention.

Hunting in a Hostile Climate?: Hegemonic Masculinity and Emphasized Femininity on a Hunting Message Board

Based on prior research about other male-dominated leisure pursuits, we might expect game hunting to present a hostile climate for its women participants. However, our qualitative analysis of 293 threads posted between 2005 and 2019 on an online hunting message board suggests that women were welcomed within the pastime. While they did not overtly exclude women from their ranks, however, posters curated the boundary between masculinity and femininity, as well as staking out the territory of emphasized femininity. In particular, they accomplished this via benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, and sexual objectification. Our findings not only shed additional light on the gendered dynamics of this pastime but also enriched our knowledge of the ways that hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity can work in tandem—within male-dominated recreational activities, and more broadly.

Gender, sexism, and war

We analyze a model of leader gender and crisis bargaining under asymmetric information. There are no essential differences between the sexes in their willingness to use force, but sexist leaders receive a subjective boost for defeating female leaders in war and pay a subjective cost for defeat. We show that this hostile sexism can lead to war for two reasons, first by offering sufficient private benefits to make peace impossible and second by influencing an uninformed leader’s willingness to risk war. We also show that (a) the effect of leader sex on disputes and war depends on the distribution of power, (b) sexist leaders may initiate disputes at less favorable distributions of power than non-sexist leaders, and (c) sexist leaders adopt bargaining strategies that make it difficult for women to cultivate and benefit from reputations for resolve, even in the absence of sex differences in the willingness to use force.

How do spouses’ levels of ambivalent sexism predict allocations of household chores? Probing why women still perform most of the work in the U.S.

This study’s main objective was to examine whether, in a U.S. sample, ambivalent sexism would show stronger associations with heterosexual husbands and wives’ housework division (hours and proportion) than have previous gender-ideology measures. Unlike earlier conceptions of sexism emphasizing hostile and negative stereotypical views toward women, ambivalent sexism combines the two dimensions of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (seemingly positive views and behaviors toward women that nevertheless convey underlying paternalistic and patronizing motivations). We hypothesized that male and female respondents high in both hostile and benevolent sexism would report the typical pattern of wives’ housework exceeding their husbands’, whereas those lower in hostile or benevolent sexism would report less housework being performed by wives. Married individuals (N = 249) were recruited via advertisements on Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and announcements at a university to complete an online survey. Several variables were measured, including own and spouse’s housework hours, hostile and benevolent sexism, and demographic control variables previously associated with housework allocation. An interaction emerged for women, in which those high in benevolent, but low in hostile, sexism reported performing the highest proportion of housework, whereas those low in both forms of sexism performed the lowest proportion. These results provided full or partial support for different aspects of our hypotheses. Men reported greater housework (hours and proportion) the more hours their wife worked outside the house. Discussion examines implications for ambivalent sexism theory, housework sharing, and conceptions of sexism.

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

The Short-Term Effects of Gendered Primary Prevention Campaigns on Ambivalent Sexism and Beliefs about the Acceptability of Intimate Partner Violence

<p>This study aimed to explore the effects of portrayed gender roles in media campaigns on participants’ endorsement of sexism and approval of intimate partner violence (IPV) across two studies. Study one (N = 227) used a within-subjects experimental design and consisted of two parts separated by a one-week period. In part one, participants completed an online questionnaire that consisted of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale. In part two, participants randomly viewed a poster depicting heterosexual IPV or a non-violent control, then completed the measures. Study two (N = 380) aimed to replicate study one using a between-subjects experimental design, and followed the procedure of study one, part two. ANOVA revealed that participants approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence, and this approval was more pronounced for males, indicating a chivalrous norm. Regression analyses revealed the more that females, but not males, endorsed benevolent sexism (BS), the less they approved of male aggression (no provocation). Contrarily, the more male and female participants endorsed BS, the more they approved of female aggression (total and infidelity). Hostile sexism was not related to approval. Across both studies, regression analyses revealed that exposure to a poster depicting male aggression did not significantly change participants’ approval of IPV or level of sexism. In contrast, it was found that participants who viewed a poster depicting female aggression approved of female aggression (total and infidelity) significantly less than participants who viewed a non-violent control poster, however, this was only observed in study two. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that exposure to a poster depicting female aggression decreased participants’ endorsement of BS, with females decreasing the most relative to baseline, however, this was only observed in study one. The need for prevention campaigns to be informed by multifactorial frameworks, rather than single factor gendered theories, is discussed alongside other implications for policy and practice.</p>

The Short-Term Effects of Gendered Primary Prevention Campaigns on Ambivalent Sexism and Beliefs about the Acceptability of Intimate Partner Violence

<p>This study aimed to explore the effects of portrayed gender roles in media campaigns on participants’ endorsement of sexism and approval of intimate partner violence (IPV) across two studies. Study one (N = 227) used a within-subjects experimental design and consisted of two parts separated by a one-week period. In part one, participants completed an online questionnaire that consisted of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale. In part two, participants randomly viewed a poster depicting heterosexual IPV or a non-violent control, then completed the measures. Study two (N = 380) aimed to replicate study one using a between-subjects experimental design, and followed the procedure of study one, part two. ANOVA revealed that participants approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence, and this approval was more pronounced for males, indicating a chivalrous norm. Regression analyses revealed the more that females, but not males, endorsed benevolent sexism (BS), the less they approved of male aggression (no provocation). Contrarily, the more male and female participants endorsed BS, the more they approved of female aggression (total and infidelity). Hostile sexism was not related to approval. Across both studies, regression analyses revealed that exposure to a poster depicting male aggression did not significantly change participants’ approval of IPV or level of sexism. In contrast, it was found that participants who viewed a poster depicting female aggression approved of female aggression (total and infidelity) significantly less than participants who viewed a non-violent control poster, however, this was only observed in study two. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that exposure to a poster depicting female aggression decreased participants’ endorsement of BS, with females decreasing the most relative to baseline, however, this was only observed in study one. The need for prevention campaigns to be informed by multifactorial frameworks, rather than single factor gendered theories, is discussed alongside other implications for policy and practice.</p>

She Asked for It: Hardcore Porn, Sexism, and Rape Myth Acceptance

The present study examined pornography viewing, rape myth acceptance, and sexist attitudes. Data came from 392 male and 903 female participants. Multigroup SEM indicated neither pornography viewing, nor hardcore pornography viewing, were related to rape myth acceptance when controlling for sexist attitudes among men. Wald tests indicated hostile sexism to be a significantly stronger predictor of all rape myths examined compared to pornography viewing or hardcore pornography viewing in men and women. Latent variable interaction analyses suggested hardcore pornography viewing as a significant exacerbating factor for the relationship between hostile sexism and “she asked for it” rape myths across genders.

Sexism and Attitude Toward Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse

Long-standing sexism in the Balinese community, based on its traditional paternalistic culture, may become the main factor to underlie children's vulnerability for abuse. School teachers, considering their regularity to interact with children in schools, might play a significant role in early detection and intervention of such cases. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study by sampling Junior High School teachers in Denpasar as an initial effort to analyze the correlations between sexism and attitude toward reporting of child sexual abuse in Bali. Subjects were requested to complete the questionnaires Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and a Teachers’ Reporting Attitude Scale for Child Sexual Abuse (TRAS – CSA). The two scales were then analyzed for correlations. The score of ASI Hostile sexism (HS) domain was inversely correlated with total TRAS-CSA, while a positive correlation was found between total TRAS-CSA score and total ASI Benevolent Sexism (BS) domain score for Paternalism subdomain. This research also pointed to the tendency of the Balinese sample to conduct the practice of benevolent sexism instead of hostile sexism. In correlation with teachers’ reporting for sexual abuse, cautions should be taken for possible inadequate reporting that might potentially lead to the chronicity of the abuse. Keywords: attitude, reporting, child sexual abuse, sexism, teacher