Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:56:27.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Having it All”: Women's Perception of Impact of Female Promotion on Threat of Domestic Violence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Mari Carmen Herrera ,
Francisca Expósito ,
Miguel Moya  and
Diane Houston
Mari Carmen Herrera*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Francisca Expósito
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Miguel Moya
Affiliation:
Universidad de Granada (Spain)
Diane Houston
Affiliation:
University of Kent (UK)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mari Carmen Herrera. Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Granada. Campus de Cartuja, s/n 18071 Granada (Spain). Phone: + 34-958246272. Fax: +34-958243746. E-mail: mcherrer@ugr.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study involved 219 women participants. The main aim of the present study is to examine the perceived consequences of a work-related promotion for the female partner in a heterosexual relationship. The impact of the promotion was manipulated - both partners share paid and domestic work, the male partner taking responsibility for all the domestic work - or female partner continuing to do all the domestic work, as well as the male partner's sexist ideology. Finally, the study examined gender ideology of participants. The results showed that participants felt that violence was more likely when the male partner was presented as sexist and that this was due to a perception of threat on the part of the male partner.

En este estudio participaron 219 mujeres. El objetivo principal del presente estudio es examinar las consecuencias percibidas que el ascenso de la mujer tendría sobre la pareja (heterosexual). Se manipularon las consecuencias del hecho de que la mujer consiguiera un ascenso en el trabajo: los dos miembros de la pareja trabajan fuera de casa y comparten las tareas del hogar, el hombre realizará las tareas domésticas, o la mujer continuará realizando todo el trabajo doméstico; así como la ideología sexista del hombre. Finalmente, el estudio examinó la ideología de género de las participantes. Los resultados mostraron que las participantes pensaban que la probabilidad de violencia era mayor cuando el hombre era presentado como sexista y que esto era debido a la percepción de amenaza por parte del hombre.

Keywords

domestic workintimate partner violencesexismpowerthreattrabajo domésticoviolencia de parejasexismopoderamenaza
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , July 2012 , pp. 670 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amnesty International (2007). Report 2007 – The state of the world's human rights. Madrid, Spain: Author.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners:Ameta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.5.651CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babcock, J., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N., & Gottman, J. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.61.1.40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, C. (1977). Sex-role attitudes. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Attitudes and opinions (pp. 339–359). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Crowson, H. M., DeBacker, T., & Thoma, S. J. (2006). The role of authoritarianism, perceived threat, and need for closure or structure in predicting post-9/11 attitudes and beliefs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 733–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.6.733-750Google Scholar
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1998). Rethinking violence against women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives. Needham heights, MA: Ally and Bacon.Google Scholar
Expósito, F., & Moya, M. (2005). Violencia de género. In Expósito, F. & Moya, M. (Eds.), Aplicando la Psicología Social (pp. 201–227). Madrid, Spain: PirámideGoogle Scholar
Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (2000). The control motive in intimate partner violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 86–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2695883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women's benevolent sexism as a reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00316.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01311.xGoogle Scholar
Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2000). When ending the relationship does not end the violence: women's experiences of violence by former partners. Violence Against Women, 6, 1363–1383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10778010022183695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frese, B., Moya, M., & López Megías, J. (2004). Social perception of rape. How rape myths acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260503260245Google Scholar
Frieze, I. H., & McHugh, M. C. (1992). Power and influence strategies in violent and nonviolent marriages. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 449–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00268.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J, Abrams, D., Masser, B., … López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109Google Scholar
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., … Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C., & Sugimoto, T. (1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 675–692. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351768Google Scholar
Instituto de la Mujer (2009). Estadísticas. Situación laboral [Statistics. employment situation]. Retrieved from http://www.inmujer.migualdad.es/mujer/mujeres/cifras/empleoGoogle Scholar
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenton, R. L. (1995). Power versus feminist theories of wife abuse. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 305–330.Google Scholar
Mahalik, J. R., Aldarondo, E., Gilbert-Gokhale, S., & Shore, E. (2005). The role of insecure attachment and gender role stress in predicting controlling behaviors in men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 617–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269688Google Scholar
Mahlstedt, D. L., & Welsh, L. A. (2005). Perceived causes of physical assault in heterosexual dating relationships. Violence Against Women, 11, 447–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801204273298Google Scholar
McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00097.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, K. (1970). Sexual Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Morales-Marente, E. (2005). Análisis psicosocial del poder en las relaciones de género (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Granada. Granada, Spain.Google Scholar
Moya, M., & Expósito, F. (2001). Nuevas formas, viejos intereses: Neosexismo en varones españoles [New forms, old interests: Neosexism in Spanish men]. Psicothema, 13, 643–649.Google Scholar
Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., De Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It's for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women's reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434.Google Scholar
O'Brien, L. T., & Major, B. (2005). System-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: the roles of group status and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718–1729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278261Google Scholar
Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In Eagly, A. H., Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd Ed., pp. 242–268). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sagrestano, L. M., Heavey, C. L., & Christensen, A. (1999). Perceived power and physical violence in marital conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 65–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00105Google Scholar
Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good, M. A. & Stets, J. E. (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil [Neo-sexism: The more things change, the more they stay the same]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021342912248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. W. (2001). Aggression and Gender. In Worell, J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender (Vol. 1, pp. 81–93) New York, N.Y: Academic Press.Google Scholar
White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1998). Male violence toward women: An integrated perspective. In Geen, R. G. & Donnesrstein, E. (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research and implications for social policy (pp. 202–228). New York, N.Y: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wuest, J., Ford-Gilboe, M., Merritt-Gray, M., & Berman, H. (2003). Intrusion: The central problem form family health promotion among children and single mothers after leaving an abusive partner. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 597–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732303013005002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yllo, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In Gelles, R. J. & Loseke, D. R. (Eds.), Current controversies in family violence (pp. 47–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zuo, J., & Bian, J. (2001). Gendered resources, division of housework, and perceived fariness. A case in urban China. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1122–1133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01122.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar