Ambivalent Sexism InventoryAdaptation to Basque Population and Sexism as a Risk Factor of Dating Violence

  1. Izaskun Ibabe 1
  2. Ainara Arnoso 1
  3. Elgorriaga Astondoa, Edurne
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU (Spain)
Zeitschrift:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Datum der Publikation: 2016

Ausgabe: 19

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2016.80 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zusammenfassung

There is currently a consensus that sexism is one of the most important causes of intimate partner violence, but this has yet to be empirically demonstrated conclusively. The key objective of the study was to adapt Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and to validate it to the Basque language. It also aims to analyze the prevalence of violence in dating relationships and verify if ambivalent sexism in young men and women is a valid predictor of perpetration and/or victimization in their dating relationships. Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Dating Relationship Questionnaire were administered to 1378 undergraduate students (66% women and 45% Basque), aged between 17 and 30. The psychometric properties of the Basque and Spanish versions of the ASI are deemed to be acceptable. Sufficient guarantees are provided to be used as an instrument for measuring ambivalent sexism in adult Basque speakers. Ambivalent sexism among young men and women are both positively associated with the perpetration of violence and victimization in their dating relationships. However, ambivalent sexism or two sub-types of sexism (hostile and benevolent) are not relevant risk factors to be perpetrator or victim of violence in dating relationships, due to accounting for 3% or less of variance in dating violence.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Allen C. T., Swan S. C., & Raghavan C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816–1834. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0886260508325496
  • Arbuckle J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Arnoso A., Ibabe I., & Elgorriaga E. (2014, November). Creencias sexistas y factores de vulnerabilidad de la violencia de pareja en función del origen cultural [Sexist beliefs and vulnerability factors of intimate partner violence based on cultural background]. III Congreso Iberoamericano de Psicología de la Salud. Sevilla, Spain.
  • Bascón M., Saavedra J., & Arias S. (2013). Conflictos y violencia de género en la adolescencia [Conflicts and gender-based violence in adolescence]. Análisis de Estrategias Discursivas y Recursos para la Coeducación, 17(1), 289–307.
  • Bookwala J., Frieze I. H., Smith C., & Ryan K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297–311.
  • Camilli G., & Shepard L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Capaldi D. M., Knoble N. B., Shortt J. W., & Kim H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231–280.
  • Christopher A. N., Zabel K. L., & Miller D. E. (2013). Personality, authoritarianism, social dominance, and ambivalent sexism: A mediational model. Individual Differences Research, 11, 70–80.
  • Cortés-Ayala L., Flores Galaz M., Bringas Molleda C., Rodríguez-Franco L., López-Cepero Borrego J., & Rodríguez Díaz F. J. (2015). Relación de maltrato en el noviazgo de jóvenes mexicanos. Análisis diferencial por sexo y nivel de estudios [Intimate partner violence in the relationships of mexican youth. Differential analysis by sex and level of schooling]. Terapia Psicológica, 33(1), 5–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082015000100001
  • Desmarais S. L., Reeves K. A., Nicholls T. L., Telford R. P., & Fiebert M. S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3, 170–198. http://dx.doi. org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.170
  • Durán M., Moya M., Megías J. L., & Viki T. G. (2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating and married relationship: The role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 505–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9676-7
  • Expósito F., Moya M. C., & Glick P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos [Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlates]. Revista de Psicología Social: International Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 159–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641
  • Ferragut M., Blanca M. J., & Ortiz-Tallo M. (2013). Psychological values as protective factors against sexist attitudes in preadolescents. Psicothema, 25, 38–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.85
  • Forbes G. B., Jobe R. L., White K. B., Bloesch E., & Adams-Curtis L. E. (2005). Experiences with sexual coercion in college males and females. Sex Roles, 52, 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6
  • Formiga N. S., Gouveia V. V., & Santos M. N. (2002). Inventário de sexismo ambivalente: Sua adaptação e relação com o gênero [Ambivalent sexism inventory: Its adaptation and correlation with gender]. Psicologia em Estudo, 7, 103–111.
  • Garaigordobil M., & Aliri J. (2013). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Standardization and normative data in a sample of the Basque Country. Behavioral Psychology/ Psicología Conductual, 21, 173–186.
  • García-Díaz V., Fernández-Feito A., Rodríguez-Díaz F. J., López-González M. L., Mosterio-Díaz M. P., & Lana-Pérez A. (2013). Violencia de género en estudiantes de enfermería durante sus relaciones de noviazgo [Gender violence in nursing students during their dating relationships]. Atención Primaria, 45, 290–296.
  • 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/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  • Glick P., Fiske S. T., Mladinic A., Saiz J. L., Abrams D., Masser B., … López W. (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/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
  • Glick P., Sakalli-Ugurlu N., Ferreira M. C., & Souza M. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068
  • Gonçalves G., Orgambídez-Ramos A., Giger J. C., Santos J., & Gomes A. (2015). Validity evidence of the portuguese adaptation of the ambivalent sexism inventory. Revista de Psicología Social: International Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 152–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.991518
  • Graña Gómez J. L., & Cuenca Montesino M. L. (2014). Prevalence of psychological and physical intimate partner aggression in Madrid (Spain): A dyadic analysis. Psicothema, 26, 343–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.262
  • Hambleton R. K., & Patsula L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1, 1–30.
  • Helms J. E. (2006). Fairness is not validity or cultural bias in racial/group assessment: A quantitative perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 845–859. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.845
  • Hu L. T., & Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Johnson M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
  • León-Ramírez B., & Ferrando P. J. (2014). Assessing sexism and gender violence in a sample of Catalan university students: A validity study based on the ambivalent sexism inventory and the dating violence questionnaire. Anuario de Psicología/The UB Journal of Psychology, 44, 327–341.
  • López-Cepero J., Lana A., Rodríguez-Franco L., Paíno S. G., & Rodríguez-Díaz J. (2015). Percepción y etiquetado de la experiencia violenta en las relaciones de noviazgo juvenil [Perception and description of violent experience in youth dating relationships]. Gaceta Sanitaria, 29, 21–26.
  • Megías J. L., & Montañés P. (2012). Perception of battered women on power asymmetry in their couples and its relation to violence: Preliminary study. Anales de Psicología, 28, 405–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.28.2.148901
  • Moya M., Expósito F., & Padilla J. L. (2006). Revisión de las propiedades psicométricas de las versiones larga y reducida de la Escala sobre Ideología de Género [Review of psychometric properties of the long and short versions on Gender Ideology Scale]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 6, 709–727.
  • Rodríguez-Franco L., López-Cepero J., Rodríguez-Díaz F. J., Bringas C., Antuña M. A., & Estrada C. (2010). Validación del cuestionario de violencia entre novios (CUVINO) en jóvenes hispanohablantes: Análisis de resultados en España, México y Argentina [Validation of dating violence questionnaire (CUVINO) in young Spanish speakers: Analysis of results in Spain, Mexico and Argentina]. Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 6, 45–53.
  • Roets A., van Hiel A., & Dhont K. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward the own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26, 350–359.
  • Rojas-Solís J. L., & Carpintero E. (2011). Sexismo y agresiones físicas, sexuales y verbales-emocionales, en relaciones de noviazgo de estudiantes universitarios [Sexism and physical, sexual and verbal-emotional aggression in courtship relationships in university students]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 541–564.
  • Sakalli-Ugurlu N., Yalcin Z. S., & Glick P. (2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57, 889–895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-007-9313-2
  • Stith S. M., Smith D. B., Penn C. E., Ward D. B., & Tritt D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001
  • Ureña J., Romera E. M., Casas J. A., Viejo C., & Ortega-Ruiz R. (2015). Psychometrics properties of psychological dating violence questionnaire: A study with young couples. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15, 52–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.07.002
  • Valor-Segura I., Expósito F., & Moya M. (2008). Atribución del comportamiento del agresor y consejo a la víctima en un caso de violencia doméstica [Attribution of the perpetrator’s behavior and advice to the victim in an episode of domestic violence]. Revista de Psicología Social: International Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 171–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1174/021347408784135896
  • Viejo C. (2014). Physical dating violence: Towards a comprehensible view of the phenomenon. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 37, 785–815.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet