Does Love Forgive All? The Role of the Romantic Love Narrative in the Legitimization of Intimate Partner Violence

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5017608/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Does Love Forgive All? The Role of the Romantic Love Narrative in the Legitimization of Intimate Partner Violence

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5017608/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study examines the influence of romantic narratives on perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV) and its legitimization. Through two experiments, we investigate how romantic themes in narratives shape views of victims, offenders, and the legal consequences of IPV. Participants read journalistic pieces depicting acts of violence varying in relationship details and motives. Experiment 1 (n = 182) explored romantic versus non-romantic motives within romantic relationships, while Experiment 2 (n = 352) expanded to non-romantic relationships. Our findings consistently reveal a tendency to attribute greater accountability to victims when a prior romantic relationship with the offender is mentioned. Furthermore, narratives featuring both romantic motives for violence and romantic relationships are associated with increased victim blaming and anticipation of more lenient punishment compared to narratives devoid of romantic themes. Gender-specific responses were also observed. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of the portrayal of IPV victims as "non-ideal victims" and societal stereotypes surrounding romantic love.

Psychology

IPV

domestic violence

gender violence

accountability

legitimization of IPV

Intimate partner violence (IPV) pertains to a pervasive pattern of abusive behaviors manifesting within an intimate relationship, resulting in physical, sexual, or psychological harm. This encompasses acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling conduct. IPV manifests in various forms, including verbal insults, threats, physical violence, sexual assault, financial manipulation, and emotional coercion. This definition encompasses detrimental actions perpetrated by both current and former spouses and partners. In defining the phenomenon, emphasis in sociology and related fields is placed only on the acts of violence themselves, disconnected from the dynamics of the relationship or the gender issues. However, a feminist perspective sees IPV as a series of actions aimed at exerting dominance over an intimate partner (Larsen, 2016). This conceptualization moves beyond viewing incidents in isolation, emphasizing the significance of power dynamics, as well as the intent and repercussions of the violence.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), IPV constitutes a majority of violence against women, with prevalence estimates of this form of violence ranging from 18% in the Western Pacific region to 35% in Africa (WHO, 2022; Sardinha et al., 2022). However, empirical studies on intimate partner violence (IPV) unveil a more nuanced pattern. Analyses in non-clinical populations reveal that women are more frequent perpetrators of violence. At the same time, in clinically abusive relationships, both men and women engage in physical abuse, with a higher incidence of women requiring medical treatment for injuries (Archer, 2000; Capaldi et al., 2012). Thus, while intimate partner violence appears to be generally independent of gender, women tend to experience more severe consequences, especially regarding health and, at times, life. This observation aligns with police statistics on domestic violence. For example, in Poland, from 2012 to 2022, law enforcement agencies reported over 701,000 men (91.5% of perpetrators) and 61,686 women (8% of perpetrators) as suspects in domestic violence cases (Policja, 2023). Notably, women constitute the majority of victims (71.4%). Given the characteristics of the cultural context of this project, our research therefore focuses on men's violence against women (MFIPV). This emphasis does not imply that we deny or even ignore the existence of women's violence against men (FMIPV).

Given the widespread prevalence of intimate partner violence and its multifaceted consequences, research into the drivers of IPV has expanded significantly in recent years. This investigation spans culturally and politically diverse regions (for Europe see e.g., Costa et al., 2015; for North America see e.g., Ansara & Hindin, 2011; Black et al., 2010; for Latin countries see e.g., Bott et al., 2019; for Asia see e.g., Nguyen et al., 2013; Yoshihama et al., 2007; for Middle East see e.g., Mojahed et al., 2022; Moshtagh et al., 2023, for Africa see e.g., Olayanju et al., 2013, Roman & Frantz, 2013), exploring various factors at different levels of specificity. These factors range from demographic and socioeconomic (e.g., Abramsky et al., 2011; Bhona et al., 2019) to psychological, such as patriarchal ideologies (Lelaurain et al., 2021), sexism (Cinquegrana et al., 2022; Viki & Abrams, 2002) or prejudice toward the victims of violence (Murvartian et al., 2023). While these studies successfully identify individual risk factors, they only partially elucidate the persistence of the phenomenon.

We posit that one of pivotal mechanisms contributing to the enduring nature of IPV is the legitimization of this form of violence. This refers to the societal, cultural, or individual processes that contribute to the acceptance, normalization, or justification of abusive behaviors within relationships.

Legitimization of IPV

Legitimization of IPV involves the endorsement or tacit approval of violence as an acceptable means of conflict resolution or control. At the individual level, legitimization may manifest as the rationalization of abusive actions, minimizing the harm caused, or shifting blame onto and infra-humanization of the victim (Baldry et al., 2015). Violence can be perceived as a normal response to provocation, stress, or loss of control (Rollero, 2020). Societal or cultural legitimization occurs when harmful behaviors are excused, overlooked, or normalized within a community, reinforcing an environment where IPV can persist unchecked. This process often involves the perpetuation of traditional gender norms, power imbalances, or ingrained beliefs that contribute to a culture of silence or reluctance to intervene (Gracia, 2004). For instance, communities with rigid gender roles and stereotypes may inadvertently legitimize IPV by normalizing male dominance and female subservience. On cultural level, legitimization can be observed within societies that value honor and family reputation over individual safety may discourage victims from reporting IPV (Amoateng-Boahen, 2015; McCleary-Sills et al., 2016).

Romantic love narrative

One significant factor contributing to the legitimization of IPV is the pervasive influence of societal norms and cultural expectations associated with romantic love and a stereotypical view of intimate relationships. These factors primarily affect the perception of violent behavior. Societal narratives of romantic love often portray jealousy and possessiveness as signs of love rather than control or abuse (DeShong & Haynes, 2016). Moreover, the idealization of love and relationships can lead to the acceptance of harmful behaviors as expressions of passion (Chung, 2005).

The media coverage of domestic homicides, as explored by Monckton-Smith (2012), serves as a poignant example of how societal perceptions and attitudes toward intimate partner violence are reflected and reinforced through various channels. It tends to perpetuate traditional gender roles and reinforce harmful stereotypes associated with romantic relationships. Violence, frequently fatal, is commonly perceived as a singular eruption of anger, attributed to "losing control" instead of being portrayed as the culmination of a pattern of abuse, violence is rationalized and normalized, and framed as an isolated incident that was deemed unforeseeable and unavoidable (Gillespie et al., 2013; Herbst & Gez, 2012). Even in societies increasingly aware and sensitive to gender equality, romantic love is often exploited by the media to legitimize a man's perceived need to regain control over his female partner (Gius & Lalli, 2014).

Additionally, the narrative pattern frequently incorporates a depiction of harm that, rather than emphasizing the loss of health or even life experienced by the victim, focuses on a shared loss within the couple—the tragic demise of love (Monckton-Smith, 2012). This commonality of loss often overshadows the individual voices of the victims, but also provides the aggressor’s with victim status (Herbst & Gez, 2012).

Moreover, accentuating the victim's romantic relationship with the perpetrator, thus suggesting their entanglement in the crime, may contribute to the diminished empathy toward IPV victims (Gracia, 2014). Consequently, it leads to challenges in constructing an identity free from victimization, driven, in part, by the sense that victims must prove their worthiness of empathy to access support (Meyer, 2016).

The repercussions of legitimizing intimate partner violence extend not only to the general public but also permeate various public entities, such as the justice system responsible for safeguarding the rights of crime victims. Research indicates that the presence of a romantic relationship, particularly within the context of marriage, between the perpetrator and the victim confers a legal advantage to the accused. This implies a presumption that the bonds of "love" and matrimony mitigate the gravity of violent actions (Herbst & Gez, 2012). Moreover, the inclination to perceive IPV as a relational or familial issue can engender the perspective that such violence should not fall under the purview of criminal adjudication (Meyer, 2011; Pallatino et al., 2019) and can be considered as “marital problem”, thus a private matter. As a consequence, the legal response depends on whether a victim wants to end their relationship (Fugate et al., 2005; Schneider, 2000). Lack of empathy for IPV victims and bias against them, evident in the general public, is also observed within the judicial system. The system often fails to provide necessary protection to a victim who does not conform to the acceptable archetype of an IPV victim ("who is married, has children, is a 'good woman'"; Garcia & McManimon, 2011).

The role of romantic narrative in perception of IPV

Understanding the factors contributing to IPV's perpetuation is crucial not only for dismantling ingrained societal norms that may inadvertently sustain and normalize such violence, but also for formulating effective interventions. In light of its prevalence and societal impact, rigorous research on legitimization of IPV is imperative for advancing social understanding and promoting evidence-based policies, awareness campaigns, and community initiatives aimed at reducing consequences of this form of violence.

With this in mind, our objective is to identify factors contributing to the legitimization of IPV. Therefore, the primary aim of this project is to examine the causal relationship between the legitimization of IPV and the narrative surrounding the intimate relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. To achieve this, we explored how the narrative of romantic love influences the perceived accountability of the male offender and the female victim, as well as the potential length and severity of punishment of the offender. The novelty of this research lies in exploring a direct, causal connection between the narrative on romantic love motive and legitimization, a dimension that has been insufficiently explored in existing studies. Prior investigations into this issue have predominantly adopted qualitative methodologies, delving into media (e.g., Gius & Lalli, 2014, Herbst & Gez, 2012, Monckton-Smith, 2012) and court narratives (e.g., Coates et al., 1994, Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Khaw et al., 2021; Randall, 2010) or have centered on correlational analyses exploring the foundational factors of the phenomenon (e.g., Lelaurain et al., 2021). The application of experimental research holds the potential to establish a more robust case for the existence of a relationship and, consequentially, propel a discourse on the role of stereotypical framing of male-female romantic relationships and gender inequality in relationships.

Project design

Two preregistered online experiments were undertaken, integrating the romantic love theme within narratives of violent incidents. We introduced the romantic theme in two ways. In the first experiment, we compared the impact of romantic motive for crime on measures of legitimization. In the second experiment, we expanded our focus to encompass not only the type of motive, but also the type of relationship between the offender and the victim. We were particularly interested in determining whether including in the narrative information on the romantic relations between the perpetrator and victim is adequate to induce a proclivity towards legitimizing violence.

The decision to nuance the narrative stemmed from strategic considerations. First, we aimed to assess if the mere presence of romantic themes in the narrative triggers the legitimization of IPV. By contrasting romantic and non-romantic motives across different relationship contexts, we aimed to elucidate the conditions under which romantic narratives influence attitudes toward violence. Second, including a contrast condition devoid of romantic motives and relationships highlighted the differential impact of romantic narratives. By comparing attitudes across varying status of romantic involvement, we aimed to uncover nuances in perceptions of violence and relationship dynamics. Finally, by controlling the information in narratives we minimized extraneous variables to isolate the effects of romantic motivations on IPV legitimization. This control provides clarity on the unique contributions of specific factors.

Procedure

The procedures for both experiments were almost identical. Participants were instructed to read three short journalistic pieces and respond to accompanying questions. The key article addressed a violent incident and was presented alongside two unrelated pieces (a sports event and an archaeological discovery) in a random order. The inclusion of non-criminal materials aimed to prevent conformist responses related to the need for social approval. Further details on the content of these pieces, used as experimental manipulations, are elaborated in specific sections for each experiment.

The entire procedure, administered through Qualtrics, averaged 6.5 minutes. Following each journalistic piece, participants answered a set of four questions in a predetermined order. For criminal materials, these questions served as measures of legitimization. The procedure was supplemented with an attention check task that appeared immediately after answering the key questions measuring the legitimization indicators.

Legitimization of IPV indicators

In both experiments, we operationalized legitimization in two ways. First, we assessed (1) personal accountability for intimate partner violence as perceived by participants. They were asked to rate the degree of accountability for both the offender and the victim on a scale from 0 to 100%. Additionally, we employed a more implicit measure of legitimization: (2) criminal accountability. This involved gauging how participants perceived the described violence in legal terms. Participants were required to indicate the anticipated length of the sentence the offender would face (from six months to five years) and severity of the punishment they thought the offender should face (on a scale from 1 – definitely not severe to 7 – definitely severe). The range of the scale for the estimations of the punishment length was based on the current penal code in Poland.

Committee for Ethics in Scientific Research at Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Krakow approval for the project was granted on May 25, 2023.

Hypotheses

As the primary objective of this experiment is to explore how the narratives on distinct motivations for violence between former romantic partners influence perceptions of the crime and subsequent legitimization of IPV, we anticipate differences in measured personal accountability. Specifically:

[H1] In violence motivated by romantic love, we expect a higher level of perceived victim's accountability compared to crimes with non-romantic motivations.

[H2] Crimes motivated by romantic love are anticipated to be associated with a lower level of the offender's accountability compared to crimes with non-romantic motivations.

Additionally, we hypothesize lower rates for the criminal accountability of the offender:

[H3] There is an expectation of lower anticipated punishment in cases of romantic motivation compared to non-romantic motivations.

[H4] We anticipate a lowered perceived severity of punishment for offenders involved in crimes motivated by romantic love in contrast to those with non-romantic motivations.

Participants

The minimum sample size of 159 was calculated with G*Power using the mean effect size assumption (.25; estimated based on the pilot study result) in the estimation, power (1 - β err prob) = .80, α = .05 with three groups. To account for unreliable responses or inattentive reading of instructions, we decided to recruit about 15% more participants.

As a result, total of 182 people (59 females, 122 males, 1 other; M_age = 25.92 years, SD_age = 5.18) participated in the experiment. One person was excluded due to the low quality of the data obtained. Participants were recruited through the Prolific platform, and the age criterion of 18–40 years old was set to focus on the lower boundary of Generation Y. This criterion is pertinent to Poland's socio-cultural transformation associated with the transition, potentially influencing political and ideological views (Kwak, 2022). Individuals born earlier may be expected to hold more conservative views and perceptions of gender roles, necessitating separate research. Of the participants, 52.2% had attained a higher level of education, with 44.5% having completed secondary education and 3.3% having vocational education backgrounds.

Participants were compensated £1.50 for their involvement in the study.

Materials

In the experiment we presented a set of three materials: one criminal (key story) and two non-criminal (serving as filler stories). Criminal materials in each study condition comprised a case description involving an assault by a man on his former partner. During this incident, the perpetrator forcibly dragged the woman to a car, physically assaulting her, resulting in moderate bodily harm (broken arm and numerous superficial wounds) and finally released her. In the romantic condition, the motive for the attack was attributed to love disappointment, specifically arising from jealousy due to the woman's initiation of a new relationship. In the non-romantic condition, the attack was linked to financial disappointment, as the woman refused to lend money to the man. Additionally, a “no information on motive” condition was included in the study where the motive for the violence was not disclosed. Please note, that the abovementioned versions of the narratives on the violent act differed only in the information on the motive (romantic vs. non-romantic vs. no information).

Criminal materials, derived from actual criminal cases, were tested in a pilot study1 (N = 80) conducted with a student sample to assess comprehensibility, clarity, and the establishment of adequate associations. The pilot study was also used to estimate the effect sizes necessary for determining sample sizes for the actual study.

Results

With the intention of comparing the impact of different types of narrative on motive (romantic vs. non-romantic vs. no information on motive) on how the described situation is perceived, a one-way ANOVA was performed. Pairwise comparisons were made using HSD Tukey post hoc tests. However, we decided to perform additional, not preregistered analyses, including gender of the participant as an independent variable as well (two-way ANOVA motive × gender).

We took into account four aspects: personal accountability of offender, personal accountability of victim, criminal accountability of the offender (reflected by the anticipated length of the sentence), perceived severity of the punishment.

Personal accountability

Table 1 presents the means and standard errors for the perceived accountability of the offender and victim for the situation (across the type of motive mentioned in the narrative) along with the results of the one-way ANOVA.

Table 1

*Perceived accountability of offender and victim across the conditions in Experiment 1*
	Condition
	Romantic (n = 59)		Non-romantic (n = 61)		No Information (n = 62)		Between-subjects comparison
	M (SE)	95%CI	M (SE)	95%CI	M (SE)	95%CI	Between-subjects comparison
Offender	89.73 (2.06)	[85.67, 93.78]	95.20 (2.02)	[91.21, 99.19]	96.74 (2.01)	[92.79, 100.70]	F(2, 179) = 3.270; p = .040; η²_p = .035
Victim	14.97 (2.40)	[10.24, 19.69]	5.57 (2.36)	[0.93, 10.22]	3.58 (2.34)	[-1.03, 8.19]	F(2, 179) = 6.545; p = .002; η²_p = .068

[Suggested place for Table 1]

As Table 1 shows, there were notable differences in perceived accountability with respect to the type of motive mentioned in the narrative, both for the offender and the victim.

Concerning the victim, participants leant toward attributing greater accountability when the crime narrative involved a romantic motive than a non-romantic one (p = .016) or no information on motive at all (p = .002). People provided with the non-romantic motive of the act did not differ in their ratings compared to people without information on the motive provided (p = .820).

The accountability of the offender was perceived as lower in the case of information on romantic motive compared to no information on motive (p = .041). However, it did not differ from the case of learning about the non-romantic motive (p = .142). The level of perceived accountability of the offender did not differ between the non-romantic motive and no information on motive (p = .850).

Criminal accountability

To evaluate criminal accountability, we employed a metric reflecting the length of the anticipated sentence. As demonstrated in Table 2, the information on motive for violence influenced the anticipated length of sentence.

Table 2

*Criminal accountability measured by the anticipated length of sentence in Experiment 1*
Condition	Length of the sentence (months)		Between-subjects comparison
Condition	M (SE)	95%CI	Between-subjects comparison
Romantic (n = 59)	30.05 (2.10)	[25.91, 34.19]	F(2, 179) = 4.079; p = .019; η²_p = .044
Non-romantic (n = 61)	27.87 (2.06)	[23.80, 31.94]
No Information (n = 62)	35.89 (2.05)	[31.85, 39.92]

[Suggested place for Table 2]

Narratives lacking information about the violence motivation elicited a longer anticipated sentence compared to the narrative mentioning a non-romantic motive (p = .017) but did not differ from the narrative on romantic motive (p = .117). No difference in the anticipated sentence length emerged between the romantic and non-romantic conditions (p = .739).

In addition to predicting the duration of the sentence, participants were specifically inquired about the level of severity they deemed appropriate for the punishment assigned to the perpetrator of the violent act. Table 3 summarizes the comparison of the level of perceived severity of the punishment with respect to the type of motive for violence mentioned in the narrative.

Table 3

*Perceived severity of punishment with respect to type of motive in Experiment 1*
Condition	Severity of punishment		Between-subjects comparison
Condition	M (SE)	95%CI	Between-subjects comparison
Romantic (n = 59)	5.68 (0.14)	[5.40, 5.96]	F(2, 179) = 2.740; p = .067; η²_p = .030
Non-romantic (n = 61)	6.00 (0.14)	[5.73, 6.28]
No information (n = 62)	6.13 (0.14)	[5.86, 6.40]

[Suggested place for Table 3]

The effect of information on the motive for violence was marginally significant. The level of perceived severity was marginally lower when the mentioned motive for violence was romantic than when no information on the motive was provided (p = .061). People who learnt about non-romantic motive for violence did not differ in their ratings compared to those who learnt about romantic motive and those provided with no information on motive (p = .239 and p = .788, respectively).

Additional analysis (outside preregistration)

We decided to conduct additional analysis including not only research condition (type of motive) but also gender of the participants into a model2. By examining the interactive effects of motive and gender, we were able to investigate gender-specific responses and uncover more nuanced patterns that add a layer of complexity to the analysis. Table 4 summarizes the results of the two-way ANOVA (type of motive × gender of participant). Post hoc comparisons were calculated with Bonferroni correction.

Table 4

*Results of the two-way ANOVA (type of motive × gender of participant) in Experiment 1*
Gender	Condition						Effect motive × gender
	Romantic		Non-romantic		No Information
	M (SE)	95%CI	M (SE)	95%CI	M (SE)	95%CI
Accountability of victim (%)
Male	20.05 (2.90)	[14.32, 25.78]	5.46 (2.90)	[-0.27, 11.19]	4.07 (2.73)	[-1.33, 9.47]	F(2, 175) = 2.665; p = .073; η²_p = .029
Female	5.32 (4.16)	[-2.90, 13.53]	5.77 (3.87)	[-1.86, 13.41]	2.39 (4.28)	[-6.05, 10.83]	F(2, 175) = 2.665; p = .073; η²_p = .029
Accountability of offender (%)
Male	84.97 (2.48)	[80.09, 89.86]	95.41 (2.48)	[90.52, 100.30]	95.84 (2.33)	[91.24, 100.44]	F(2, 175) = 3.158; p = .045; η²_p = .035
Female	98.95 (3.55)	[91.94, 105.95]	94.82 (3.30)	[88.31, 101.33]	98.94 (3.65)	[91.75, 106.14]	F(2, 175) = 3.158; p = .045; η²_p = .035
Anticipated length of sentence (months)
Male	29.56 (2.54)	[24.56, 34.57]	30.26 (2.54)	[25.25, 35.26]	38.41 (2.39)	[33.70, 43.12]	F(2, 175) = 1.031; p = .359; η²_p = .012
Female	29.47 (3.63)	[22.30, 36.65]	23.64 (3.38)	[16.97, 30.30]	29.72 (3.73)	[22.35, 37.09]	F(2, 175) = 1.031; p = .359; η²_p = .012
Perceived severity of punishment
Male	5.49 (0.17)	[5.15, 5.83]	5.95 (0.17)	[5.61, 6.29]	6.02 (0.16)	[5.70, 6.35]	F(2, 175) = 0.401; p = .670; η²_p = .005
Female	6.00 (0.25)	[5.51, 6.49]	6.09 (0.23)	[5.64, 6.55]	6.39 (0.26)	[5.89, 6.89]	F(2, 175) = 0.401; p = .670; η²_p = .005

[Suggested place for Table 4]

Personal Accountability. The interaction effect motive × gender of participant on victim’s accountability was marginally significant. While the type of motive mentioned in the narrative did not influence the ratings of the victim’s accountability in the case of women (all pairwise comparisons with p > .99), it had an impact on the ratings in men. Perceived accountability was higher when the motive for violence was romantic compared to non-romantic (p = .01) and to no information on the motive at all (p = .005). No difference was noted between the non-romantic and no information conditions (p > .99).

The interaction effect motive × gender of the participant on the offender’s accountability was significant. While the type of motive mentioned in the narrative did not influence the ratings of the offender’s accountability in the case of women (all pairwise comparisons with p > .99), it had an impact on the ratings in men. Perceived accountability was lower when the motive for violence was romantic compared to non-romantic (p = .001) and to no information on the motive at all (p < .001). No difference was noted between non-romantic and no information conditions (p > .99). Figure 1 depicts estimated marginal means of the level of perceived accountability of offender and victim, according to information on the motive in women and men.

[Suggested place for Fig. 1]

Criminal accountability. The interaction effect motive × gender of the participant was not significant both in the case of anticipated length of the sentence and the perceived severity of the punishment.

Discussion

Experiment 1 introduced the narrative of romantic love as a motivation for violence. We compared three narratives (romantic vs. non-romantic vs. no information) on motive, and investigated how they impact the measures of legitimization. Additionally, we added the gender of participants to the model to investigate possible gender-specific response patterns.

In terms of perceived personal accountability (offender’s and victim’s) participants demonstrated distinct responses based on the type of motive presented in the narrative. Notably, when the narrative included a romantic motive, participants attributed lower accountability to the offender compared to scenarios devoid of information about the motive for violence. Given that there was no difference between romantic and non-romantic scenarios, we concluded that our hypothesis was not fully confirmed. Conversely, in accordance with our hypothesis, participants were inclined to attribute greater accountability to the victim when a romantic motive was involved. This suggests that the inclusion of a romantic motive may influence perceptions of culpability, potentially mitigating the responsibility assigned to the perpetrator and increasing accountability ascribed to the victim. Thus, it seems that it can involve effects constituting the legitimization of IPV.

The analysis of criminal accountability, measured by the anticipated length of sentence, revealed that participants expected a shorter sentence when the narrative included non-romantic motive compared to narrative lacking information about the motive. However, no significant difference emerged between the romantic and non-romantic motive conditions, thus our hypothesis was not confirmed.

The examination of gender interaction effects provided additional layers to the analysis. Interestingly, the type of motive affected male participants' perceptions of victim and offender accountability but had no significant impact on female participants. Male participants were more likely to attribute higher accountability to the victim when a romantic motive was present, while simultaneously assigning lower accountability to the offender compared to non-romantic and no motive conditions. These gender-specific responses emphasize the complexity of interpreting perceptions of IPV and highlight potential disparities in how men and women perceive such situations. However, due to an unbalanced sample, the results should be approached with caution.

[1] For more details see http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21274.62408.

[2] Since only one person defined their gender as other than female/male, they were not included in the model.

Experiment 1 exclusively featured cases of IPV, where the motive for violence was either romantic or non-romantic. In Experiment 2, we delved deeper into the narratives that potentially contribute to legitimization, introducing, as a control one, a scenario where the violent act is motivated non-romantically and occurs in a non-romantic relationship, thus clearly falling outside the realm of IPV. We manipulated both the information on motive (romantic vs. non-romantic) and the type of relationship between the victim and offender (romantic vs. non-romantic). Thus, we investigated whether a romantic narrative involving only a declaration of love, without a prior relationship, could lead to legitimization. Additionally, we verified whether information on a romantic relationship itself might legitimize violence, even if the motive for violence is non-romantic. It is crucial to consider whether the presence of information on a romantic relationship between an offender and a victim is sufficient to prompt the legitimization of violence. It addresses questions about how labeling an act of violence as intimate partner violence may impact the perception of the act.

Hypotheses

We assumed:

[H1] Compared to non-romantic motivation, in the case of a violence motivated by a romantic love, it is observed shorter anticipated sentence length for the offender, lower estimated severity of punishment for the offender, lower estimated accountability of the offender, and higher estimated accountability of the victim for the crime.

[H2] Compared to a non-romantic relationship between the victim and the offender, in the case of a romantic relationship, it is observed shorter anticipated sentence length for the offender, lower estimated severity of punishment for the offender, lower estimated accountability of the offender, and higher estimated accountability of the victim for the crime.

[H3] There is an interaction effect between the type of relationship (romantic vs. non-romantic) and the type of motivation for the violent act (romantic vs. non-romantic) on the perceived accountability of the victim and the offender, anticipated sentence length for the offender, and perceived severity of punishment.

Participants

The minimum sample size (n = 351) was calculated with G*Power; effect size = .15, power (1 - β err prob) = .80, α = .05, with four groups. We anticipate that about 15% of the observations will not meet the requirements for attentive reading of instructions, hence we recruited 404 participants.

In this experiment, we aimed to balance not only assignment to the experimental condition but also gender. Consequently, there were 190 women, 206 men, and 9 individuals identifying their gender as other. We applied the same inclusion criterion concerning age as in Experiment 1 (M_age = 26.3 years; SD_age = 5.4). Of the participants, 55.6% had attained a higher level of education, 40.2% having completed secondary education, 7% finished primary education, and 3.5% attained vocational education.

Participants were compensated with £1.50 for their participation.

Materials

For the purposes of Experiment 2, the criminal materials were slightly modified, while the filler pieces remained unchanged. The general description of the criminal incident was consistent with Experiment 1. However, as this study involved the manipulation of not only the motive but also the relationship between the victim and offender, it was necessary to prepare four distinct pieces.

The articles compared a romantic motivation for violence, similar to Experiment 1 (involving love and financial disappointment), while taking into account, on the one hand, the romantic relationship between the protagonists (former partners) and, on the other hand, the absence of a previous relationship (former colleagues). As a result, we obtained journalistic pieces including: 1) a romantic relationship and a romantic motive, 2) a romantic relationship and a financial motive, 3) a non-romantic relationship and a romantic motive, 4) a non-romantic relationship and a financial motive. Please note that the narratives differed only in the case of the included information on the type of motive for violence and the type of relationship between the protagonists. The remaining information, especially the description of the violent act was identical in each condition.

Results

With intention of comparing the impact of different types of narrative on how the described situation is perceived, a two-way ANOVA was performed: 2 (type of motive: romantic vs. non-romantic) × 2 (type of relationship: romantic vs. non-romantic). However, taking into consideration the results of Experiment 1, we decided to perform additional analyses, including gender of the participant as an independent variable as well. Please note that since we preregistered only a two-way ANOVA (type of motive × type of relationship) analyses, in case of each dependent variable, first we present the results regarding the preregistered model (i.e., type of motive × type of relationship), then we report the results also including gender (motive × relationship × gender)3.

Personal accountability

Table 5 summarizes the results of two-way ANOVA with respect to perceived accountability of victim and offender.

Table 5

*Results of the two-way ANOVA (type of relationship × type of motive) with respect to accountability of victim and offender*
Effect		M (SE)	95%CI	Between-subjects comparison
Accountability of victim (%)
Type of relationship	Romantic (n = 201)	8.05 (1.01)	[6.06, 10.04]	F(1, 400) = 3.78, p = .053; η²_p = .009
Type of relationship	Non-romantic (n = 203)	5.27 (1.01)	[3.29, 7.26]	F(1, 400) = 3.78, p = .053; η²_p = .009
Type of motive	Romantic (n = 205)	7.37 (1.00)	[5.39, 9.34]	F(1, 400) = 0.97, p = .326; η²_p = .002
Type of motive	Non-romantic (n = 199)	5.96 (1.02)	[3.96, 7.96]	F(1, 400) = 0.97, p = .326; η²_p = .002
Relationship × motive	RM, RR (n = 102)	9.29 (1.42)	[6.50, 12.09]	F(1, 400) = 0.57, p = .451; η²_p = .001
	RM, NR (n = 103)	5.44 (1.42)	[2.66, 8.22]
	NM, RR (n = 99)	6.81 (1.44)	[3.97, 9.65]
	NM, NR (n = 101)	5.11 (1.44)	[2.29, 7.93]
Accountability of offender (%)
Type of relationship	Romantic	95.97 (0.66)	[94.67, 97.27]	F(1, 401) = 2.101, p = .148; η²_p = .005
Type of relationship	Non-romantic	97.32 (0.66)	[96.03, 98.61]	F(1, 401) = 2.101, p = .148; η²_p = .005
Type of motive	Romantic	96.79 (0.65)	[95.50, 98.07]	F(1, 401) = 0.092, p = .761; η²_p < .001
Type of motive	Non-romantic	96.50 (0.66)	[95.20, 97.80]	F(1, 401) = 0.092, p = .761; η²_p < .001
Relationship × motive	RM, RR	96.73 (0.93)	[94.90, 98.55]	F(1, 401) = 1.746, p = .187; η²_p = .004
	RM, NR	96.85 (0.92)	[95.03, 98.66]
	NM, RR	95.21 (0.94)	[93.36, 97.06]
	NM, NR	97.79 (0.93)	[95.96, 99.63]
Note. RM, RR – romantic motive & relationship; RM, NR – romantic motive & non-romantic relationship; NM, RR – non-romantic motive & romantic relationship; NM, NR – non-romantic motive & relationship.

[Suggested place for Table 5]

The effect of the type of relationship on the perceived accountability of a victim was marginally significant with higher rates when the relationship between the victim and the offender was romantic than non-romantic. However, the type of motive did not significantly influence the level of perceived accountability of the victim. The interaction effect motive × relationship was not significant.

In the case of perceived offender’s accountability, the effect of the type of relationship and the effect of the type of motive were insignificant, as was the interaction effect motive × relationship. Figure 2 summarizes the rates of perceived accountability of a victim and an offender with respect to the type of motive and the type of relationship.

[Suggested place for Fig. 2]

Criminal accountability

Table 6 summarizes the results of two-way ANOVA with respect to anticipated length of the sentence and perceived severity of the punishment.

Table 6

*Results of the two-way ANOVA (type of relationship × type of motive) with respect to anticipated length of sentence and perceived severity of punishment*
Effect		M (SE)	95%CI	Between-subjects comparison
Anticipated length of sentence (months)
Type of relationship	Romantic	32.15 (1.26)	[29.68, 34.62]	F(1, 397) = 0.992, p = .320; η²_p = .002
Type of relationship	Non-romantic	33.90 (1.23)	[31.48, 36.32]	F(1, 397) = 0.992, p = .320; η²_p = .002
Type of motive	Romantic	30.92 (1.24)	[28.49, 33.35]	F(1, 397) = 5.70, p = .017; η²_p = .014
Type of motive	Non-romantic	35.12 (1.25)	[32.66, 37.59]	F(1, 397) = 5.70, p = .017; η²_p = .014
Relationship × motive	RM, RR	28.78 (1.76)	[25.32, 32.42]	F(1, 397) = 2.08, p = .150; η²_p = .005
	RM, NR	33.07 (1.74)	[29.66, 36.48]
	NM, RR	35.52 (1.79)	[32.00, 39.03]
	NM, NR	34.73 (1.75)	[31.29, 38.18]
Severity of punishment
Type of relationship	Romantic	6.10 (0.07)	[5.95, 6.24]	F(1, 401) = 0.925, p = .337; η²_p = .002
Type of relationship	Non-romantic	6.00 (0.07)	[5.85, 6.14]	F(1, 401) = 0.925, p = .337; η²_p = .002
Type of motive	Romantic	6.04 (0.07)	[5.89, 6.18]	F(1, 401) = 0.013, p = .909; η²_p < .001
Type of motive	Non-romantic	6.05 (0.08)	[5.91, 6.20]	F(1, 401) = 0.013, p = .909; η²_p < .001
Relationship × motive	RM, RR	6.04 (0.10)	[5.83, 6.24]	F(1, 401) = 0.918, p = .339; η²_p = .002
	RM, NR	6.04 (0.10)	[5.84, 6.24]
	NM, RR	6.15 (0.11)	[5.94, 6.36]
	NM, NR	5.95 (0.11)	[5.74, 6.16]
Note. RM, RR – romantic motive & relationship; RM, NR – romantic motive & non-romantic relationship; NM, RR – non-romantic motive & romantic relationship; NM, NR – non-romantic motive & relationship.

[Suggested place for Table ]

The effect of the type of motive was significant with lower rates of anticipated sentence length for the offender when the motive for the violent act was romantic than non-romantic. The type of relationship did not influence the anticipated length of sentence. The interaction effect motive × relationship also was not significant.

In the case of perceived severity of punishment, neither the type of relationship nor the type of motive influenced the ratings. The interaction effect was also insignificant.

Additional analyses (outside preregistration)

Romantic motive for violence in a romantic relationship vs. non-romantic motive in a non-romantic relationship. As the preregistered analyses revealed complex results, we decided to additionally perform simple analysis comparing two most opposite conditions – romantically motivated act of IPV and non-romantically motivated act of violence in a non-romantic relationship (so – violence that stands outside the IPV). Marginally significant differences were noted in the case of perceived victim’s accountability (t(196.897) = 1.963; p = .051; d = .276) with higher rates in the case of romantically motivated IPV (M = 9.29, SD = 16.22) that non-romantically motivated violence in a non-romantic relationship (M = 5.11, SD = 14.01). The rates also differed in the case of anticipated sentence length (t(199) = -2.448; p = .015; d = .345) – shorter sentence length was anticipated in romantically motivated IPV (M = 18.780 months, SD = 17.11) compared to non-romantically motivated violence in a non-romantic relationship (M = 34.73 years, SD = 17.36). The perceived offender’s accountability and the perceived severity of the punishment were not affected by the condition.

Effects of participants’ gender. We also performed analyses adding gender of the participant as an independent variable. Table 7 summarizes the results of the ANOVA with respect to interaction effect: type of relationship × type of motive × gender of participant. In case of the significant interaction effects, further comparisons were performed and their results are mentioned below.

Table 7

*Results of the ANOVA: type of relationship × type of motive × gender of participant concerning the interaction effects with gender included*
Indicator	Effect	Between-subjects comparison
Accountability of victim (%)	Relationship × gender	F(1, 387) = 2.173, p = .141; η²_p = .006
	Motive × gender	F(1, 387) = 0.527, p = .468; η²_p = .001
	Relationship × motive × gender	F(1, 387) = 0.637, p = .425; η²_p = .002
Accountability of offender (%)	Relationship × gender	F(1, 388) = 4.822, p = .029; η²_p = .012
	Motive × gender	F(1, 388) = 0.629, p = .428; η²_p = .002
	Relationship × motive × gender	F(1, 388) = 0.001, p = .998; η²_p < .001
Anticipated length of sentence (months)	Relationship × gender	F(1, 384) = 0.155, p = .694; η²_p < .001
	Motive × gender	F(1, 384) = 0.026, p = .872; η²_p < .001
	Relationship × motive × gender	F(1, 384) = 4.716, p = .031; η²_p = .012
Severity of punishment	Relationship × gender	F(1, 388) = 0.017, p = .896; η²_p < .001
	Motive × gender	F(1, 388) = 1.248, p = .265; η²_p = .003
	Relationship × motive × gender	F(1, 388) = 0.996, p = .319; η²_p = .003

{Suggested place for Table 7]

In the case of perceived accountability of the victim, all the interaction effects including gender were insignificant.

In the case of perceived accountability of the offender, there was a significant interaction effect relationship × gender. While in women, information on the type of relationship did not influence perceived accountability (p = .497), it had an impact on the ratings in men. The level of offender’s accountability was lower when the narrative indicated the romantic relationship between the offender and the victim (M = 94.49, SE = 0.93) compared to information on the non-romantic relationship (M = 97.72, SE = 0.93; p = .014). The interaction effects of motive × gender and of motive × relationship × gender were insignificant.

In the case of the anticipated length of the sentence, the interaction effect gender × motive × relationship was significant. In women, when the relationship between the offender and the victim was romantic, the anticipated sentence length was shorter for romantically motivated violence (M = 25.31, SE = 2.52) than for non-romantically motivated act (M = 35.68, SE = 2.55; p = .004). For men, all pairwise comparisons were insignificant. No significant interaction effect of relationship × gender, nor motive × gender was noted. Figure 3 reflects the interaction effect of type of motive × type of relationship × gender.

[Suggested place for Fig. 3]

In the case of perceived severity of the punishment, all the interaction effects including gender were insignificant.

Discussion

In Experiment 2, we aimed to investigate the influence of two factors – type of motive (romantic vs. non-romantic) and type of relationship between the victim and the offender (romantic vs. non-romantic) on measures of legitimization. Especially, we were able to verify whether information on romantic motive for violence even in a non-romantic relationship may contribute to legitimization, and whether information on a romantic relationship, even if the motive for violence is non-romantic influences perceiving a violent act. We compared these different narratives on IPV with a narrative depicting an act of violence falling outside the IPV (non-romantically motivated and in a non-romantic relationship).

The findings partially support Hypothesis 1. While the severity of punishment, offender accountability, and victim responsibility were not significantly affected by the type of motive, a lower anticipated sentence length was observed for romantically motivated violence. As expected, in the case of the romantic motive, the participants expected a shorter sentence for the perpetrator. At the same time, while we did not replicate the findings of Experiment 1 concerning the impact of motive on personal accountability, a closer inspection shows trends noticeable in measures of victim accountability – individuals are somehow more critical of the victim when the romantic relationship and motivations are considered together.

Hypothesis 2

was not supported by the results. The type of relationship did not significantly influence the measures of legitimization. However, a marginally significant effect of the relationship regarding perceived victim’s accountability occurred: the level of accountability was higher in the case of a romantic compared to a non-romantic relationship.

Taking together the effects of the type of motive and the type of relationship, it should be worth considering that while information on romantic motive may influence the perception of criminal accountability (such as anticipated length of the sentence), information on romantic relationship may impact the perception of personal accountability of a victim (increasing the risk of victim blaming).

Additionally, we compared two diametrically opposite scenarios of violent acts: romantically motivated in a romantic relationship versus non-romantically motivated in a non-romantic relationship. The perception of these two cases differed in terms of the personal accountability of the victim and the criminal accountability of the offender. This finding supports the argument that integrating a romantic theme within the narrative of violence may lead to the legitimization of such acts compared to non-romantic framings. Furthermore, in general, it appears that the perceived victim’s accountability and the anticipated length of the sentence were the most sensitive indicators to the information provided in the prepared narratives.

The findings did not support Hypothesis 3, as no significant interaction effects were observed between the type of relationship and motive for any of the measured outcomes. However, by including gender in our model we revealed a significant difference between women and men in terms of assessing offender accountability, indicating lower ratings in men for crimes involving romantic relationships. Moreover, the anticipated sentence length showed a significant interaction effect involving gender, motive, and relationship, with women anticipating shorter sentences for romantically motivated violence.

[3] Since only 9 people (2,2% of the sample) defined their gender as other than female/male, they were not included in the analyses including gender as independent variable.

In two experiments, we aimed to verify whether integrating a romantic theme within the narrative of violence can influence the perception of the act itself, especially leading to its legitimization. We took into account two aspects of the perception of the violent act that are linked to legitimization: personal accountability (of an offender and a victim) and criminal accountability (anticipated length of the sentence and perceived severity of the punishment for the offender).

When it comes to personal accountability, our findings consistently indicate that when a narrative of violence emphasizes a romantic relationship, particularly when underscored by romantic motivations such as jealousy or heartbreak for the act of violence itself, individuals tend to assign at least partial blame to the victim. This trend is evident from the results of the Personal Accountability assessment in Experiment 1 and the nearly significant outcome of the same measure in Experiment 2, where we compared narrative including romantic relationship and motivation with narrative devoid of romantic themes. Consequently, our results imply that the legitimization of violence motivated by love may hinge on the existence of a romantic relationship between the offender and the victim and they suggest that the mere presence of romantic motivation in a single act, without prior commitment from both parties, is insufficient to provoke victim-blaming (as shown in Experiment 2). The findings provide a significant contribution to the discussion on how IPV victims are perceived, offering additional support for the argument that women who are victims of partner violence may be viewed as co-responsible for their situation.

In the field of victimology, Christie’s (1986) concept of the ideal victim has played a crucial role in elucidating perceptions of victims leading to disparate treatment of them. Christie posited that an ideal victim is someone who readily attains complete and legitimate victim status. To achieve this, the individual should be perceived as weak or vulnerable and respected due to their social status, with no connection between them and the offender. Our research, especially evident in the measures of Victim Accountability, suggests that victims of the IPV cannot meet these conditions. We identified a tendency to assign more blame to the victim when she was previously in a relationship with an offender, and this assessment endures, even though the victim had chosen to sever ties and remains unresponsive to the offender's attempts at reconciliation. These findings may thus indicate the existence of a persistent perception of the IPV victim as complicit in the violence, particularly when there is a vocal declaration of love from the perpetrator. Therefore, on one hand, our findings support Meyer's (2016) observations that victims of IPV, due to their relationship with the offender are deemed less deserving of the status, empathy and systemic support. On the other hand, they do not support the idea that the lack of an ideal victim status may be related to the victim's decision to stay in the abusive relationship (as the articles presented in the experiments explicitly stated that the relationship was terminated). This research suggests that the attribution of blame is independent of the status of the relationship and may be linked to the stereotypical perception of romantic love as a factor that binds the victim and perpetrator in an everlasting relationship. This notion appears to align with a common belief that, in unrequited love, the spurned individual should be persistent, act with patience, and eventually they would succeed in winning affection (Baumeister & Wotman, 1994). Consequently, this myth may contribute to the belief that, as the IPV victim had a prior relationship with the offender, the explicit declaration of love coupled with perseverance might lead to a potential reunion.

It seems possible that this stereotypical, or even idealistic perception of roles in relationships may also contribute to the tendency among women to estimate a shorter punishment for the perpetrator of violence when the narrative includes romantic motivation. Traditional gender roles often portray women as caregivers and nurturers, emphasizing empathy and forgiveness. As women are socialized to prioritize relationship maintenance and reconciliation, their moral orientation may be characterized as centered on care, as proposed by Gilligan (1995). This orientation prioritizes concerns for the well-being and interconnectedness of others, potentially influencing their attitudes towards punitive measures in cases of intimate partner violence. The ramifications of this moral orientation can be observed in some societies: women involved in romantic relationships with perpetrators of violence may cite their feelings of love as a justification to protect the offender in court (Groggel, 2022). Moreover, upon analyzing contemporary products of mass culture, especially those targeted toward women, one can observe that relationship violence is often romanticized. For instance, Bonomi et al. (2013) argue that the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey may foster a social context that supports and legitimizes IPV, potentially influencing the attitudes and behaviors of readers, particularly young women. Hence, women's anticipation of a reduced sentence in Experiment 2 could suggest a caregiving orientation and a predisposition to forgive acts of violence arising from intense emotional attachments.

Continuing with the exploration of gender disparities in perceptions of IPV legitimacy, it is noteworthy to highlight that in Experiment 1, upon integrating gender into the analysis, a distinct trend emerged: men exhibited a significantly greater inclination to blame the victim in scenarios where the narrative featured romantic motivation for the violence. These findings align with previous research demonstrating a comparable effect. For instance, in a study aimed at assessing victim-blaming attitudes (Martín-Fernández et al., 2018), it was found that men exhibited higher levels of victim-blaming attitudes compared to women. It is plausible that men, often socialized within cultures that emphasize dominance, control and power, may be more inclined to perceive situations of conflict or violence within romantic relationships through a lens that reinforces their role as authority figures. This perspective may lead to a bias in interpreting the dynamics of IPV, with men more likely to attribute blame to the victim as a means of preserving their own sense of power or authority. These results may be associated with the observation that a perceived threat to masculinity could evoke compensatory mechanisms prompting men to exhibit more traditional attitudes, including the endorsement of stereotypical gender roles (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016).

When it comes to measures of criminal accountability, the results from both experiments are unclear/non-conclusive. First, while in Experiment 1 a romantic motive did not mitigate the anticipated length of the sentence, in Experiment 2 it decreased expected sentence length. However, the findings of both experiments suggest that the perception of criminal accountability may be influenced by information on one’s motive for violence. Second, while the anticipated length of the sentence remained sensitive to information on the motive for violence, another indicator of criminal accountability, i.e., perceived severity of the punishment, was not. It should be noted that these two indicators aimed to capture different aspects of the perception of criminal accountability. The anticipated length of the sentence addressed more objective and legal aspects of the punishment, as it was measured by the time predicted to be served. The perceived severity of the punishment aimed to directly capture a more subjective and personal sense of the punishment. Depending on contextual information (in our case, romantic themes), people seem to differ in their ratings regarding the sentence length (objective aspect of punishment), but not in their ratings on the severity (subjective aspect). It seems that people generally perceive acts of violence as requiring a severe response. Thus, possibly, depending on contextual information, different lengths of sentences may be perceived as severe. In the case of romantically motivated violence, the boundary defining severe punishment occurs with shorter sentence length than in the case of non-romantically motivated violence. We would like to highlight that this argument is purely speculative and needs more careful research and further exploration.

Despite the valuable insights gained from this study, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the use of scenarios in a controlled experimental setting may not fully capture the intricacies of real-world intimate partner violence cases. Participants may respond differently when presented with more detailed and nuanced narratives. A potential avenue for future research, thus, lies in exploring alternative media or methods for narrating the story of IPV within experimental manipulations. While our study focused on written journalistic pieces, varying the method of storytelling may yield nuanced insights. Utilizing visual narratives, audio narratives, or interactive simulations could provide a more valid representation, capturing the complexities of real-world experiences.

While in our study we specifically considered cases where the victim was female and the offender was male, future research could explore scenarios where the genders of the victim and offender are reversed or undisclosed. This would potentially provide deeper insight into how stereotypes about gender, gender norms, and societal expectations shape the perception of IPV. Investigation into non-heterosexual relationships is worth considering for similar reasons.

Additionally, the study did not consider potential variations in participants' prior knowledge or exposure to information about IPV. Participants with differing levels of awareness or experiences related to IPV might interpret scenarios differently, introducing a confounding variable. Thus, we think that future research should incorporate measures to assess participants' prior knowledge and experiences to better account for these potential influences.

Moreover, the study focused on a specific age group (18–40 years old) and cultural context. Generalizing the findings to broader age groups or different cultural contexts should be approached with caution. The socio-cultural factors specific to Poland might have influenced participants' responses, limiting the generalizability of the results.

It seems possible that the sample size in the study was too small to consistently capture the effects considered. Since there is not much experimental research on the issue, we tried to isolate the pieces of information as nuanced as possible when introducing romantic themes into narratives of violence. Thus, to be able to accurately verify their potential impact. However, in actual cases of violence, there is often an accumulation of pieces of information pointing to romantic threads. This can increase the actual impacts of these threads. Therefore, it is possible that when the effects of such individual elements (information) are examined, a larger sample size should be considered.

In conclusion, despite the limitations, we believe that understanding how romantic themes in narratives about crime may influence perceptions of victims by laypeople has significant implications for the legal system. The way individuals perceive the roles and accountability of victims and offenders in cases of intimate partner violence can directly impact legal proceedings and outcomes. If laypeople tend to blame victims more when romantic narratives are present, this bias could also potentially influence jury decisions, judicial sentencing, and overall legal responses to IPV cases. Thus, legal professionals and policymakers should recognize the potential influence of romanticized narratives on perceptions of culpability and ensure that legal processes are not unduly swayed by such biases. Moreover, the findings of this study underscore the importance of gender-sensitive approaches within the legal system for a better protection of all individuals involved in it.

Acknowledgments

The research has been supported by a grant from the Faculty of Management and Social Communication under the Strategic Programme Excellence Initiative at Jagiellonian University in Krakow.

Declaration of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Preregistrations of Experiments 1 & 2, original/translated content of the materials used, data obtained regarding Experiments 1 & 2 are available at: https://osf.io/uk3zq/

The data supporting this research are available on the Open Science Framework website under a CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license.

Abramsky T, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, Devries K, Kiss L, Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L (2011) What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health 11(1):109. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-109
Amoateng-Boahen G (2015) The culture of silence contributes to perpetuating domestic violence: a case study of family life in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana. Xlibris Corporation
Ansara DL, Hindin MJ (2011) Psychosocial consequences of Intimate Partner Violence for women and men in Canada. J interpers Violence 26(8):1628–1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510370600
Archer J (2000) Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 126(5):651–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651
Baldry AC, Pacilli MG, Pagliaro S (2015) She’s just a woman! Infra-humanization and Intimate Partner Violence. J interpers Violence 30(9):1567–1582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540801. She’s not a person.
Baumeister RF, Wotman SR (1994) Breaking Hearts: The Two Sides of Unrequited Love. Guilford Press
Bhona FM, de Gebara C, de Noto CF, de Vieira AR T., Lourenço LM (2019) Socioeconomic factors and Intimate Partner Violence: A household survey. Trends Psychol 27:205–218. https://doi.org/10.9788/TP2019.1-15
Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, Chen J, Stevens MR (2011) National intimate partner and sexual violence survey. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Bonomi AE, Altenburger LE, Walton NL (2013) Double crap! Abuse and harmed identity in Fifty shades of Grey. J Women’s Health 22(9):733–744. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2013.4344
Bott S, Guedes A, Ruiz-Celis AP, Mendoza JA (2019) Intimate partner violence in the Americas: A systematic review and reanalysis of national prevalence estimates. Revista Panam de Salud Pública 43:e26. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2019.26
Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK (2012) A Systematic review of risk factors for Intimate Partner Violence. Partn Abuse 3(2):231. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
Christie N (1986) The Ideal Victim. In E. A. Fattah (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy: reorienting the justice system (pp. 17–30). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08305-3_2
Chung D (2005) Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual relationships. Women’s Stud Int Forum 28(6):445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.09.005
Cinquegrana V, Marini M, Galdi S (2022) From endorsement of ambivalent sexism to psychological IPV victimization: The role of attitudes supportive of IPV, legitimating myths of IPV, and acceptance of psychological aggression. Front Psychol 13:922814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.922814
Coates L, Bavelas JB, Gibson J (1994) Anomalous language in sexual assault trial judgments. Discourse Soc 5(2):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926594005002003
Costa D, Soares J, Lindert J, Hatzidimitriadou E, Sundin Ö, Toth O, Ioannidi-Kapolo E, Barros H (2015) Intimate partner violence: A study in men and women from six European countries. Int J Public Health 60(4):467–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-015-0663-1
DeShong HAF, Haynes T (2016) Intimate partner violence in the Caribbean: State, activist and media responses. Glob Public Health 11(1–2):82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2015.1012529
Fugate M, Landis L, Riordan K, Naureckas S, Engel B (2005) Barriers to domestic violence help seeking: Implications for intervention. Violence Against Women 11(3):290–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204271959
Garcia V, McManimon P (2011) Intimate Partner Violence in the courts. Gendered Justice: Intimate Partner Violence and the Criminal Justice System. Rowman & Littlefield, pp 109–137
Gillespie LK, Richards TN, Givens EM, Smith MD (2013) Framing deadly domestic violence: Why the media’s spin matters in newspaper coverage of femicide. Violence Against Women 19(2):222–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213476457
Gilligan C (1995) Moral orientation and moral developement [1987]. In: Held V (ed) Justice and Care. Routledge, pp 31–46
Gius C, Lalli P (2014) I loved her so much, but I killed her. Romantic love as a representational frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in three Italian newspapers. SSACHESS-Journal Communication Stud 7:53–75
Gracia E (2004) Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: Towards an epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition. J Epidemiol Commun Health 58(7):536–537. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.019604
Gracia E (2014) Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans. Bull World Health Organ 92(5):380–381. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.131391
Groggel A (2022) A Mixed-method approach to understand themes of love in victims’ dismissals of civil protection orders. J interpers Violence 37(21–22):NP19909–NP19938. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211045336
Gutowski E, Goodman LA (2020) Like I’m invisible: IPV survivor-mothers’ perceptions of seeking child custody through the family court system. J Family Violence 35(5):441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00063-1
Herbst & Gez (2012) From Crime of passion to Love does not Kill: The Murder of Einav Rogel and the role of Na’amat Women’s Organization in the construction of violence against women in Israel. Isr Stud 17(2):129. https://doi.org/10.2979/israelstudies.17.2.129
Khaw L, Bermea AM, Hardesty JL, Saunders D, Whittaker AM (2021) The system had choked me too: Abused mothers’ perceptions of the custody determination process that resulted in negative custody outcomes. J interpers Violence 36(9–10):4310–4334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791226
Kosakowska-Berezecka N, Besta T, Adamska K, Jaśkiewicz M, Jurek P, Vandello JA (2016) If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychol Men Masculinity 17(3):274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000016
Kwak A (2022) The Polish family in transition: A shift towards greater gender equality? Contemp Social Sci 17(4):340–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2022.2077419
Larsen MM (2016) Theoretical and empirical perspectives on Intimate Partner Violence. In M. M. Larsen (Ed.), Health Inequities Related to Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Role of Social Policy in the United States, Germany, and Norway (pp. 13–29). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29565-7_2
Lelaurain S, Fonte D, Giger J-C, Guignard S, Lo Monaco G (2021) Legitimizing Intimate Partner Violence: The role of romantic love and the mediating effect of patriarchal ideologies. J interpers Violence 36(13–14):6351–6368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518818427
Martín-Fernández M, Gracia E, Lila M (2018) Assessing victim-blaming attitudes in cases of Intimate Partner Violence against women: Development and validation of the VB-IPVAW Scale. Psychosocial Intervention 27(3):133–143. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2018a18
McCleary-Sills J, Namy S, Nyoni J, Rweyemamu D, Salvatory A, Steven E (2016) Stigma, shame and women’s limited agency in help-seeking for intimate partner violence. Glob Public Health 11(1–2):224–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2015.1047391
Meyer S (2011) Seeking help for Intimate Partner Violence: Victims’ experiences when approaching the criminal justice system for IPV-related support and protection in an Australian jurisdiction. Feminist Criminol 6(4):268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111414860
Meyer S (2016) Still blaming the victim of intimate partner violence? Women’s narratives of victim desistance and redemption when seeking support. Theoretical Criminol 20(1):75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615585399
Mojahed A, Alaidarous N, Shabta H, Hegewald J, Garthus-Niegel S (2022) Intimate Partner Violence against women in the Arab countries: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors. Trauma Violence Abuse 23(2):390–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020953099
Monckton-Smith J (2012) Murder, gender and the media. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137007735
Moshtagh M, Amiri R, Sharafi S, Arab-Zozani M (2023) Intimate Partner Violence in the Middle East region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse 24(2):613–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211036060
Murvartian L, Saavedra-Macías FJ, Infanti JJ (2023) Public stigma toward women victims of intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Beh 73:101877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101877
Nguyen TT, Morinaga Y, Frieze IH, Cheng J, Li M, Doi A, Hirai T, Joo E, Li C (2013) College students’ perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence: A comparative study of Japan, China, and the United States. Int J Confl Violence (IJCV) 7(2) Article 2. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3023
Olayanju L, Naguib RNG, Nguyen QT, Bali RK, Vung ND (2013) Combating intimate partner violence in Africa: Opportunities and challenges in five African countries. Aggress Violent Beh 18(1):101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.003
Pallatino CL, Morrison PK, Miller E, Burke J, Cluss PA, Fleming R, Hawker L, George D, Bicehouse T, Chang JC (2019) The role of accountability in batterers intervention programs and community response to Intimate Partner Violence. J Family Violence 34(7):631–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00050-6
Policja P (2023) Przemoc w rodzinie—Dane od 2012 roku. Statystyka. [Domestic Violence - data from 2012] https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/wybrane-statystyki/przemoc-w-rodzinie/201373,Przemoc-w-rodzinie-dane-od-2012-roku.html
Randall M (2010) Sexual assault in spousal relationships, continuous consent, the law: Honest but mistaken judicial beliefs. Manit Law J 33(2):144–181. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1473153
Rollero C (2020) The social dimensions of Intimate Partner Violence: A qualitative study with male perpetrators. Sex Cult 24(3):749–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09661-z
Roman NV, Frantz JM (2013) The prevalence of intimate partner violence in the family: A systematic review of the implications for adolescents in Africa. Fam Pract 30(3):256–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms084
Sardinha L, Maheu-Giroux M, Stöckl H, Meyer SR, García-Moreno C (2022) Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. Lancet 399(10327):803–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7
Schneider EM (2000) Battered women and feminist lawmaking. Yale Univ. Pr
Viki GT, Abrams D (2002) But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles
WHO (2022) Violence Info – Intimate partner violence. http://apps.who.int/violence-info/intimate-partner-violence
Yoshihama M, Horrocks J, Kamano S (2007) Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence and related injuries among women in Yokohama, Japan. Am J Public Health 97(2):232–234. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.078113

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Does Love Forgive All? The Role of the Romantic Love Narrative in the Legitimization of Intimate Partner Violence

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Experiment 1

Hypotheses

Participants

Materials

Results

Personal accountability

[Suggested place for Table 1]

Criminal accountability

[Suggested place for Table 2]

[Suggested place for Table 3]

Additional analysis (outside preregistration)

[Suggested place for Table 4]

[Suggested place for Fig. 1]

Discussion

Experiment 2

Hypotheses

Participants

Materials

Results

Personal accountability

[Suggested place for Table 5]

[Suggested place for Fig. 2]

Criminal accountability

[Suggested place for Table ]

Additional analyses (outside preregistration)

{Suggested place for Table 7]

[Suggested place for Fig. 3]

Discussion

General discussion

Limitations and future research

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Interest Statement

Data Availability Statement

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1