Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence and Alcohol Consumption.

This mixed methods study analyzed individual attitudes regarding how the gender of an aggressor, levels of aggression (i.e., slapping, punching, or threatening with a weapon), and alcohol consumption (i.e., one beer, three beers, or six beers) are associated with attitudes about (a) the use of violence in intimate partner violence (IPV) in a romantic relationship and (b) the influence of alcohol on the violent act. Individuals (n = 546) participated in an online survey using multiple segment factorial vignettes, which allowed participants to respond to the actions of characters in a hypothetical scenario rather than how they might have reacted in a similar scenario. Regarding the use of IPV, 512 believed the violent act should not have occurred. Logistic regressions revealed participants (a) were significantly less likely to say alcohol influenced a male in comparison to a female, (b) were significantly more likely to respond that the perpetrator's behavior was influenced by having drunk three or six beers compared with just one, and (c) were not significantly more or less likely to say the alcohol influenced the type of violence used. Analyses of qualitative responses (a) reinforced beliefs that violence (generally) and IPV (specifically) were not acceptable and (b) showed that beliefs about the influence of alcohol included attitudes regarding alcohol enhancing emotions and/or clouding judgment, perpetrators being in control regardless of alcohol intake, alcohol not being used as an excuse for violence, alcohol affecting people differently, and alcohol results in people showing their true selves. In addition, participants tended to downplay alcohol-related female-perpetrated aggressions. The results of this study help to better understand attitudes about IPV and the role that alcohol plays in violent relationships. Information derived from this study can be used in informational and intervention workshops which address IPV.

Attitudes About Forgiveness and Leaving a Relationship: The Context of Relationship Aggression.

The present study examines participant attitudes regarding whether a victim of IPV should forgive an offending partner and whether they should stay or leave a violent relationship. A total of 562 participants completed the study, which entailed responding to factorial vignettes online. Participants were primarily heterosexual, female, non-Latino, and White, with an average age of 21.75. Using logistic regressions, participants were significantly more likely to think the victim should forgive the perpetrator if the perpetrator was female and for less severe acts of aggression. Multinomial logistic regressions found that respondents were significantly less likely to state "yes" or "it depends," compared to "no," as to whether the victim should leave the relationship when the aggression was more severe and were more likely to say a male victim should stay in a violent relationship than a female victim. Qualitative analyses found three main themes regarding whether a victim should forgive: (1) context matters; (2) forgiveness is best … with caveats; and (3) questioning how often violence had occurred. With regard to whether a victim should leave an aggressive relationship, two main themes emerged: (1) situation matters … especially the relationship context and (2) questioning whether the violence had occurred before. This study provides insight into attitudes, by those external to a couple, regarding forgiveness and leaving a relationship after an instance of relationship aggression and has implications for both practitioners and policymakers. The constructed views about leaving a relationship may spill over into decisions regarding whether to implement policy surrounding IPV. Practitioners should also be cognizant of the varying definitions of forgiveness when working with clients who have experienced IPV as a practitioner's definition of forgiveness may not necessarily align with a client's definition.

Deconstructing Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence and Bystander Intervention: The Roles of Perpetrator Gender and Severity of Aggression.

In this mixed methods study, we explored how gender of an aggressor and the levels of aggression (i.e., yelling, throwing a drink, slapping, and punching) influenced attitudes about (a) public displays of intimate partner violence (IPV) and (b) bystander intervention. A feminist-informed, social constructionist perspective guided the study. Participants (N = 562) responded online to randomly assigned factorial vignettes. Participants ranged in age between 18 and 70 years. The majority were female, self-identified as heterosexual, and identified as White. Logistic regressions revealed that participants significantly viewed aggression as unacceptable, especially in cases of more severe and male-perpetrated aggressions. Multinomial logistic regressions revealed that participants significantly thought bystanders or friends of the couple should intervene, especially in cases of male-perpetrated and/or more severe aggression. Analyses of qualitative responses indicated that participants viewed aggression as never okay, as poor communication, as justified if provoked, and discussed the gendered double standard of aggression (i.e., men should not be aggressive because they could cause more harm than females and female-perpetrated aggression is minor, in comparison). Regarding attitudes about bystander intervention, analyses of qualitative responses indicated that aggression severity, issues surrounding relationship privacy, factors relevant to the situation (e.g., if the event occurred once or repeatedly), perceptions that help was needed (e.g., if the victim was hurt), and the bystander's relationship with the victim (i.e., friend or not) were important to consider when thinking about the decision to intervene in public acts of violence. These findings have implications for bystander intervention programs and for how individuals view public acts of IPV.

Sibling Conversations about Dating and Sexuality: Sisters as Confidants, Sources of Support, and Mentors.

Using an observational methodology to examine sibling communication, sisters (N = 28 dyads) were videotaped discussing their ideas about dating and sexuality. Social provision theory was used as a framework for the examination of roles enacted by sisters during these conversations. Inductive thematic analytic procedures were conducted and three roles were identified: sisters as confidants, sources of support, and mentors. Older and younger sisters both served as confidants and sources of support for one another, whereas, older sisters were more likely to be mentors for their younger sisters than vice versa. Findings indicate the potential importance of sisters in the formation of adolescent girls' ideas about romantic relationships and sexuality, sibling communication as a socialization mechanism of sisters' similarities in romantic experiences and sexual behaviors/attitudes, and the inclusion of older sisters in prevention intervention programs focused on reducing adolescent sexual risk behaviors and promoting healthy romantic relationships and sexuality development.