Attitudes Toward the Legitimation of Intimate Partner Violence in Adolescence: The Role of Gender Essentialism

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is present even during adolescence, and both victims and perpetrators may sometimes perceive it as justifiable. This study investigated gender differences in adolescents’ justification of IPV and examined the role of gender essentialism. A sample of 710 cisgender, heterosexual adolescents completed self-report measures assessing justification of various violent behaviors and endorsement of gender essentialist beliefs. Boys were more likely to justify sexually coercive acts enacted by boys, whereas girls more often justified verbal and physical aggression enacted by girls. Gender essentialism was positively associated with all forms of IPV justification and mediated the relationship between participants’ gender and IPV attitudes. These findings highlight the importance of addressing gendered beliefs in prevention programs targeting adolescents.

Keywords

intimate partner violence adolescence gender essentialism attitude legitimizing violence gender differentiation

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to the violence occurring within a romantic relationship (Ali et al., 2016; Ellsberg et al., 2015), and can be observed not only among adults, but also among adolescents and young adults (Johnson et al., 2015; Lundgren & Amin, 2014). Indeed, a growing body of research highlights that IPV – in terms of both physical and psychological violence (Reeves & Orpinas, 2012) – may occur at a young age within adolescent relationships (Karakurt & Silver, 2013; Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2007). In this regard, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 24% of adolescent girls aged 15 to 19 have experienced at least one episode of partner violence during their lifetime, and 16% in the past years. Furthermore, 10.3% of boys and 9.3% of girls report having been intentionally hit or slapped by their partner at least once in the past year (Eaton et al., 2010; Haegerich & Dahlberg, 2011).

A troubling facet of IPV is that it may often be accepted to some extent (Lelaurain et al., 2018) or perceived as normal (Frías, 2013) by both men and women. Specifically, research has shown that men and women, as well as boys and girls, may consider some form of violence within a relationship as acceptable or justifiable (Cinquegrana et al., 2022; Gracia et al., 2020; Reeves & Orpinas, 2012). Furthermore, the belief that some forms of violence are legitimate increases the likelihood of both perpetrating and experiencing dating violence (Diaz-Aguado & Martinez, 2015; Fernández-González et al., 2019; Machado et al., 2010). However, research also indicates that (a) not all forms of violence are justified to the same extent (Storer et al., 2020), (b) boys and girls justify certain forms of violence differently (Adams & Williams, 2014; Kuijpers et al., 2021; Waltermaurer, 2012), and (c) some gender-related beliefs can increase the likelihood of justifying violence (e.g., ambivalent sexism and gender system justification; Mouafo & Nzekaih, 2021; Lelaurain et al., 2018; see also Gracia et al., 2020).

This study focuses on adolescence and aims to assess gender differences in the perceived legitimacy of different IPV‑related behaviors (e.g., hitting, demanding sex, controlling behaviors) and tests whether gender essentialism – the belief that men and women have fixed, biologically determined traits – helps explain these gender differences.

Gender Difference in IPV Justification and Adolescence

Previous studies have shown that adolescents often exhibit a higher tolerance for certain violent behaviors, such as slapping and controlling actions, perceiving them as sometimes acceptable in relationships (Ocampo Bernasconi et al., 2024; Sundaram, 2013). A recent study by Save the Children (2024) found that a significant percentage of adolescents aged 14 to 18 consider jealousy and occasional violence (e.g., slapping) as sometimes acceptable within relationships. Furthermore, many adolescents reported difficulties in refusing sexual intercourse initiated by their partners because they believe that engaging in sexual activity is a natural or expected part of being in an intimate relationship. Adolescents’ involvement in IPV has been explained through different factors, including psychopathological and individual traits (Penado Abilleira et al., 2019) and early experience of violence within family during childhood (Kaufman-Parks et al., 2018). In this paper, we take a different approach, adopting a socio-constructionist meta-theory, which suggests that people’s beliefs and behaviors are shaped within a social context where norms and expectation regulate interactions (Gergen, 1994; Hibberd, 2005). While the link between gender norms and violence justification is documented among adults (Flood & Pease, 2009; Krivoshchekov et al., 2023; Serrano-Montilla et al., 2020), such dynamics may be even more pronounced in adolescence, a critical stage in individual development (Hegde et al., 2022) marked by significant changes across various domains of life (Martín-Salvador et al., 2021). During this period, individuals begin to engage in their first romantic relationships (Hickman et al., 2004; Widman et al., 2016), which often serve as a foundation for future adult relationships (Xia et al., 2018). Adolescence is characterized by heightened sensitivity to peer influence (Blakemore, 2018; Chierchia et al., 2020) and the strong pressures to conform, driven by the desire to belong. Thus, the need for acceptance within peer groups (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Gommans et al., 2017) may increase adolescents’ conformity to social norms, including gender expectations. Accordingly, Smith (2011) defined adolescent conformity as “the degree of compliance (e.g., peer pressure or fitting in) with peer-defined socially acceptable norms on how to act, think, and feel” (pp. 402–403). Given that gender norms define what is considered appropriate and acceptable for each gender, they may also influence the perception of mild and acceptable forms of violence (Mulla et al., 2019). In this sense, one could expect that girls and boys will be more likely to justify forms of violence that align with socially shared representations of genders’ characteristics.

More specifically, we argue that gender differences in the legitimation of IPV can be linked to different gender norms and beliefs which are shared in societies (Cislaghi & Heise, 2020). These norms and beliefs portray femininity and masculinity as fundamentally distinct: male traits are expected to be naturally dominant (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009), assertive, independent, and competent (Jost & Kay, 2005), whereas female traits are viewed as naturally submissive, emotional, and sensitive (de Lemus et al., 2012; Glick & Fiske, 2001; West & Zimmerman, 1987). These socially shared beliefs, in turn, can affect the extent to which adolescents appraise and justify violent behaviors. For instance, the belief that girls are inherently emotional and physically weaker than boys may lead observers to frame girls’ slapping, pushing, or verbal aggression as a mere loss of control driven by emotion (Scarduzio et al., 2017). Conversely, the notion that boys are driven by biological sexual urges (Kim et al., 2007) reinforces the idea that they lack self-control and “need to be satisfied by orgasm once sexually stimulated” (Jeffrey & Barata, 2019, p. 92). As a result, pressuring a partner for sex may be perceived as an acceptable behavior more for boys but less for girls.

Gender Essentialism as a Correlate of IPV Justification

Gender norms and stereotypes are far from being merely lists of expected gendered behaviors and attributes as they contain also “the underlying explanations for the relations among the attributes” (Yzerbyt et al., 2001, our emphasis). By linking characteristics of masculinity and femininity to inherent features presumed common to all men and women, these beliefs function as a justification and rationalization of existing gender differences and inequalities (Yzerbyt & Rocher, 2002). Accordingly, research highlights that gender stereotypes are often rooted in the belief that gender differences have a biological origin (Coleman & Hong, 2008). This lay theory suggests that differences between men and women are phenotypic expressions determined by genotypic differences. For example, previous research suggests that exposure to biological explanations of gender differences increases support for gender stereotypes and strengthens beliefs about the immutability of traits (Brescoll & LaFrance, 2004). The belief that gender differences are biologically and intrinsically rooted in men and women has been termed gender essentialism. This construct includes the belief that gender is binary, biologically determined, and fixed across time and contexts, as well as informative of behaviors and attitudes (Brescoll et al., 2013; Ching et al., 2020; Keller, 2005; Skewes et al., 2018). Accordingly, research shows that essentialism strengthens stereotypical expectations (Bastian & Haslam, 2006), reduces the perceived similarity of social categories (Prentice & Miller, 2007; Yzerbyt et al., 2001), and promotes the view that existing hierarchies are stable, reducing social motivation to change (Williams & Eberhardt, 2008).

This lay belief-based social process of explaining gender differences as stemming from inherent traits may have significant implications for legitimizing IPV. When gendered behaviors are perceived as stemming from innate dispositions, their controllability is minimized, prompting individuals to attribute them to underlying biological drives. By framing male and female stereotypical traits as biologically grounded, essentialist beliefs make gender-congruent behaviors – including some forms of aggression or sexual pressure – more understandable, predictable, and less volitional. Consequently, violence may be interpreted as a “natural” expression of gendered dispositions. In this way, gender essentialism functions as a system-justifying belief (Jost & Banaji, 1994; see also Rossi & Caricati, 2025), providing a shared interpretive lens through which adults and adolescents make sense of interpersonal behaviors. These rationalization mechanisms have been explicitly examined within the frameworks of System Justification Theory (SJT, Jost & Banaji, 1994) and Social Dominance Theory (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius et al., 1994), both of which posit that societies are permeated by a range of beliefs that can either support or challenge existing group inequalities, including gender-based violence. For example, it has been shown that ambivalent gender stereotypes and domestic violence myths help individuals rationalize and justify violence against women and increase tendencies to blame victims (Bates et al., 2019; Friesen et al., 2019; Gutiérrez & Leaper, 2024; Rollero & De Piccoli, 2020; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), including among adolescents and young adults (Lelaurain et al., 2018; Rollero & De Piccoli, 2020). Research confirms that also gender essentialism can function as a system-justifying belief, as the naturalization of gender differences contributes to legitimizing gender inequalities among both majority and minority groups (Rossi & Caricati, 2025). Indeed, studies indicate that individuals who strongly believe in the biological origins of gender differences are more likely to uphold ambivalent stereotypes (Lee et al., 2020), blame victims of violence as well as support myths about rape and domestic violence (Lys et al., 2021; Rollero & De Piccoli, 2020), and justify discrimination practices (Klysing, 2020; Morton et al., 2009).

While both boys and girls may use gender essentialism to justify existing gender discrimination and violence, they differ in the extent to which they support such beliefs. Indeed, according to both SJT and SDT, system-justifying beliefs are more likely to be endorsed by groups that benefit from the prevailing social order (i.e., boys). It has been indeed shown that, compared to women and girls, men and boys are more likely to support gender system justification (Kray et al., 2017), gender essentialism (Caricati et al., 2024; Smiler & Gelman, 2008), social dominance orientation (Wilson & Liu, 2003), and ambivalent sexism (e.g., Caricati et al., 2024, especially hostile sexism, e.g., Chen et al., 2009). This gender difference has been explained considering that men, as the advantaged group, have a greater interest in supporting beliefs that sustain existing social structures favoring them. In other words, beliefs about gender differences can serve ingroup interests so that members of the advantaged (e.g., boys) may be more likely to support certain gender-based beliefs because these help legitimize existing hierarchies and their privileged position relative to subordinated groups (e.g., girls; Rubin et al., 2023; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Aim and Hypothesis

While some research suggests that boys and girls justify only certain forms of gender-based violence and that this support is linked to system-justifying beliefs, we should notice the available evidence remains relatively sparse. Moreover, the role of gender essentialism has been largely overlooked in previous research. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine whether boys and girls differ in the extent to which they justified various forms of violence and whether this difference can be explained, at least partially, by differing levels of support for gender essentialism. We hypothesized that the justification of violent behavior would depend on the extent to which these behaviors align with expected behaviors of male and female individuals. Additionally, we examined some violent behaviors which can be considered a “covert” form of violence, namely pressuring a partner for sex, exerting control over the partner, physical aggression (e.g., hitting and threatening), and verbal aggression. We speculated that, based on stereotypical portrait of masculinity and femininity, pressuring for sex and exerting control would be more justified for boys. Indeed, given that boys are expected to be naturally pushed by sexual drive and expected to “protect girls,” a boy’s request for sex can be seen as consistent with his supposed nature and therefore more justified. Similarly, boys’ behaviors such as monitoring a partner’s clothing choices, friendships, or social outings can be rationalized as protective rather than controlling, particularly when framed as protecting women from external dangers (Agadullina et al., 2022). Conversely, since girls are often depicted as naturally emotional and weaker than boys, behaviors such as slapping, threatening, and using verbal aggression may be perceived as more consistent with girls’ inherent characteristics and therefore considered legitimate or justifiable when enacted by them. In sum, we predicted that boys and girls would be more likely to justify violent behaviors that align with masculine and feminine stereotypes respectively. Specifically, we expected that boys would be more likely to justify behaviors exhibited by other boys related to demanding or coercing sex and controlling a partner (hypothesis 1a), while girls would be more likely to legitimize behaviors such as pushing, threatening, and yelling when enacted by other girls (hypothesis 1b).

Following SJT (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and SDT (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius et al., 1994), we also hypothesized that gender essentialism would operate as a rationalizing belief for gender-based behaviors and, consequently, be positively associated with the justification of gender-based violence (hypothesis 2). Similarly, given that gender essentialist beliefs have been described as mechanisms for maintaining the status quo and favoring dominant group, we expected boys to be more motivated than girls to endorse these beliefs as a means of preserving male dominance (i.e., the ingroup) in society. Therefore, we hypothesized that boys would score higher on gender essentialism (hypothesis 3). Finally, based on previous expectations, we also expected that gender essentialism would mediate the relationship between participants’ gender and their justification of violent behaviors (hypothesis 4; see Figure 1 for the research model).

Figure 1.

The hypothesized model.

Methods

Participants

The participants were recruited through convenience sampling from two comprehensive school complexes in northern Italy over 3 days, between mid-December 2023 and early February 2024. These school complexes offer multiple study programs and several parallel classes within each grade. The choice of the two school complexes was primarily based on their willingness to participate in the study, which made them accessible and feasible for recruitment. Additionally, both of these schools were interested in educational programs aimed at raising awareness about gender-based violence and in collaborating with a local anti-violence center. This context provided a supportive environment for the study and facilitated the implementation of the research activities. While this approach reflects a convenience sampling strategy which may limit generalizability of results, it allowed us to gather data in a naturalistic educational setting and ensured full cooperation from the schools involved. It is worth noting that, in Italy, education is centrally regulated by the Ministry of Education. Although regional performance highlights a well-established North–South divide in attainment (Cantalini et al., 2025), the centralized governance helps to make curricula and school types (e.g., liceo, technical, vocational tracks) homogeneous across the country. For example, anti-violence education efforts are virtually the same across the country, with small regional differences (Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito, 2025).

A total of 1,072 students participated; however, 61 responses were excluded as incomplete, and an additional 301 individuals were removed for not meeting the study’s criteria. Specifically, we excluded 19 participants who identified as transgender or nonbinary individuals, 83 whose sexual orientation was not heterosexual, and 199 who had never been in a romantic relationship or had a dating experience. Consequently, the final sample consisted of 710 students, 60.85% of whom were cisgender heterosexual girls. We restricted the sample to cisgender and heterosexual adolescents for both theoretical and methodological reasons. Dominant gender norms and expectations are primarily structured around heterosexual and cisgender identities, making these groups particularly relevant for investigating how adherence to social norms may facilitate the legitimation of IPV. In addition, while we acknowledge the importance of understanding IPV processes among LGBTQIA+ youth, the number of non-cisgender (n = 19) and non-heterosexual participants (n = 83) was too small to allow meaningful subgroup comparisons. Including them risked adding noise and reducing estimate reliability without sufficient analytical power.

In addition, we decided to include only individuals who had already experienced a romantic relationship because, as highlighted by Save the Children (2024), the justification of violence in intimate and dating relationships tends to be more prevalent among those who have had prior relationship experience, compared to those who have not yet started dating.

As requested by the Ethics Committee, we did not collect participants’ age. This was made to minimize the risk of identifying individuals, as pairing precise age information with class could potentially reveal identities (e.g., in cases of students repeating a grade). Therefore, we only collected information on the class year attended. It is important to note that, in general, secondary education in Italy typically begins at age 13 or 14 and continues until approximately 18 or 19 years of age. Based on this structure, our sample was distributed as follows: 15.35% of the students were in the first year, 13.24% in the second, 21.97% in the third, 21.55% in the fourth, and 27.89% in the fifth and final year.

Procedures

The ethical committee of our university approved the research protocol (prot. no. 254667). The research was cross-sectional with an anonymous online questionnaire that was created on LimeSurvey, and accessible via a QR code. Participants were provided with informed consent 1 week before the study, containing all the necessary information to help them decide whether to participate. Participation was voluntary; parental consent was obtained for minors, and self‑consent for students of legal age. The questionnaire comprised closed‑ended items. At the end of the questionnaire, participants read a debriefing that explained the research objectives and the methodology used. The researcher, who was present in the classrooms during questionnaire completion, addressed any questions and provided clarifications about the study. The questionnaire was completed at school during class time. All the procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The data that support the findings of this study, the analysis code, and the full list of items are freely available in osf.io at https://osf.io/kmwrd/?view_only=fc851f5a5d2e4879b111105c2d7fa55f.

Measures

Gender essentialism was measured using the Essential Sex and Gender subscale from the Italian adaptation (Scandurra et al., 2021) of the Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (Habarth, 2015). This scale consists of eight items requiring participants to indicate their agreement with statements such as “Masculinity and femininity are determined by biological factors, such as genes and hormones, before birth” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”). Reliability was acceptable (α = .75).

Attitudes legitimizing intimate partner violence was measured using 13 items that were selected and adapted for this study from those used in a previous European project (Romagnoli et al., 2011; Sotiriou et al., 2011). Additionally, both the scale and the instructions were adapted based on the participants’ gender identity. Participants were asked to indicate how acceptable they believed it was for a person of their same gender (“How right you think it is for a woman/a man”) to engage in certain behaviors (e.g., “slap a partner if he/she have been unfaithful”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “Never acceptable,” 5 = “Always acceptable”). We preliminary tested the factor structure of the scale with exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ²[78] = 3,392.91, p < .001) confirms the adequacy of the correlation matrix for EFA, and the KMO index indicated a good sample adequacy (global MSA = 0.86). Parallel analysis suggested the presence of four factors, and then we conducted an EFA using principal factor method, specifying four dimensions and applying promax rotation. Results revealed that the four-factor solution explained 54% of the total variance, with all items loading on a single factor with loadings greater than 0.30. Subsequently, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood and robust standard error estimation to evaluate the fit indices. The CFA had an acceptable fit, χ²(59) = 203.87, p < .001, χ²/df = 3.46, robust Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.93, robust Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.90, robust Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.076 (90% CI [0.065, 0.088]), and robust Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.062. The reliability of the four dimensions was satisfactory: hitting and threatening the partner (α = .81), demanding sex (α = .79), controlling (α = .70), and verbal aggression (α = .77). For further details on EFA and CFA analyses, see Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplemental Material. We then named the four dimensions as “Hitting and Threatening,” “Demanding Sex,” “Controlling,” and “Verbal Aggression.”

Sex assigned at birth and gender identity were measured using items created ad hoc. Participants were first asked to indicate their assigned sex at birth and then their current gender identity by selecting from a range of possible responses. For sex assigned at birth, the options were “male,” “female,” and “intersex.” For current gender identity, the options were “man,” “woman,” “transgender,” and “nonbinary.”

Past romantic relationships and dating experiences were assessed using an adapted item from Wolfe et al. (2001), and participants were asked to select the statement that best described them (“I have never had a romantic relationship and I have never dated anyone,” “I have already had a romantic relationship,” and “I have not had a romantic relationship but I have already dated someone”).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

All the analyses were conducted using R (R Core Team, 2023), with the primary use of the psych package (Revelle, 2023) and the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).

Preliminarily, we compared the mean scores of girls and boys using a t-test. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the considered variables, according to participants’ gender identity. Overall, girls reported lower levels of gender essentialism compared to boys, with a significant difference, t(708) = −11.30, p = <.001, d = −0.87. As expected from hypothesis 1a, boys were higher in “Controlling” behaviors (t[708] = −4.10, p < .001, d = −0.32), and “Demanding Sex” (t[708] = −8.71, p < .001, d = −0.67). Conversely, girls scored higher on legitimizing behaviors such as “Hitting and Threatening” (t[708] = 5.08, p < .001, d = 0.39) and “Verbal Aggression” (t[708] = 6.76, p < .001, d = 0.52), supporting hypothesis 1b.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics Divided by Participants’ Gender Identity.

Variables	Cisgender girls (N = 432)				Cisgender boys (N = 278)
Variables	M	SD	median	SE	M	SD	median	SE
Gender Essentialism	4.00	1.16	4.00	0.06	4.99	1.11	5.06	0.07
Hitting and Threatening	1.54	0.68	1.40	0.03	1.29	0.63	1.00	0.04
Verbal Aggression	2.61	1.15	2.50	0.06	2.04	0.99	2.00	0.06
Controlling	1.54	0.64	1.33	0.03	1.76	0.77	1.67	0.05
Demanding Sex	1.23	0.51	1.00	0.02	1.69	0.9	1.33	0.05

Hypothesis Testing: Measurement Model

We tested hypotheses with two subsequent structural equation models (SEM). The first model tested the measurement model, which was used to assess the adequacy of the items in capturing the expected latent constructs, that is, gender essentialism and the four dimensions of attitudes legitimizing IPV. Next, we estimated the full SEM by incorporating regression paths into the measurement model. Specifically, the structural model was tested on the latent traits defined by the measurement model. Gender identity was dummy-coded, assigning a value of 0 for girls and 1 for boys. To assess the mediating role of gender essentialism in legitimizing IPV, we assessed the significance as well as 95% confidence intervals of the indirect effects. All the models were estimated using maximum likelihood with robust standard error estimation.

The measurement model had a good fit, χ²(179) = 483.31, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.70, robust CFI = 0.917, robust TLI = 0.903, robust RMSEA = 0.055 (90% CI [0.049, 0.061]), and robust SRMR = 0.056. All the items were significantly measured by the intended latent dimension (all ps < .001, except for one item in the gender essentialism measure, which remained statistically significant, though at a slightly higher p-value, p = .004). The five latent dimensions were positively and significantly correlated, except for verbal aggression and gender essentialism, which showed no significant correlation (see Table 2). For all the results of the measurement model, see Supplemental Material S3.

Table 2.

Correlation Among Latent Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
1. Gender Essentialism	–
2. Hitting and Threatening	.10*	–
3. Demanding Sex	.31***	0.47***	–
4. Controlling	.39***	0.59***	0.62***	–
5. Verbal Aggression	0.01 (ns)	0.66***	0.24***	0.43***	–

Note. N = 710. ns = non-significant.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Adding the Regression Model

When the path model was added to the measurement model, the overall model showed a good fit, χ²(195) = 549.49, p < .001, χ²/df = 2.82, robust CFI = 0.912, robust TLI = 0.895, robust RMSEA = 0.056 (90% CI [0.051, 0.062]), and robust SRMR = 0.057.

Results showed that, in line with hypothesis 2, gender essentialism had a direct association with the justification of IPV regarding all the types of behaviors considered, that is, hitting and threatening (b = 0.15, p < .001, β = .23), demanding sex (b = 0.15, p < .001, β = .21), controlling behaviors (b = 0.25, p < .001, β = .38), and verbal aggression (b = 0.16, p = .01, β = .16). In line with hypothesis 3, participants’ gender identity had a significant direct effect on gender essentialism (b = 0.85, p < 0.001, β = .43), with boys reporting higher levels of gender essentialism than girls (see Figure 2). Finally, consistent with our hypothesis 4, gender essentialism mediated the relationship between gender identity and attitudes toward hitting and threatening behaviors (b = 0.12, p < .001, β = .10), demanding sex (b = 0.12, p < .001, β = .09), controlling behaviors (b = 0.21, p < .001, β = .16), and verbal aggression (b = 0.13, p = .01, β = .07; Table 3).

Figure 2.

Results of path analysis.

Table 3.

Estimates From the Structural Equation Model (Regression).

Variables	b	SE	z	p	95% CI	β
Hitting and Threatening
Gender essentialism	0.15	0.037	3.97	<.001	[0.075, 0.221]	.231
Gender identity (0 = girls)	−0.37	0.062	−6.00	<.001	[−0.491, −0.249]	−.295
Verbal aggression
GenEss	0.16	0.053	2.938	.003	[0.052, 0.259]	.158
Gender identity (0 = girls)	−0.66	0.089	−7.496	<.001	[−0.837, −0.49]	−.342
Demanding Sex
GenEss	0.15	0.037	3.925	<.001	[0.073, 0.218]	.205
Gender identity (0 = girls)	0.36	0.067	5.396	<.001	[0.23, 0.492]	.259
Controlling
GenEss	0.248	0.045	5.496	<.001	[0.16, 0.336]	.384
Gender identity (0 = girls)	0.054	0.076	0.717	.474	[−0.094, 0.202]	.043
Gender Essentialism
Gender identity (0 = girls)	0.85	0.10	8.673	<.001	[0.654, 1.037]	.43
Indirect effects
Gen_id → Gen Ess → hitting	0.12	0.03	3.83	<.001	[0.06, 0.19]	.10
Gen_id → Gen Ess → verbal aggr	0.13	0.04	2.90	.01	[0.04, 0.22]	.07
Gen_id → Gen Ess → demanding sex	0.12	0.03	3.84	<.001	[0.06, 0.18]	.09
Gen_id → Gen Ess → controlling	0.21	0.04	5.36	<.001	[0.13, 0.29]	.16
Total effects
Gen_id → Hitting	−0.25	0.06	−4.30	<.001	[−0.36, −0.13]	−.19
Gen_id → Verbal aggression	−0.53	0.08	−6.77	<.001	[−6.69, −0.38]	−.27
Gen_id → Demanding	0.48	0.06	7.49	<.001	[0.36, 0.61]	.35
Gen_id → Controlling	0.26	0.08	3.28	.001	[0.11, 0.42]	.21

Note. Gen_id = gender identity of participants, 0 girls, 1 boys. N = 710.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study aimed to examine differences between heterosexual and cisgender boys and girls in justifying various IPV-related behaviors, as well as the role of specific gender norms – namely, gender essentialism – in shaping these attitudes. Indeed, IPV not only occurs within adolescent couples but may also be accepted or considered justifiable to some extent. Accordingly, previous research has shown that boys and girls tend to justify different types of IPV-related behaviors. While attitudes legitimizing IPV have been linked to system-justifying beliefs, particularly those rooted in traditional gender norms (e.g., ambivalent sexism; Lelaurain et al., 2018; Rollero & De Piccoli, 2020), the role of gender essentialism – the belief that gender differences are biologically determined – has not yet been thoroughly investigated. This study is novel in that it examines the role of gender essentialist beliefs in explaining gender differences in adolescents’ acceptance of IPV-related behaviors.

As expected, the results confirmed gender differences in IPV justification, with boys being more likely to justify behaviors related to demanding sex, while girls were more likely to legitimize behaviors such as hitting, threatening, and verbal aggression. This suggests that boys and girls are more inclined to justify forms of violence that align with social expectations about masculine and feminine roles and traits. For example, since men are socially portrayed as being driven by sexual impulses (Kim et al., 2007), it is easier to justify pressuring for sex when it is initiated by boys rather than girls. Conversely, because women are often depicted as being more emotional and weaker than men (Scarduzio et al., 2017), physical and verbal aggression may be more easily justified when enacted by girls rather than boys. Unexpectedly, however, we found no gender difference in justification of behaviors related to partner control, as both boys and girls perceived controlling a partner as equally unjustifiable. This could be related to the idea that, in today’s society, controlling behaviors increasingly occur through the Internet and social media, where they are often normalized and even humorized (Burton & Gormally, 2024; Scothorne et al., 2025). Viral content on platforms such as TikTok frequently depicts behaviors such as checking a partner’s online activity, asking them to delete posts, and expecting constant accessibility as romantic rather than coercive (e.g., “I saw it you take it down” trend; Scothorne et al., 2025). Users may even comment humorously on such behaviors (e.g., “lol”), contributing to the downplaying of their seriousness and to a portrayal that frames them as playful relationship norms (Haase & Worthington, 2023). As a result, coercive control may be perceived as less harmful, particularly when no physical violence is involved, making these dynamics more difficult to recognize as problematic. Such behaviors, which have traditionally been considered gender-specific – more often associated with boys and men under the guise of “protecting” rather than controlling their partners (Agadullina et al., 2022) – may instead now be perceived as equally (in)appropriate for both boys and girls. While suggestive, this interpretation requires direct empirical support.

Results also highlight that gender essentialist beliefs were positively associated with the justification of all four types of IPV we examined – namely, hitting and threatening, monitoring a partner, pressuring for sex, and verbal aggression. In other words, adolescents who strongly believed that differences between boys and girls are biologically determined were generally more likely to justify violence within intimate relationships. This suggests that, in line with SJT (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and SDT (Pratto et al., 1994), gender essentialism may function as a system-justifying belief, allowing adolescents to rationalize IPV as a phenomenon rooted in the essence of individuals – in this case, their gender (see also Rossi & Caricati, 2025). Essentialism can lead individuals to perceive violent behaviors as stemming from internal, biological, and uncontrollable forces, thereby reducing personal and social responsibility. Consistent with group-interest-based accounts (Rubin et al., 2023), our results also reveal that boys exhibited higher levels of gender essentialism than girls, aligning with previous research (Caricati et al., 2024; Habarth, 2015; Scandurra et al., 2021; Smiler & Gelman, 2008). According to the idea that essentialist beliefs serve system-justification motives, this pattern may be explained by the fact that boys and men are more motivated than girls and women to justify the existing social system that confers advantages to them (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Rubin et al., 2023).

The important role of essentialism was also confirmed by the mediation analysis. Specifically, results showed that essentialist beliefs mediated the relationship between gender identity and the justification of all types of IPV. When essentialism was included as a mediator, gender differences increased for feminine‑congruent behaviors (i.e., hitting and verbal aggression) but decreased for masculine‑congruent behaviors (i.e., demanding sex and controlling). This indicates that part of the difference between girls’ and boys’ justification of violent behavior was due to different levels of essentialism between genders, with boys being more essentialist than girls. Once again, this evidence suggests that boys and girls differ in the extent to which they justify gender-based violence, and these differences are partially explained by their varying adherence to general beliefs about gender. This, in turn, highlights that gender-based violence is not solely a matter of individual characteristics such as attachment styles, psychological issues, and personal distress (Kaufman-Parks et al., 2018; Penado Abilleira et al., 2019). Rather, it is also influenced by widely shared social representations of gender and gender relations, which provide individuals with norms and meanings that define what is considered just and legitimate versus what is deemed wrong and unacceptable (Cislaghi & Heise, 2020; Rossi & Caricati, 2025).

Practical Implications and Limitations

These findings have some implications for both researchers and practitioners involved in designing future research and interventions aimed at reducing IPV in adolescence. The mediating role of gender essentialism suggests that future programs should address traditional gender ideologies, particularly beliefs about the “natural” and intrinsic characteristics that differentiate men and women. Addressing these beliefs could help to reshape attitudes that legitimizing IPV.

Future research should further investigate how boys and girls perceive subtler forms of violence and how justifications they provide for such behaviors. Additionally, studies should expand beyond heterosexual relationships between cisgender people to include individuals with diverse gender identities and sexual orientations, to determine whether different patterns mediate or influence attitudes toward legitimizing IPV. This study is limited in this regard, as it focuses solely on cisgender and heterosexual participants. In addition, data were collected via convenience sampling from two northern Italian school complexes. Although the sample was large and curricula and school types are fairly homogeneous across the country, regional factors may still affect the processes examined in this study. For example, the economic disparity in the North–South divide (Panichella, 2022) also affects educational opportunities and inequalities, as well as the functioning and efficiency of social services (Ballarino et al., 2014; Cantalini et al., 2025). Thus, our results may not be directly generalizable to the entire Italian adolescent population. Another limitation of the study is its cross-sectional design which prevents us to make causal inferences between variables. Finally, other potentially influential variables, such as socio-economic status and political orientation, may affect the results and future research should incorporate these factors and control for them.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, these findings confirm the importance of considering also general beliefs about gender relations when analyzing IPV. Our findings highlight that, along with individual differences, also traditional gender norms and ideologies spread within societies, and influence the acceptance of IPV behaviors by boys and girls.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605261426593 – Supplemental material for Attitudes Toward the Legitimation of Intimate Partner Violence in Adolescence: The Role of Gender Essentialism

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605261426593 for Attitudes Toward the Legitimation of Intimate Partner Violence in Adolescence: The Role of Gender Essentialism by Francesca Rossi, Luca Caricati and Martina De Vito in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Francesca Rossi

Luca Caricati

Ethical Considerations

The research protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committees of University of Parma on 26/09/2023 (prot. no. 254667). All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Regarding informed consent, we obtained written and signed informed consent from the parents for underage students or directly from the students themselves if they were of legal age prior to participation.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in osf.io at .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Francesca Rossi, MSc, is a psychologist and PhD candidate in Social Psychology at the University of Parma. Her research focuses on traditional gender ideologies and their connection to gender inequalities and gender-based violence, as well as LGBTQIA+ topics, with a particular emphasis on gender identity.

Luca Caricati, PhD, is an associate professor of Social Psychology at the University of Parma. His research primarily focuses on intergroup and gender relations, triadic social stratification, and legitimizing ideologies.

Martina De Vito, MSc, is a psychologist and a member of the Noi4you association, which offers listening and support services against violence. Her interests focus on addressing gender-based violence across different age groups.

References

Adams

H. L.

Williams

L. R.

(2014). “It’s not just you two”: A grounded theory of peer-influenced jealousy as a pathway to dating violence among acculturating Mexican American adolescents. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034294

Agadullina

Lovakov

Balezina

Gulevich

O. A.

(2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5–6), 819–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855

Ali

P. A.

Dhingra

McGarry

(2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.008

Ballarino

Panichella

Triventi

(2014). School expansion and uneven modernization: Comparing educational inequality in Northern and Southern Italy. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 36, 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2014.01.002

Bastian

Haslam

(2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003

Bates

Klement

K. R.

Kaye

L. K.

Pennington

C. R.

(2019). The impact of gendered stereotypes on perceptions of violence: A commentary. Sex Roles, 81, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rx6up

Blakemore

S.-J.

(2018). Avoiding social risk in adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738144

Brescoll

V. L.

LaFrance

(2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15(8), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x

Brescoll

V. L.

Uhlmann

E. L.

Newman

G. E.

(2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701

10.

Burton

Gormally

(2024). “How dare you call that playground banter?!”: Service provider perspectives on coercive control and young people. Children & Society, 38(2), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12724

11.

Cantalini

Panichella

Pietrolucci

Triventi

(2025). Regional disparities, geographical marginality, and educational pathways: A study on upper secondary education in Italy. Social Inclusion, 13, 9555. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.9555

12.

Caricati

Bonetti

Rossi

(2024). Are gender identities and gender ideologies associated with the variety and type of owned sex toys? Evidence from a large Italian sample of cisgender individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(8), 3043–3060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02944-z

13.

Chen

Fiske

S. T.

Lee

T. L.

(2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9

14.

Chierchia

Piera Pi-Sunyer

Blakemore

S.-J.

(2020). Prosocial influence and opportunistic conformity in adolescents and young adults. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1585–1601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620957625

15.

Ching

Chen

Kong

(2020). Gender essentialism, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and filial piety as predictors for transprejudice in Chinese people. Sex Roles, 83(7–8), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01123-3

16.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

(2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

17.

Cinquegrana

Marini

Galdi

(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. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 922814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.922814

18.

Cislaghi

Heise

(2020). Gender norms and social norms: Differences, similarities and why they matter in prevention science. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(2), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13008

19.

Coleman

J. M.

Hong

Y.-Y.

(2008). Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity, 7(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860600980185

20.

De Lemus

Spears

Moya

. (2012). The power of a smile to move you: Complementary submissiveness in women’s posture as a function of gender salience and facial expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11), 1480–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212454178

21.

Diaz-Aguado

M. J.

Martinez

(2015). Types of adolescent male dating violence against women, self-esteem, and justification of dominance and aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(15), 2636–2658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553631

22.

Eaton

D. K.

Kann

Kinchen

Shanklin

Ross

Hawkins

Harris

W. A.

Lowry

McManus

Chyen

Lim

Whittle

Brener

N. D.

Wechsler

, & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 59(5), 1–142.

23.

Ellsberg

Arango

D. J.

Morton

Gennari

Kiplesund

Contreras

Watts

(2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say? The Lancet, 385(9977), 1555–1566. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61703-7

24.

Fernández-González

Calvete

Orue

(2019). The role of acceptance of violence beliefs and social information processing on dating violence perpetration. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(3), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12414

25.

Flood

Pease

(2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131

26.

Frías

S. M.

(2013). Strategies and help-seeking behavior among Mexican women experiencing partner violence. Violence Against Women, 19(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212475334

27.

Friesen

J. P.

Laurin

Shepherd

Gaucher

Kay

A. C.

(2019). System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12278

28.

Gergen

K. J.

(1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press.

29.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

30.

Gommans

Sandstrom

M. J.

Stevens

G. W. J. M.

Ter Bogt

T. F. M.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2017). Popularity, likeability, and peer conformity: Four field experiments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.001

31.

Gracia

Lila

Santirso

F. A.

(2020). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 25(2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000392

32.

Gutiérrez

B. C.

Leaper

(2024). Linking ambivalent sexism to violence-against-women attitudes and behaviors: A three-level meta-analytic review. Sexuality & Culture, 28, 851–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-023-10127-6

33.

Haase

Worthington

(2023). “Influencers”: A study investigating the messages people receive about coercive control on social media. Journal of Forensic Practice, 25(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-12-2022-0063

34.

Habarth

J. M.

(2015). Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(2), 166–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2013.876444

35.

Haegerich

T. M.

Dahlberg

L. L.

(2011). Violence as a public health risk. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(5), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827611409127

36.

Hegde

Chandran

Pattnaik

J. I.

(2022). Understanding adolescent sexuality: A developmental perspective. Journal of Psychosexual Health, 4(4), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/26318318221107598

37.

Hibberd

F. J.

(2005). Unfolding social constructionism. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/b100254

38.

Hickman

L. J.

Jaycox

L. H.

Aronoff

(2004). Dating violence among adolescents: Prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262332

39.

Jeffrey

N. K.

Barata

P. C.

(2019). “She didn’t want to. . .and I’d obviously insist”: Canadian university men’s normalization of their sexual violence against intimate partners. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1500406

40.

Johnson

W. L.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z

41.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

42.

Jost

J. T.

Kay

A. C.

(2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

43.

Karakurt

Silver

K. E.

(2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and age. Violence and Victims, 28(5), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00041

44.

Kaufman-Parks

A. M.

DeMaris

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2018). Intimate partner violence perpetration from adolescence to young adulthood: Trajectories and the role of familial factors. Journal of Family Violence, 33(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9924-5

45.

Keller

(2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686

46.

Kim

J. L.

Lynn Sorsoli

Collins

Zylbergold

B. A.

Schooler

Tolman

D. L.

(2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research, 44(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660

47.

Klysing

(2020). Exposure to scientific explanations for gender differences influences individuals’ personal theories of gender and their evaluations of a discriminatory situation. Sex Roles, 82(5–6), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01060-w

48.

Kray

Howland

Russell

Jackman

(2017). The effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000124

49.

Krivoshchekov

Gulevich

Blagov

(2023). Traditional masculinity and male violence against women: A meta-analytic examination. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 24(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000426

50.

Kuijpers

K. F.

Blokland

A. A. J.

Mercer

N. C.

(2021). Gendered perceptions of intimate partner violence normality: An experimental study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1412–1440NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517746945

51.

Lee

K. Y.

Reis

H. T.

Rogge

R. D.

(2020). Seeing the world in pink and blue: Developing and exploring a new measure of essentialistic thinking about gender. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 83(11–12), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01141-1

52.

Lelaurain

Fonte

Aim

M.-A.

Khatmi

Decarsin

Lo Monaco

Apostolidis

(2018). “One doesn’t slap a girl but. . .” Social representations and conditional logics in legitimization of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 78(9–10), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0821-4

53.

Lundgren

Amin

(2015). addressing intimate partner violence and sexual violence among adolescents: Emerging evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(1), S42–S50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.012

54.

Lys

Studzinska

Bargiel-Matusiewicz

(2021). Beliefs on sexual violence in the context of system justification theory: The role of hostile sexism and beliefs in biological origins of gender differences. Social Justice Research, 34(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00373-0

55.

Machado

Caridade

Martins

(2010). Violence in juvenile dating relationships self-reported prevalence and attitudes in a Portuguese sample. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9268-x

56.

Martín-Salvador

Saddiki-Mimoun

Pérez-Morente

M. Á.

Álvarez-Serrano

M. A.

Gázquez-López

Martínez-García

Fernández-Gómez

(2021). Dating violence: Idealization of love and romantic myths in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105296

57.

Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito. (2025). Indagine sulla realizzazione di progetti/attività per il contrasto alla violenza contro le donne: Esiti monitoraggio 15–29 maggio 2025. [Ministry of Education and Merit. (2025). Survey on the implementation of projects/activities to combat violence against women: Results of the monitoring conducted from 15 to 29 May 2025.] https://www.mim.gov.it/documents/20182/8952594/25-11-04+Statistiche_contrasto_violenza_+donne_mim.pdf

58.

Morton

Postmes

Haslam

Hornsey

(2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012966

59.

Mouafo

A. V. D.

Nzekaih

H. K. E.

(2021). Gender system justification, gender differences and attitudes towards women’ victimization. Social Sciences, 10(2), 67. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20211002.14

60.

Mulla

M. M.

Witte

T. H.

Richardson

Hart

Kassing

F. L.

Coffey

C. A.

Hackman

C. L.

Sherwood

I. M.

(2019). The causal influence of perceived social norms on intimate partner violence perpetration: Converging cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental support for a social disinhibition model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218794641

61.

Muñoz-Rivas

M. J.

Graña

J. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

González

M. P.

(2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137

62.

Ocampo Bernasconi

Espinar-Ruiz

La Parra-Casado

Vives-Cases

. (2024). From general rejection to individual normalization: Ambivalences in discourses on intimate partner violence by young Spaniards. PLoS One, 19(9), Article e0310745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310745

63.

Panichella

(2022). Diseguaglianze territoriali e stratificazione sociale. [Territorial inequalities and social stratification]. Il Mulino, 71(4), 61–69.

64.

Penado Abilleira

Rodicio-García

M. L.

Corrás Vázquez

Ríos De Deus

M. P.

Iglesias Cortizas

M. J

. (2019). Personality characteristics of a sample of violent adolescents against their partners. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 32(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-019-0122-7

65.

Pratto

Sidanius

Stallworth

L. M.

Malle

B. F.

(1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741

66.

Prentice

D. A.

Miller

D. T.

(2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00504.x

67.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. https://www.R-project.org/

68.

Reeves

P. M.

Orpinas

(2012). Dating norms and dating violence among ninth graders in northeast Georgia: Reports from student surveys and focus groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(9), 1677–1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511430386

69.

Revelle

(2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (Version 2.3.3) [R package]. Northwestern University. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

70.

Rollero

De Piccoli

(2020). Myths about intimate partner violence and moral disengagement: An analysis of sociocultural dimensions sustaining violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218139

71.

Romagnoli

Sukaj

Carboni

(2011). Attitudes on gender stereotypes and gender-based violence among youth: Country report: Italy. Casa delle donne per non subire violenza – ONLUS. https://medinstgenderstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Research-Report-Italy.pdf

72.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

73.

Rossi

Caricati

(2025). Relationship between gender essentialism and system-justifying beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000796

74.

Rubin

Kevin Owuamalam

Spears

Caricati

(2023). A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive. European Review of Social Psychology, 34(2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422

75.

Save the Children. (2024, Febbraio). Le ragazze stanno bene? Indagine sulla violenza di genere onlife in adolescenza. [Are girls doing well? A survey on online–offline gender-based violence in adolescence]. https://s3-www.savethechildren.it/public/files/uploads/pubblicazioni/le-ragazze-stanno-bene_1.pdf

76.

Scandurra

Monaco

Dolce

Nothdurfter

(2021). Heteronormativity in Italy: psychometric characteristics of the Italian version of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(3), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00487-1

77.

Scarduzio

J. A.

Carlyle

K. E.

Harris

K. L.

Savage

M. W.

(2017). “Maybe she was provoked”: Exploring gender stereotypes about male and female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 23(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216636240

78.

Schilt

Westbrook

(2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209340034

79.

Scothorne

Tzani

Ioannou

Lester

Rogers

Williams

T. J. V.

Synnott

Darmanin Kissaun

(2025). Are social media platforms blurring the lines between coercive control and healthy relationships? A study investigating perceptions of coercive control. Computers in Human Behavior, 168, Article 108649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108649

80.

Serrano-Montilla

Lozano

L. M.

Bender

Padilla

J. L.

(2020). Individual and societal risk factors of attitudes justifying intimate partner violence against women: A multilevel cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 10(12), e037993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037993

81.

Sidanius

Liu

J. H.

Shaw

J. S.

Pratto

(1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 338–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00586.x

82.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

83.

Skewes

Fine

Haslam

(2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS One, 13(7), Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921

84.

Smiler

A. P.

Gelman

S. A.

(2008). Determinants of gender essentialism in college students. Sex Roles, 58(11–12), 864–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9402-x

85.

Smith

(2011). Conformity among adolescents. In Goldstein

Naglieri

J. A.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 402–403). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_662

86.

Sotiriou

Ntinapogias

Petroulaki

(2011). Attitudes on gender stereotypes and gender-based violence among youth: Country report: Greece. European Anti-Violence Network. Daphne III Programme: Youth4Youth: Empowering Young People in Preventing Gender-based Violence through Peer Education. https://eige.europa.eu/resources/Y4Y_Research-report_Greece.pdf

87.

Storer

H. L.

Schultz

Hamby

S. L.

(2020). The role of gender in adolescent dating abuse: An interpretive meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature. Social Work, 65(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swaa032

88.

Sundaram

(2013). Violence as understandable, deserved or unacceptable? Listening for gender in teenagers’ talk about violence. Gender and Education, 25(7), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.858110

89.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

90.

Waltermaurer

(2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447699

91.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

92.

Widman

Choukas-Bradley

Helms

S. W.

Prinstein

M. J.

(2016). Adolescent susceptibility to peer influence in sexual situations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(3), 323–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.10.253

93.

Williams

M. J.

Eberhardt

J. L.

(2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033

94.

Wilson

M. S.

Liu

J. H.

(2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127175

95.

Wolfe

D. A.

Scott

Reitzel-Jaffe

Wekerle

Grasley

Straatman

A. L.

(2001). Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.277

96.

Xia

Fosco

G. M.

Lippold

M. A.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2018). A developmental perspective on young adult romantic relationships: Examining family and individual factors in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1499–1516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0815-8

97.

Yzerbyt

Corneille

Estrada

(2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_5

98.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Rocher

(2002). Subjective essentialism and the emergence of stereotypes. In McGarty

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Spears

(Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 38–66). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.004

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB