GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE BELIEFS AND STEREOTYPES: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON ACROSS THREE COUNTRIES

Sunday B. Fakunmoju¹⁺ --- Funmi O. Bammeke²

¹ Westfield State University 577 Western Avenue Westfield, MA, United States of America

²University of Lagos Department of Sociology Lagos, Nigeria

Keywords:Gender-based violence, Violence against women, Stereotypes, Beliefs, Physical violence, Psychological violence, Sexual violence, Sexual submissiveness.

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received: 19 July 2017, Revised: 11 August 2017, Accepted: 17 August 2017, Published: 22 August 2017

1. INTRODUCTION

Across societies, individuals hold beliefs and stereotypes that support violence against women and influence abusive behaviors in intimate relationships (Esqueda and Harrison, 2005; Fernandez, 2006; Khan and Hussain, 2008; Das and Singh, 2014; Doku and Asante, 2015). Beliefs and stereotypes, rooted in patriarchal and religious ideologies shape the expectations and experiences of women in intimate relationships, as well as how they are perceived and treated in the criminal justice system (Gilbert, 2002; Zakar et al., 2013; Jayachandran, 2015). Although attention continues to be drawn to proviolence beliefs and stereotypes against women, their underlying mechanisms remain to be fully explored (Cusack and Cook, 2013). Strongly held beliefs and assumptions about women are problematic because they influence how women are judged and treated in intimate relationships. Nevertheless, the current knowledge about gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes is limited because existing data are derived from individual regions of the world. Comparative knowledge across countries is sparse despite its relevance to understanding differential effects of exposure to different patriarchal structures on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes. Using multiple theoretical perspectives (e.g., social dominance theory, ambivalent sexism, feminist theory, and varieties of patriarchy) (Pratto et al., 1994; Glick et al., 2000; Hunnicutt, 2009) this article describes cross-national similarities and differences in gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes across three countries: the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria. Specifically, the article examines the possibility that societies with different human development and gender inequality will differ in endorsement of gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes.

2. RATIONALE FOR CROSS-NATIONAL EXAMINATION OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE BELIEFS AND STEREOTYPES

One may ask why knowledge about gender-based beliefs and stereotypes beyond regions of a specific country is crucial, given the complexities of human societies. As independent from each other as societies may be perceived, the modern wave of migration and multicultural societies implies that cross-cultural knowledge is vital to advancing knowledge beyond what is known within specific regions of a country. Thus, the need for cross-national comparisons of gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes rests on its relevance to patriarchy theory, knowledge about gender-based violence, and international transfer of policy and practice. Specifically, a broader view of the rationale to be discussed is important, without necessarily regarding the present study as a definitive validation. Five rationales are reasonable.

First, following the transnational conference on family violence in 2003, one of the stated major goals was to “identify differences and particularities observed in multiple nations and cultures and, by contrast, similarities and universals” (Cousineau and Rondeau, 2004). To date, common knowledge about similarities and differences in gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes across countries remains elusive. Because “differences in culture . . . are expected to accompany differences in attitudes toward violence against women” (Nayak et al., 2003) cross-national comparisons will help to identify differences in proviolence beliefs and stereotypes against women.

Second, available knowledge about proviolence beliefs and stereotypes is limited to data collected within individual countries. Cross-cultural knowledge to build new theories and test existing ones (Marrie-Marthe and Gilles, 2004) is sparse, as comparative knowledge derived from different studies is marred by differences in methodologies and instruments utilized to operationalize gender-based violence beliefs and attitudes. Gaining cross-cultural knowledge will therefore provide relevant insight for gender theory, policy, and practice.

Third, in reviving patriarchy as a theoretical tool for explaining violence against women, Hunnicutt (2009) proposed an alternative perspective, “varieties of patriarchy,” for explaining patriarchy across societies. By conceiving patriarchy as multidimensional and dynamic, as opposed to a static social structure, Hunnicutt (2009) laid the theoretical foundation for describing varying effects of patriarchy on gender-based violence. Examining the differential effects of exposure to various patriarchal structures on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes will therefore enhance the theoretical relevance of varieties of patriarchy and perspectives that are based on the underlying effects of patriarchy on violence against women.

Fourth, cross-national comparisons of gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes may generate outcomes that will enhance identification of regions where advocacy and awareness-raising efforts are desirable and where scarce resources for empowerment would be most judiciously utilized. Thus, cross-cultural comparisons may provide valuable knowledge about differences in vulnerabilities of women across societies and help to identify effective international policies and practices to protect women in domestic relationships.

Fifth, despite the unique experience of women in each country, practitioners who work with victimized women encounter similar issues (Walker, 1999). Because “knowledge about common factors can help in the design of prevention and intervention programs for worldwide implementation” (Nayak et al., 2003) cross-national comparisons can generate knowledge about common beliefs and stereotypes associated with gender-based violence across countries — knowledge that will be beneficial to policy and practice in each country, at the international level, and in multicultural societies.

Several considerations were made in choosing countries for cross-national comparisons in this study. The three countries were chosen because of their similarities and differences in patriarchal or social structures (e.g., individualistic versus collectivistic), socio-economic development (e.g., gender equality and human development), developmental stages (developed versus developing), racial composition (racial diversity versus racial homogeneity), and geographical locations (North America versus Africa). Because gender role values differ between Africans and Americans (Greenbaum, 1994) cross-national examination may help to unravel the complexities of cultural context of proviolence beliefs and stereotypes against women.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Several theories explaining the pervasiveness of gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes across societies derive their focus from the effects of patriarchy on behaviors and relationships in human societies. Among these theories include social dominance theory, ambivalent sexism, feminist theory, and varieties of patriarchy.

3.1. Social Dominance Theory

In its quest to describe oppressive behaviors across groups, social dominance theory explains how and why multiple social hierarchies/groups (e.g., gender, race, age, socio-economic status etc.) maintain dominance and ensure stability of their privileged position in the society (Pratto et al., 1994). Through culturally-shared ideologies and beliefs, socially dominant groups oppress and hold prejudice against the subordinate groups. Membership in the dominant groups (based on privileged access to socio-economic resources) shapes individual’s attitudes and ideologies about dominance and determines the extent that individuals accept or reject dominance and ideologies of dominance against subordinate groups. For example, “men are more social dominance-oriented than women” (Pratto et al., 1994). Because patriarchy-induced hostility against women is pervasive across societies (Glick et al., 2000) and “the severity of group based inequality varies across different societies and within any given society across time” (Sidanius and Pratto, n.d) identifying the extent that gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes differ by gender and determining the effects of cross-cultural inequality on differences in gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes would provide the necessary insight for understanding violence against women.

3.2. Ambivalent Sexism

Providing additional insights on oppressive behaviors of dominant groups over the subordinate groups described by social dominant theory, ambivalent sexism describes sexism (i.e., hostility, prejudice, or bias against women perpetrated by men) as encompassing both hostile sexism (HS) (i.e., negative evaluation of women) and benevolent sexism (BS) (i.e., positive evaluation of women). According to Glick et al. (2000) “patriarchy, gender differentiation, and sexual reproduction combine to create HS and BS” (p. 764). On the one hand, “men's dominance creates HS, hostile attitudes about women.., a dominance that is largely enacted in and reinforced by gender roles and stereotypes” (Glick et al., 2000). On the other hand, men’s dependence on women creates BS, a “subjectively benevolent but paternalistic attitudes toward women…,” in which women are presumed as inferior and needing protection of men and in which they are characterized as “wonderful, pure creatures whose love is required to make a man whole” (p. 764). Although Glick et al. (2000) conceived HS and BS as “mutually supportive ideologies” (p. 765) and concluded that “BS (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS” (p. 763), it will be helpful to determine the extent that patriarchy-induced, pervasive sexism and gender inequality in individual countries helps understand similarities and differences in gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes across countries.

3.3. Feminist Theory

Beyond social dominant theory and ambivalent sexism, feminist theory and its major focus on patriarchy commands major attention in explaining violence against women. Although various strands of feminist theory persists, a fundamental tenet is the belief that men hold a privileged position in the social system, which enables men to subjugate women through their ability to maintain control of social structures and institutions (Hunnicutt, 2009; Watto, 2009; McKee, 2014). However, feminist theory endured some setbacks over the years owing to its inability to account for variation in gender-based violence across time and space or in its inability to provide explanations for other forms of violence, including those perpetrated by women against women or men.

3.4. Varieties of patriarchy

A recent attempt to mitigate these shortcomings of feminist perspective and establish the influence of patriarchy on violence against women is Hunnicutt (2009) varieties of patriarchy. According to Hunnicutt (2009) five major characteristics underlie theory of varieties of patriarchy: First, patriarchal structures are multidimensional such that a “range of different patriarchal manifestations among cultures and clans” is to be conceived. Thus, by suggesting that violence against women vary over time and place, it may be assumed by extension that differences in effects of patriarchy on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes will vary over time and place across societies. Second, violence against women by men can only be understood through an understanding of men’s location in the social structure, thereby suggesting that existing differences in location of men in the social structure across societies may contribute to differences in beliefs and stereotypes about violence against women. Third, “divergence of structure and ideology” prevails in every society and “patriarchal ideology may endure despite structural gains in gender equality.” Thus, by recognizing divergent nature of patriarchy, it may be assumed that patriarchal structures and ideologies may have different effects on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes across societies, depending on societal developmental level. Fourth, patriarchy cannot be understood independent of “other forms of hierarchy and domination.” Thus, by occupying or aspiring to occupy privileged positions men and women often behave in ways that ensure survival of patriarchal structures (Hunnicutt, 2009) and differentially endorse beliefs and stereotypes that perpetuate patriarchal ideologies. Fifth, patriarchal systems entail “labyrinths of power dynamics” in which men and women holds “varying types and amounts of power” rather than being conceived as structural systems of “oppressor and oppressed” (Hunnicutt, 2009). Owing to these gender differences in social positions of power, it may be reasonable to expect some gender differences in beliefs and stereotypes supportive of power differences in relationships. In general, theory of varieties of patriarchy has implications for proviolence beliefs and stereotypes across societies, as it may help unveil how gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes changed in societies where gender inequality has declined or why they remain stable in societies where patriarchal ideologies thrive.

3.5. Social Adaptive Response

Regardless of the stable or changing nature of patriarchal ideologies across societies and time, patriarchal ideologies evoke prolonged effects and adaptive responses that are often misconstrued as stable characteristics of men and women over time. For example, across societies patriarchy predisposes women to perpetual insecurity and adaptive emotional responses. Over time the learned adaptive responses to prolonged exposure to subjugation by men are misconstrued for dominant characteristics of women, a misperception that helps shift the focus from oppressive patriarchal structures and ideologies to emotional stereotypical assumptions about women. Thus, rather than being dominant biological characteristics of women, emotional stereotypes about women constitute adaptive responses to prolonged exposure to oppressive patriarchal norms and roles. Similarly, across societies patriarchy predisposes men to sexual expression and domination of women. Over time the sexually expressive responses are misconstrued for stable characteristics of men, a misperception that helps shift the focus from oppressive norms induced by patriarchy to sexual stereotypical assumptions about men. Thus, rather than being biological characteristics of men, sexual stereotypes about men constitute expressive responses from prolonged privileges derived from patriarchal norms and roles. In general, “many of the perceived differences between the sexes have their origin in historical forces and cultural and societal dynamics, rather than in biological differences” (Shaefor and Horejs, 2012). Owing to differential effects of patriarchy across countries endorsement of beliefs and stereotypes may therefore vary across societies.

3.6. Human Development Index and Gender Inequality Index

Patriarchy has effects not only on experiences of women but also on development across societies. Various ways in which patriarchy manifests can be measured by the Human Development Index and the Gender Inequality Index (United Nations Development Programme, n.d.a). As a “summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living” (UNDP, n.d.a;n.d.b) the Human Development Index facilitates comprehension of socioeconomic development across societies. Similarly, as a measure of “gender inequalities in three important aspects of human development—reproductive health, measured by maternal mortality ratio and adolescent birth rates; empowerment, measured by proportion of parliamentary seats occupied by females and proportion of adult females and males aged 25 years and older with at least some secondary education; and economic status, expressed as labour market participation and measured by labour force participation rate of female and male populations aged 15 years and older” (UNDP, n.d.a;n.d.b) the Gender Inequality Index facilitates understanding of the degree of gender inequality across countries. For example, reports describe categorization of the Gender Inequality Index for the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria (UNDP, n.d.c). As indicated in the reports, the United States ranks very high in gender equality and human development, compared to a medium ranking for South Africa and a low ranking for Nigeria. Similar categorization was noted on the Human Development Index (UNDP, n.d.d). In general, differences in promotion and integration of egalitarian measures and drivers across countries have implications for differences in human development and gender inequality and perhaps differences in endorsement of proviolence violence beliefs and stereotypes against women.

3.7. Effects of Country and Gender on Gender-Based Violence Beliefs and Stereotypes

In patriarchal societies, cultural norms, religious beliefs, gender role expectations and perceptions, and masculine ideology shape the physical and sexual victimization experience of women (Davis and Liddell, 2002; Berkel et al., 2004; Pretorius et al., 2014; Fidan and Bui, 2015). Studies from the United States (Scarduzio et al., 2016) South Africa (Abrahams et al., 2006) and Nigeria (Kunnuji, 2015) implicate patriarchal structures and ideologies for proviolence attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes against women. Similar cross-cultural studies (Grandin and Lupri, 1997; Chang, 1999; Yu, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2013) have found differences among countries. For example, Nayak et al. (2003) found attitudes toward physical and sexual violence to differ across India, Japan, Kuwait, and the United States; Griffith et al. (2006) found respondents from Trinidad to be more likely to tolerate gender-based violence than respondents from the United States; Fakunmoju et al. (2016b) found respondents in Nigeria to be more likely to endorse attitudes toward partner violence than respondents in the United States or South Africa; and Chang (1999) found Chinese women to be more egalitarian in domestic gender attitudes than American women.

Beyond cross-cultural differences, gender differences in proviolence attitudes and beliefs against women have also been noted, with findings consistently suggesting that women were less likely than men to tolerate gender-based violence (Griffith et al., 2006). For example, studies comparing respondents in the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria found men to be more likely than women to endorse partner violence (Fakunmoju et al., 2016b). Similar studies among respondents in the United States, China, and Japan found Chinese and United States female respondents to be more likely than male respondents to support egalitarian attitudes toward women (Nguyen et al., 2013). In comparing attitudes toward physical and sexual violence across India, Japan, Kuwait, and the United States, Nayak et al. (2003) found differences between men and women. Because beliefs precede gender-based violence (Zakar et al., 2013) and stereotypes precipitate perception of truthfulness (Esqueda and Harrison, 2005) identifying prevailing beliefs and stereotypes and determining their similarities and differences among people exposed to different patriarchal structures and ideologies will enhance cross-cultural knowledge about gender-based violence beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes.

4. PRESENT STUDY

Based on the above discussion, the present study examined similarities and differences in gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes across three countries (United States, South Africa, and Nigeria) to test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Societies with different human development and gender inequality will be more likely to differ in endorsement of gender-based violence beliefs. Specifically, respondents in Nigeria (low development patriarchal society) are more likely to endorse physical violence, psychological manipulation and control, and sexual violence against women than respondents in the United States (very high development patriarchal society) or South Africa (medium development patriarchal society).

Hypothesis 2: Societies with different human development and gender inequality will be more likely to differ in endorsement of gender beliefs and stereotypes:

Hypothesis 2a: Respondents in Nigeria (low development patriarchal society) will be more likely to endorse sexual submissiveness of women, emotional stereotypes about women, and sexual stereotypes about men than respondents in the United States (very high development patriarchal society) or South Africa (medium development patriarchal society).

Hypothesis 2b: Respondents in the United States (very high development patriarchal society) will be less likely to endorse emotional stereotypes about women and sexual stereotypes about men than respondents in South Africa (medium development patriarchal society).

Hypothesis 3: Men will be more likely than women to endorse psychological manipulation and control of women.

5. METHOD

5.1. Design

A convenience sample of respondents across the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria participated in the study, described as a survey aimed at measuring attitudes and beliefs about partner violence. Respondents in the United States and South Africa completed the survey online using SurveyMonkey.com™ and respondents in Nigeria completed a paper-and-pencil format of the same survey. Diverse recruitment methods, including verbal and email solicitation, were used to ensure wide coverage of the survey, taking into consideration available means of recruitment in each country. In the United States, the link to the survey was shared with persons on an email list of a public high school and posted on an online instructional platform of a university. The link was also sent to respondents in the address list of one of the investigators. In South Africa, the link was shared with persons in the investigators’ address books and verbal and electronic solicitation of university students and nonstudents was sought. In South Africa and the United States, respondents were encouraged to share the link with persons in their address books. The survey was also posted on the social media outlet Facebook. In Nigeria, a paper version of the survey was administered to ensure participation by respondents who might not have access to the Internet, given general limited access to the Internet in the region. The survey was advertised in elementary and high schools, Internet cafes, and other places of work, where research assistants visited respondents to administer the survey. Notwithstanding differences in methodology, research clearly suggests that “paper-and-pencil and Internet data collection methods are generally equivalent” (Lewis et al., 2009; Weigold et al., 2013). Recent studies (Stanton, 1998; Olatunji et al., 2015) have utilized similar dual approaches to collect data. Additional information about the study can be obtained from Fakunmoju et al. (2016c). A total of 404 respondents (United States = 127 or 31.40%, South Africa = 122 or 30.20%, Nigeria = 155 or 38.40%) completed the survey. Ipsative mean imputation (Schafer and Graham, 2002) was used to address missing data, after which listwise deletion was applied to the data. Four outlier cases were removed, resulting in 363 cases for data analysis. The Institutional Review Board of Westfield State University, Massachusetts approved the study.

5.2. Participants

Respondents (N = 363) included females (n = 272, 74.9%) and males (n = 91, 25.1%) from the United States (n = 117, 32.2 %), South Africa (n = 101, 27.8%), and Nigeria (n = 145, 39.9%). The majority were Blacks/non-Caucasians (n = 260, 71.6%) versus Whites/Caucasians (n = 103, 28.4%), with an average age of 35.69 years (SD = 10.50 years, range 20–67). More than half of the respondents reported having a Bachelor’s degree or Higher National/Advanced Diploma (HND; n = 210, 57.9%) and a majority were gainfully employed (n = 293, 80.7%). Across countries, there were more female respondents than male respondents. Detailed distribution of demographic characteristics across countries by gender is reported in Fakunmoju et al. (2016c).

5.3. Measures

Gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes were operationalized using the Beliefs About Relationship Violence Against Women Scale (BEREVIWOS) and the Gender Beliefs and Stereotypes Scale (GESTABE; Fakunmoju et al. (2016a;2016b)).

BEREVIWOS consists of 13 items that measure beliefs about physical violence (4 items), psychological manipulation and control (5 items), and sexual violence against women (4 items).

The Physical Violence Against Women subscale measures the extent to which respondents endorse physically violent beliefs against women. It is operationalized with four questions, such as “Because a man is the head of his household, he has a right to hit his woman” and “A woman who provokes her man into punching her deserves the punching.” Cronbach’s alpha of .79 was recently reported (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a). In the present study Cronbach’s alpha was approximately .76.

The Psychological Manipulation and Control of Women subscale measures the extent to which respondents endorse beliefs about manipulation and control of women with the aim of enhancing men’s power and control over women in intimate relationships. It is operationalized with five questions, such as “A man should do everything within his power to make his woman obey him” and “Sometimes, a man should bring his woman to her knees for her mistakes by withholding his love and affection from her.” Cronbach’s alpha of .82 was recently reported (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a). In the present study Cronbach’s alpha was approximately .84.

The Sexual Violence Against Women subscale measures the extent to which respondents endorse beliefs about sexual coercion of women in intimate relationships. It is operationalized with four questions, such as “A woman should expect her man to force her for sex because it’s hard for men to control their sexual urges sometimes” and “Any woman in a committed relationship should expect her man to force her for sex.” Cronbach’s alpha of .82 was recently reported (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a). In the present study Cronbach’s alpha was approximately .87.

GESTABE consisted of 16 items that measure beliefs about sexual submissiveness of women (4 items), emotional stereotypes about women (6 items), and sexual stereotypes about men (6 items).

The Sexual Submissiveness of Women subscale measures the extent to which respondents endorse the beliefs about sexual submission of women to men and women’s compliance with sexual demands of men in intimate relationships. It is operationalized with four questions, such as “A woman should always meet the sexual demands of her man because her body belongs to him” and “A woman should be sexually submissive to her man.” Cronbach’s alpha of .81 was recently reported (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a). In the present study Cronbach’s alpha was .95.

The Emotional Stereotypes About Women subscale measures the extent to which respondents endorse the stereotypes about women’s emotional traits and behaviors of seeking and sustaining men’s attention. It is operationalized with six questions, such as “It is not an exaggeration to suggest that women are conflicted: They act as if they are miserable with men, yet feel insecure without them” and “A lot of women are vulnerable to compliments and humor, even from men incapable of winning their affection.” Cronbach’s alpha of .90 was recently reported (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a). In the present study Cronbach’s alpha was .92.

The Sexual Stereotypes About Men subscale measures the extent to which respondents endorse the stereotypes about men’s insatiable sexual traits and sexual behaviors. It is operationalized with six questions, such as “A lot of men are in denial of their insatiable sexual appetite that they keep jumping from a woman to another” and “Men are so demanding sexually that it is impossible for women to please them.” Cronbach’s alpha of .85 was recently reported (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a). In the present study Cronbach’s alpha was .91.
For each BEREVIWOS and GESTABE item, respondents were asked, “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?” Participants responded by rating each item using a Likert-type scale of Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neither Disagree Nor Agree = 3, Agree = 4, or Strongly Agree = 5. Lower scores in the form of Strongly Disagree indicated greater disapproval of beliefs and stereotypes and higher scores in the form of Strongly Agree indicated greater endorsement of beliefs and stereotypes.

5.4. Data Analysis

Before analysis, the data were examined to identify possible duplication by cross-checking the Internet Protocol (IP) address with survey responses to determine possible identical response sets. No identical response or duplication of data was identified. A 3 (country: United States, South Africa, Nigeria) x 2 (gender) between-subjects MANOVA with six independent variables (i.e., physical violence against women, psychological manipulation and control of women, sexual violence against women, sexual submissiveness of women, emotional stereotypes about women, and sexual stereotypes about men) was used to determine whether gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes differed by gender and across countries (Hypotheses 1 through 3). The Bonferroni method was used to control for Type I error for the examined pairwise comparisons in follow-up analyses, with the alpha level set at .008 (.05 divided by six dependent variables).

Preliminary analysis indicated that none of the six dependent variables examined for skewness and kurtosis approximated normal distribution. All variables were positively skewed, except sexual stereotypes about men, which was negatively skewed. To improve normalization, base-10 logarithm transformation (log transformation) technique was applied to the positively skewed variables and base-10 logarithm transformation with reflection was applied to the negatively skewed variable. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20™ (IBM, 2011).

6. RESULTS

Preliminary analysis indicated that the six dependent variables were significantly correlated, ranging from r = .20 (p = .01) to r = .68 (p = .01). Using Pillai’s Trace, there was a statistically significant multivariate main effect of physical violence against women, psychological manipulation and control of women, sexual violence against women, sexual submissiveness of women, emotional stereotypes about women, and sexual stereotypes about men for country, V = .645, F(12, 362) = 27.94, p < .0005, partial eta squared = .323, and psychological manipulation and control of women for gender, V = .050, F(6, 351) = 3.104, p < .0005, partial eta squared = .050. The interaction effects of gender and country were nonsignificant. Results of univariate ANOVA using Bonferroni correction further suggested that country had an effect on physical violence against women (F[2, 356] = 34.06; p < .0005), psychological manipulation and control of women (F[2, 356] = 76.19; p < .0005), sexual violence against women (F[2, 356] = 41.98; p < .0005), sexual submissiveness of women (F[2, 356] = 278.34; p < .0005), emotional stereotypes about women (F[2, 356] = 46.70; p < .0005), and sexual stereotypes about men (F[2, 356] = 13.90; p < .0005), and gender had an effect on psychological manipulation and control of women (F[2, 356] = 12.25; p = .001).

6.1. Effects of Country on Gender-Based Violence Beliefs

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the average scores of respondents from Nigeria were significantly higher than the average scores of respondents from the other countries (Table 1). Follow-up analyses to the univariate ANOVA using the Bonferroni post hoc adjustments suggested that respondents across the countries differed on the dependent variable. Specifically, respondents in Nigeria scored significantly higher in physical violence against women, psychological manipulation and control of women, and sexual violence against women than respondents in the United States or South Africa (p < .0005).

Table-1. Means and Standard Deviations of Gender-based Violence Beliefs and Stereotypes for Gender and Countries

Variable	Physical violence M(SD)		Psychological manipulation and control M(SD)a		Sexual violence M(SD)		Sexual submissiveness M(SD)		Emotional stereotypes M(SD)		Sexual stereotypes M(SD)
Country
United States	1.09	(.41)	1.08	(.39)	1.08	(.43)	1.17	(.56)	2.00	(1.01)	2.17	(.99)
South Africa	1.09	(.22)	1.12	(.32)	1.07	(.27)	1.36	(.66)	2.39	(1.05)	2.70	(1.12)
Nigeria	1.41	(.48)	1.82	(.77)	1.58	(.76)	3.45	(1.01)	3.38	(.89)	3.24	(.87)

Note. Because Nigeria is racially homogeneous (only Blacks/non-Caucasians) compared to the United States and South Africa that are racially diverse, race/ethnic variable was not examined in the model.
aMale: M = 1.72, SD = .82; Female: M = 1.27, SD = .56.

6.2. Effects of Country on Gender Beliefs and Stereotypes

Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the average scores of respondents across the countries were significantly different (Table 1). Follow-up analyses to the univariate ANOVA using the Bonferroni post hoc adjustments suggested that respondents across the countries differed on the dependent variable. Specifically, respondents in Nigeria scored significantly higher in sexual submissiveness of women, emotional stereotypes about women, and sexual stereotypes about men than respondents in the United States or South Africa (p < .0005; Hypothesis 2a). Similarly, respondents in the United States scored significantly lower in emotional stereotypes about women and sexual stereotypes about men than respondents in South Africa (Hypothesis 2b).

6.3. Effects of Gender on Gender-Based Violence Beliefs

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the average scores of female respondents were significantly lower than the average scores of male respondents (Table 1). Follow-up analyses to the univariate ANOVA using the Bonferroni post hoc adjustments suggested that male and female respondents differed on the dependent variable. Specifically, female respondents were less likely than male respondents to endorse psychological manipulation and control of women (p =.001).

7. DISCUSSION

The cross-national analysis in this study identified gender and country differences in gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes. Of the three countries, respondents in the United States were the least likely, whereas respondents in Nigeria were the most likely, to endorse gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes. Similarly, men were found to be more likely than women to endorse psychological manipulation and control.

7.1. Effects of Country on Gender-Based Violence Beliefs

As hypothesized, country had differential effects on gender-based violence beliefs, with respondents in Nigeria being more likely to endorse physical violence, psychological manipulation and control, and sexual violence against than respondents in the United States or South Africa. Differences in degrees and effects of patriarchy have been reported in previous studies, with Gruber and Szołtysek (2012;2014) describing the differences across Europe and Jayachandran (2015) highlighting the effects of patriarchy and cultural norms on gender inequality in India, China, Middle East, and North Africa. The current finding extends previous findings (Chon, 2013; Fakunmoju et al., 2016c) regarding the effects of country on proviolence beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes against women: In those studies, respondents from the United States were least likely to endorse gender-based violence compared to respondents from Trinidad, India, Japan, and Kuwait.

Amid several factors, two explanations may help to clarify why respondents in Nigeria were more likely to endorse physically, psychologically, and sexually violent beliefs against women than respondents in the United States or South Africa. The first explanation relates to the effects of culture and religion on personal values in Nigeria (Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005; Dogo, 2014) which may have predisposed respondents to judge questions based on cultural values and religious beliefs rather than on egalitarian principles. The second explanation, by extension of the first, relates to gender role perceptions and expectations of women in intimate relationship in the society. For instance, all religions (i.e., traditional religion, Christianity, and Islam) in Nigeria propagate male superiority and physical, psychological, and sexual control of women. Greater expectations for relationship success are equally imposed on women in Nigeria. The consequence of socialization to gender-demeaning values is the propensity to endorse beliefs supportive of violence against women.

7.2. Effects of Country on Gender Beliefs and Stereotypes

As hypothesized, country also had differential effects on gender beliefs and stereotypes, with respondents in Nigeria being more likely to endorse sexual submissiveness of women, emotional stereotypes about women, and sexual stereotypes about men than respondents in the United States or South Africa. Similarly, it was found that respondents in the United States were less likely to endorse emotional stereotypes about women and sexual stereotypes about men than respondents in South Africa. These findings are consistent with previous findings regarding the high propensity of respondents from Nigeria to endorse gender beliefs and stereotypical assumptions about women and men (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a; Fakunmoju et al., 2016c). They are also consistent with the lower propensity of respondents in the United States to endorse stereotypical beliefs and attitudes when compared to other countries (Grandin and Lupri, 1997; Nguyen et al., 2013).

Amid several factors, cultural explanations may be offered for these findings. Specifically, cultural explanations may be attributed to cultural and religious beliefs about intimate relationships in patriarchal societies in developing countries. In social and marital relationship in Nigeria and South Africa, for instance, submissiveness of women to men is the norm (Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005; Hargreaves et al., 2006; Choi and Ting, 2008). Social and cultural arrangements about marriage predispose women to being viewed as personal property rather than as partners to men. Because adherents of Christianity see divorce as unscriptural and owing to low status accorded divorced women in Nigerian society, many women risk and tolerate pain, injury, or death to remain in marriage rather than to seek divorce. Thus, the expectation of sexual submissiveness of women to men underlies the sexual vulnerability of women, influences women’s ideologies about intimate relationship, and inspires sexual violence against women by men. The consequence of socialization to sexual submissiveness of women is the propensity to endorse sexually demeaning beliefs about women and sexually supportive stereotypes about men.

Ironically, because “sexual violence is likely to occur more commonly in cultures that foster beliefs of perceived male superiority and social and cultural inferiority of women” (Kalra and Bhugra, 2013) endorsement of sexual stereotypes about men is to be expected in such societies as well. It is for this reason that knowledge about sexual stereotypes about men is particularly crucial to understanding sexual violence against women. For instance, a common excuse for sexual violence against women is the belief about the sexual insatiability of men and general assumptions about men’s inability to control their sexual urges under certain circumstances (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a; Fakunmoju et al., 2016b). Such assumptions that men are sexual and women must be sexually submissive presuppose that women must sexually accommodate the sexual insatiability of men (Fakunmoju et al., 2016a; Fakunmoju et al., 2016c). Expectedly, this reasoning has implications for understanding the high propensity of people in societies less exposed to egalitarian values to endorse sexual and emotional stereotypes and beliefs about women and men. It also has implications for understanding the low propensity of people in societies (e.g., United States) with legal commitments to gender equality and egalitarian principles to endorse gender beliefs and stereotypes.

The second possible explanation for these differences may be derived from theoretical development of gender stereotypes. In patriarchal societies where subjugation of women is pervasive (Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005; Hargreaves et al., 2006) men enjoy unrestrained sexual expression, which is primarily sustained by proviolence beliefs and stereotypes against women. In the same societies where the voice of women is suppressed, adaptive emotional responses of women to oppressive norms are often critiqued with stereotypical assumptions. In such societies, gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes derived from perceived attributes of men and women, while lacking biological validation, often become psychologically assimilated. Although such assimilation may vary by society’s degree of patriarchy and commitment to egalitarian principles, it has implications for cross-national differences to the extent that a society that is deeply entrenched in patriarchy may be more likely to endorse gender beliefs and stereotypes than a society committed to gender egalitarianism. Thus, endorsement of gender beliefs and stereotypes tends to decrease with increase in societal integration of egalitarian values.

7.3. Effects of Gender on Gender-Based Violence Beliefs

As hypothesized, gender had effects on gender-based violence beliefs, with male respondents more likely than female respondents to endorse psychological manipulation and control of women. This finding is consistent with previous cross-cultural findings regarding the likelihood of men to endorse gender-based violence beliefs and attitudes at a higher level than women (Nayak et al., 2003; Nguyen et al., 2013; Fakunmoju et al., 2016a; Fakunmoju et al., 2016b; Fakunmoju et al., 2016c). Specifically, the finding is consistent with the power and control hypothesis underlying violence against women by men (Dutton and Starzomski, 1997; Kaura and Allen, 2004; Choi and Ting, 2008) suggesting that psychological manipulation and control may be deemed a mechanism of coercion that men use to subjugate women in intimate relationships. Power differences and dissatisfaction with relationship power have been associated with violence in relationships (Felson and Messner, 2000; Pulerwitz et al., 2000; Kaura and Allen, 2004).

To comprehend the propensity of men to endorse psychological manipulation and control, reference is made to the preceding cultural, religious, and theoretical explanations. Because patriarchy ascribes power to men by default—power to which men feel entitled (Jewkes, 2002) the tendency of men to utilize psychological manipulation and control to maintain relationship power is strong. Thus, it is possible that gender differences in power and location in the social structures (Hunnicutt, 2009) have a strong influence on men’s stronger propensity to endorse psychological manipulation and control of women than that reported among women.

In general, findings and related explanations support the notion of (a) “examining differences within the larger sociocultural context of political, historical, religious, and economic influences on attitudes toward gender roles and violence against women” (Nayak et al., 2003) and that (b) multidimensional manifestations of patriarchy, men’s location in the social structure, divergence of structure and ideology, hierarchal structure and power dynamics in patriarchal systems may have differential effects on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes.

7.4. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

This study has both strengths and limitations. A major strength of the study is its being the first known one to examine gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes between developed and developing countries with a focus on testing the theoretical relevance of varieties of patriarchy. By providing a preliminary support to the possibility that various patriarchal structures and ideologies may have different effects on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes, the findings have implications for theory, policy, and international transfer of knowledge. Because “strong policy is derived from good theory” (Hunnicutt, 2009) the study’s validation of varieties of patriarchy may be deemed as the right steps in the direction of cross-cultural policy on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes. Similarly, the use of the online method to collect data enhanced anonymity and promoted wider coverage, both of which have implications for validity of findings.

Despite the strengths, some limitations are notable. While enhancing anonymity and wider coverage and helping to minimize response bias and data entry errors, only respondents with access to the Internet (particularly residing in urban and semi-urban areas) were able to participate in the survey in two of the countries. Gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes of persons with access to the Internet may differ significantly from those of persons without access to the Internet. Similarly, a majority of the respondents appeared to be fairly educated. Gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes among the less educated may provide additional insight that would put findings in the proper perspective. Finally, available knowledge about respondents’ victimization and perpetration experience would have provided additional lens by which findings could be viewed.

7.5. Implications for Theory, Practice, and Research

Through cross-national comparisons, the current findings highlight how exposure to patriarchal structures may have differential effects on gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes. By identifying similarities and differences across countries, it becomes possible to conceive patriarchy from a multidimensional perspective and to understand its differential effects on proviolence beliefs and stereotypes. Similarly, given the greater influence of religion and patriarchy in Nigeria (Oyediran and Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005; Dogo, 2014) and its respondents’ propensity to endorse gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes compared to respondents in other countries, awareness-raising and advocacy efforts against proviolence beliefs and stereotypes may be necessary. Stronger emphasis on human rights and egalitarian principles than on religious values and beliefs will increase the sensitivity necessary for protecting vulnerable women and help to reshape the mindset of people while addressing underlying proviolence beliefs and practices. Similar strengths-based measures (e.g., empowerment and policy changes) aimed at improving partner violence (Assay et al., 2016) may help to bring proviolence beliefs and stereotypes on par with other regions of the world.

Although endorsement of proviolence beliefs and stereotypes may not necessarily translate into perpetration of partner violence, future studies will benefit from comparing beliefs and stereotypes with perpetration or propensity to perpetrate partner violence. Such studies may also consider victimization experience for the purpose of identifying possible connections with beliefs and stereotypes. The extent to which the identified relationships vary across countries will provide clarification regarding differential effects of exposure to varieties of patriarchal structures. Moreover, a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative interview with structured survey instruments will provide insight on contexts, meanings, and motives, as well as thoughts, perceptions, and feelings associated with proviolence beliefs and stereotypes against women. In conclusion, the findings presuppose that varieties of patriarchy (Hunnicutt, 2009) have implications for gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes, such that a low-development patriarchal society will demonstrate a higher propensity to endorse gender-based violence beliefs and stereotypes than a very high or medium development patriarchal society.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Contributors/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Abrahams, N., R. Jewkes, R. Laubscher and M. Hoffman, 2006. Intimate partner violence: Prevalence and risk factors for men in Cape Town, South Africa. Violence and Victims, 21(2): 247-264.View at Publisher

Assay, S.M., J. DeFrain, M. Metzger and B. Moyer, 2016. Implementing a strengths-based approach to intimate partner violence worldwide. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3): 349-360. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Berkel, L., B. Vandiver and A. Bahner, 2004. Gender role attitudes, religion, and spirituality as predictors of domestic violence attitudes in white college students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2): 119-133. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Chang, L., 1999. Gender role egalitarian attitudes in Beijing, Hong Kong, Florida, and Michigan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(6): 722-741.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Choi, S.Y.P. and K.F. Ting, 2008. Wife beating in South Africa: An imbalance theory of resources and power. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(6): 834-852. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Chon, D.S., 2013. Test of impacts of gender equality and economic development on sexual violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6): 603-610.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Cousineau, M. and G. Rondeau, 2004. Toward a transnational and cross-cultural analysis of family violence: Issues and recommendations. Violence Against Women, 10(8): 935-949. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Cusack, S. and R.J. Cook, 2013. Gender stereotyping: A priority issue in the campaign to eliminate gender-based violence against women. Retrieved from http://www.womenenabled.org .

Das, A. and S.K. Singh, 2014. Changing men: Challenging stereotypes-reflections on working with men on gender issues in India. IDS Bulletin, 45(1): 69-79. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Davis, T. and D. Liddell, 2002. Getting inside the house: The effectiveness of a rape prevention program for college fraternity men. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1): 35-50. View at Google Scholar 

Dogo, S.A., 2014. The Nigerian patriarchy: When and how. Cultural and Religious Studies, 2(5): 263-275. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Doku, D.T. and K.O. Asante, 2015. Women’s approval of domestic physical violence against wives: Analysis of the Ghana demographic and health survey. BMC Women’s Health, 15(1): 120. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Dutton, D.G. and A.J. Starzomski, 1997. Personality predictors of the Minnesota power and control wheel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(1): 70-82. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Esqueda, C.W. and L.A. Harrison, 2005. The influence of gender role stereotypes, the woman’s race, and level of provocation and resistance on domestic violence culpability attributions. Sex Roles, 53(11-12): 821-834. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Fakunmoju, S., F. Bammeke, F.A.D. Oyekanmi, B. George, S. Rasool and T.A. Lachiusa, 2016c. Attribution of blame to victim and attitudes toward partner violence: Cross-national comparisons across the United States, South Africa, and Nigeria. International Journal of Gender & Women’s Studies, 3(2): 76-92. View at Google Scholar 

Fakunmoju, S., F. Bammeke, F.A.D. Oyekanmi, S. Temilola and B. George, 2016a. Development, validity, and reliability analyses of beliefs about relationship violence against women scale and gender stereotypes and beliefs scale. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 6(1): 58-79. View at Google Scholar 

Fakunmoju, S., F. Bammeke, F.A.D. Oyekanmi, S. Temilola and B. George, 2016b. Psychometric properties of the beliefs about relationship violence against women scale and gender stereotypes and beliefs scale. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(3): 246-258.

Felson, R.B. and S.F. Messner, 2000. The control motive in intimate partner violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1): 86-94. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Fernandez, M., 2006. Cultural beliefs and domestic violence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(1): 250-260. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Fidan, A. and H.N. Bui, 2015. Intimate partner violence against women in Zimbabwe. Violence Against Women: 1-25. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Gilbert, P.R., 2002. Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 8(11): 1271-1300. View at Google Scholar 

Glick, P., S.T. Fiske, A. Mladinic, J.L. Saiz, D. Abrams and B. Masser, 2000. Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5): 763 775. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Grandin, E. and E. Lupri, 1997. Intimate violence in Canada and the United States: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Domestic Violence, 12(4): 417-443. View at Google Scholar 

Greenbaum, U.L., 1994. Culture and violence: The interaction of Africa and America. Sex Roles, 31(3): 185-204. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Griffith, S.M., C. Negy and D. Chadee, 2006. Trinidadian and U.S. citizens’ attitudes toward domestic violence and their willingness to intervene. Does culture make a difference? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6): 761-778. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Gruber, S. and M. Szołtysek, 2012. Quantifying patriarchy: An explorative comparison of two joint family societies. Retrieved from http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2012-017.pdf .

Gruber, S. and M. Szoltysek, 2014. The patriarchy index: A comparative study of power relations across historic Europe. Retrieved from http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2014-007.pdf.

Hargreaves, S., L. Vetten, V. Schneider, L. Malepe and R. Fuller, 2006. Marriage is like sitting on red coals: A case study of domestic violence in four villages of the Moretele District, Tshwane metropole. Johannesburg: Union of South Africa: Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Hunnicutt, G., 2009. Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15(5): 553-573. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

IBM, C., 2011. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Jayachandran, S., 2015. The roots of gender inequality in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics, 7(1): 63-88. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Jewkes, R., 2002. Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet, 359(9315): 1423-1429. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Kalra, G. and D. Bhugra, 2013. Sexual violence against women: Understanding cross-cultural intersections. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(3): 244-249. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Kaura, S.A. and C.M. Allen, 2004. Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(5): 576-588. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Khan, A. and R. Hussain, 2008. Violence against women in Pakistan: Perceptions and experiences of domestic violence. Asian Studies Review, 32(2): 239-253. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Kunnuji, M.O.N., 2015. Experience of domestic violence and acceptance of intimate partner violence among out-of-school adolescents girls in Iwaya community, Lagos State. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4): 543-564. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Lewis, I.M., B.C. Watson and K.M. White, 2009. Internet versus paper-and-pencil survey methods in psychological experiments: Equivalence testing of participant responses to health-related messages. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(2): 107-116. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Marrie-Marthe, C. and R. Gilles, 2004. Toward a transnational and cross-cultural analysis of family violence. Violence Against Women, 10(8): 935-949. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

McKee, J.R., 2014. Patriarchal ideology and violence against women: A theoretical contribution using longitudinal, individual-level analyses. Doctoral Dissertation.

Nayak, M., C. Byrne, M. Martin and A. Abraham, 2003. Attitudes towards violence against women: A cross-nation study. Sex Roles, 49(7): 333-342. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Nguyen, T.T., Y. Morinage, I.H. Frieze, J. Cheng, M. Li, A. Doi, T. Hirai and C. Li, 2013. College students’ perceptions of intimate partner violence: A comparative study of Japan, China, and the United States. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 7(2): 261-273. View at Google Scholar 

Olatunji, B.O., C. Ebesutani and E.H. Kim, 2015. Examination of a bifactor model of the three domains of disgust scale: Specificity in relation to obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Psychological Assessment, 27(1): 102-113. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Oyediran, K.A. and U.C. Isiugo-Abanihe, 2005. Perceptions of Nigerian women on domestic violence: Evidence from 2003 Nigeria demographic and health survey. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 9(2): 38-53. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Pratto, F., J. Sidanius, L.M. Stallworth and B.F. Malle, 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4): 741-763. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Pretorius, G., M. Molefe and R.H. Sklar, 2014. Intimate partner abuse of educated, employed black South African women: Sociocultural factors. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(5): 427-432. View at Google Scholar 

Pulerwitz, J., S.L. Gortmaker and W. DeJong, 2000. Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42(7-8): 637-660. View at Google Scholar 

Scarduzio, J.A., K.E. Carlyle, K.L. Harris and M.W. Savage, 2016. Maybe she was provoked: Exploring gender stereotypes about male and female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 22(12): 1-25. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Schafer, J.L. and J.W. Graham, 2002. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2): 147-177. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Shaefor, B. and C. Horejs, 2012. Techniques and guidelines for social work practice. 9th Edn., Boston: Pearson.

Sidanius, J. and F. Pratto, n.d. Social dominance theory. Retrieved from https://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/researchareasofstaff/isppsummeracademy/instructors%20/Sidanius%20&%
20Pratto,%20in%20press.pdf.

Stanton, J.M., 1998. An empirical assessment of data collection using the internet. Personnel Psychology, 51(3): 709-725. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

UNDP, n.d.b. Human development index (HDI). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi .

UNDP, n.d.c. H`uman development reports (Table 5: Gender Inequality Index). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GII .

UNDP, n.d.d. Table 2: Trends in the human development index, 1990-2014. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/trends .

United Nations Development Programme, n.d.a. Gender inequality index (GII). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii .

Walker, L.E., 1999. Psychology and domestic violence around the world. American Psychologist, 54(1): 21-29. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Watto, S.A., 2009. Conventional patriarchal ideology of gender relations: An inexplicit predictor of male physical violence against women in families. European Journal of Scientific Research, 36(4): 561-569. View at Google Scholar 

Weigold, A., I.K. Weigold and E.J. Russell, 2013. Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychological Methods, 18(1): 53-70. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Yu, P.Y., 2011. Investigating perceptions of domestic violence in the United States of America and Taiwan. (Master’s Thesis). Emporia State University, Emporia, KS.

Zakar, R., M.Z. Zakar and A. Kraemer, 2013. Men’s beliefs and attitudes toward intimate partner violence against in Pakistan. Violence Against Women, 19(2): 246-268. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher