Investigating the Relationship Between Approval and Experiences of Intimate Partner Aggression in Heterosexual Relationships

This study explored the relationship between participants’ approval of intimate partner aggression (IPA) and their experiences of IPA in heterosexual relationships. Male (n = 216) and female (n = 299) university students completed an online questionnaire that consisted of the Conflict Tactic Scale-2, the Controlling Behaviours Survey-revised, and the Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale. Bivariate analyses showed the majority of aggressive and controlling behaviours were perpetrated and experienced at similar rates between men and women. ANOVA found an interaction effect where both male and female participants held greater approval of female-to-male aggression, compared to male-to-female aggression, when provoked by physical, sexual, or psychological aggression, or infidelity. An interaction between participants’ gender and the aggressors’ gender in the vignettes showed men were significantly more approving of female aggression than women. ANOVA also demonstrated a main effect of perpetration status (aggressive/non-aggressive), where aggressive students approved of IPA more than non-aggressive students, regardless of the participant’s or the aggressor’s gender. These findings show that participants, especially male participants, hold chivalrous beliefs about IPA in heterosexual relationships. Although this chivalrous pattern also held for aggressive participants, aggressive men and women both displayed significantly higher approval of aggression by both male and female perpetrators than non-aggressive controls. Therefore, this study found perpetrators of IPA not only approve of aggression by their own gender significantly more than non-aggressors, but also tolerate aggression by the opposite gender more readily. The need for treatment to address beliefs that approve of IPA by both partners in heterosexual relationships, rather than gender specific beliefs, is discussed alongside other implications for practice and policy.