English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Popular theory understands intimate partner violence (IPV) as gendered, and stresses the integral role of a patriarchal society and approval of male to female aggression in the aetiology of men’s IPV to women. This thesis set out to explore this hypothesis using a gender inclusive methodology, and examines the relationship between participants’ approval of men’s and women’s use of controlling behaviours and physical violence in heterosexual intimate relationships. Undergraduate university students (N = 515) completed an online questionnaire about their use and experience of aggression and controlling behaviours, and their beliefs about dating violence. Bivariate analyses found that conflict tactics and controlling behaviours were perpetrated and experienced at equal rates by the sexes. ANOVA found that male and female participants approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence when the aggressor was provoked via infidelity or physical violence, indicating a collective chivalrous belief pattern. Violent students also approved of male and female violence significantly more than non-violent students. Applying Johnson's (1999) typological approach, latent profile analysis found that 77.7% of violent relationships could be classed as Situational Couple Violence (SCV), 10.4% as Coercive Controlling Violence (CCV), 2.1% as Violent Resistant (VR), and 9.8% as Mutual Violent Control (MVC). Bivariate analysis revealed a greater frequency of women than men in the SCV group (n = 92, 61%) with a small effect; no other significant differences were found between the groups. ANOVA also found that the typology groups approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence with CCV men endorsing the highest approval of male and female violence. Further research is required to determine why this group hold high approval in general compared to other groups. The need for interventions to address the approval of a person’s own violence and approval of their partner’s violence is discussed in addition to implications for theory, practice, and policy.

Investigating the Relationship between Approval, and Experiences of Physical Violence and Controlling Behaviours in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships