Although victim and perpetrator gender are proposed to influence legally relevant decision-making in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is limited research into factors that may influence decision-making in ‘non-prototypical’ cases of IPV, such as that which occurs between same-sex partners. While research conducted in other contexts suggests that stereotypes about sexual orientation and gender-roles impact perceptions of others (Levahot & Lambert, 2007), the influence of these stereotypes on decision-making in same-sex IPV has not been widely considered. Rather, within the same-sex IPV literature it is suggested that characterisations of same-sex IPV are based on heterosexual gender stereotypes simply applied to same-sex partnerships (Terrance & Little, 2010). However, whether this is an accurate representation of these relationships has not been empirically evaluated. Further, it is unclear precisely how the application of these stereotypes impacts third-party perceptions of same-sex IPV. Research exploring the impact of gender stereotypes on the evaluation of same-sex IPV has produced inconsistent results (Russell & Kraus, 2016; Wasarhaley, et al., 2015). Given that the referral of IPV cases (as with other cases) through the legal system is based on beliefs about how others may perceive the case and evidence (Lievore, 2004), it is important to examine the extent to which stereotypes about gender and sexual orientation influence legal decisions in cases of same-sex IPV.
This thesis draws on social psychological theories of stereotyping to investigate people's decision-making processes and legally-relevant judgements about same-sex IPV. Using a mixed-methods approach comprising qualitative and experimental studies, I draw on the cognitive optimiser approach to stereotyping (Macrae, et al., 1994), Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Diekman, 2005) and Status Incongruity Hypothesis (SIH) (Moss-Racusin, et al., 2010), to first establish the stereotypes drawn on when making judgments about these kinds of cases, and then to examine how and why people respond negatively to victims of IPV who deviate from stereotypic gender expectations. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of the existing literature in the areas of same-sex IPV, and IPV more generally, and identifies the key theoretical constructs relevant to the current program of research. Chapter 2 reports two qualitative studies aimed at identifying the societal beliefs that exist about different-sex and same-sex relationships, without (N = 170) and with IPV (N =251). Results show that stereotypes about partners within same-sex relationships differ when viewed in the context of violence. In relationships without violence, the dominant stereotypes reflect gender inverse, gender typical, and heterosexual gender roles. However, in relationships with violence, the focus shifts to gender typical stereotypes, which appear to influence the perceived severity of the abuse. These findings suggest that examining the impact of gender typical stereotypes may provide clarity around how people perceive, and respond to, same-sex IPV.
In Chapter 3 we present the first experimental study (N = 168), which draws on the cognitive optimiser approach to stereotyping (Macrae et al., 1994) to explore the role of gender-related stereotypes and strength of evidence on legally-relevant decision making in cases of same-sex IPV. The results of Chapter 3 show that, stereotypes associated with the victim and perpetrator's gender differentially impact perceptions of severity, guilt, and the stereotypicality of the violence. Specifically, male perpetrators are more likely to be viewed as guilty than female perpetrators. However, violence against men was perceived as less severe than violence against women, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, or the type of violence perpetrated. These findings further highlight the importance of investigating the role of traditional gender stereotypes on perceptions of same-sex IPV.
Chapter 4 details three experimental studies (N = 269, N = 934, N = 732) that replicate the finding that male victims of IPV are perceived more negatively that female victims of IPV, regardless of the perpetrator’s gender. I draw on Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Diekman, 2005) and the SIH (Moss-Racusin, et al., 2010), to examine how and why people engage in ‘backlash’, -- that is, respond negatively to victims of IPV-- who deviate from stereotypic gender expectations. Chapter 4 demonstrates - for the first time - that backlash against male victims of IPV is a reaction to perceived threats to the gender hierarchy. Further, I find that those who more strongly endorse male role norms (i.e., cultural expectations and definitions of masculine behaviour) judge both male and female victims of IPV in same-sex relationships more negatively than those in different-sex relationships. Finally, Chapter 5 summarises the results of the program of research, discusses the findings in relation to the existing literature, and offers directions for further work in this area. The work presented in this thesis highlights the pivotal role that the endorsement of traditional gender-role beliefs play in the perception of, and responses to, same-sex IPV. This research provides a foundation from which methods to diminish the impact of these extra-legal beliefs in real-world cases can be developed.