But, who is the victim here? Exploring judgments towards hypothetical bidirectional domestic violence scenarios

Gendered models of abuse describe intimate partner violence (IPV) as unilaterally perpetrated by dominant, aggressive men towards vulnerable women. This unidirectional conceptualization has contributed to a “domestic violence stereotype” which, alongside broader attitudes regarding gender, influences attitudes towards ‘non-typical’ victim and perpetrator groups (e.g., male victims, female perpetrators, those within same-sex relationships), and has significant outcomes for help-seeking decision-making, as well as responses from service providers and the criminal justice system. Whilst prevalence data and research suggest bidirectional violence is in fact the most common pattern (e.g., see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012), there is still little known about how the stereotypes and attitudes described above manifest in scenarios where both parties occupy ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ labels. The present pilot study therefore asked 178 undergraduate students to allocate ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ labels, and make judgments of severity, resolution and justice outcomes, towards hypothetical opposite-sex IPV scenarios varying on the proportion of abuse perpetrated by each party, and type of violence. Results showed that participants were reluctant to label men as ‘victims’, and women as ‘perpetrators’, across scenarios. They were also less likely to recommend that the man should call the police. These exploratory results therefore suggest that powerful stereotypes about IPV and gender may serve to influence perceptions of bidirectional violence and point to a need to study this issue in more detail in order to elucidate the most appropriate way to begin to address these issues.