New research challenges gendered perceptions of domestic abuse
A new study by the University of Portsmouth has questioned whether judgments of partner abuse are ‘rose-tinted’ towards women.
The research reveals that longstanding gendered views of intimate partner violence and abuse (IPV/A) significantly influence how victims and perpetrators are perceived in cases where both partners engage in violence.
Gendered views affect not only public opinion but also professional judgments in legal and forensic contexts, potentially leading to biased outcomes for men and women in violent relationships.
Historically, domestic abuse has been understood as a predominantly male-perpetrated crime against female victims – as an instrument of male control over female partners. However, contemporary reviews show that both partners engaging in violence is the most common form of IPV/A. Despite this, as the study highlights, traditional views persist.
Published in the Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, the study used an online survey containing a vignette depicting an incident of IPV/A between a fictional couple (‘Kelly’ and ‘Mark’) and then 12 related questions. A total 141 people from the general public completed the task. In a follow-up phase, the research also facilitated a discussion with 11 prospective trainee forensic psychologists who had seen the vignette.
The study found that while many participants recognised the bidirectional nature of the violence scenarios presented, gender biases still influenced their judgments. Specifically, ‘Mark’ was rarely labelled as the sole victim, even when suffering the majority of the abuse, and ‘Kelly’ was seldom labelled as the perpetrator, even when she perpetrated most of the violence.
Dr Dominic Pearson, Associate Professor in Clinical Research and Practice in Forensic Psychology, says: “Many participants fell back on familiar narratives about gender when assigning blame or determining who might be at greater risk. Our findings reveal that these biases aren’t just a matter of public perception, they’re also shaping the perspectives of those entering forensic and legal fields. That’s a critical point for how we train professionals and approach IPV/A assessments.”
The study’s results also showed significant differences in the perceived seriousness of injuries depending on gender. Injuries to female victims were often considered more severe, even when the nature of violence was the same. This finding aligns with social perceptions linking femininity with vulnerability and masculinity with strength.
One respondent said: “There’s a tendency to perceive women’s violence as reactive or defensive, while men’s violence is viewed as more aggressive or dominant.”
These views were also present among future forensic professionals, indicating that professional training may need to address these biases directly.
“The biases observed in this study are deeply ingrained”, explains Dr Pearson. “Addressing them requires not only awareness but active training that challenges professionals to recognise and adjust for these gendered assumptions.”
The paper says these findings underscore a critical need to incorporate critical discussion of gendered constructions in both public education and professional training on IPV/A. Forensic professionals play a crucial role in legal outcomes for domestic violence cases, and addressing inherent biases could promote fairer, more balanced judgments.
Dr Pearson adds: “Intimate partner violence is complex, and approaching it with rigid gendered assumptions risks undermining victims’ experiences and needs. Recognising and addressing biases in IPV/A assessments is essential to ensuring equal treatment for all.”