$

£ ¥€
social sciences
Article
Gender-Based Violence and Sexism among Young Couples
Inés María Muñoz-Galiano 1 , Gracia González-Gijón 2 , Nazaret Martínez-Heredia 2, *
and Erika González García 2

1 Pedagogy Department, University of Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain; [email protected]

2 Pedagogy Department, Universidad of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; [email protected] (G.G.-G.);
[email protected] (E.G.G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This study aims to characterise the prevalence of violence in intimate relationships among
young university students and the internalisation of ambivalent sexism. The method used was a
quantitative, descriptive study of Primary Education and Early Childhood Education groups in
Andalusia, Spain. The final sample consisted of 848 participants. As a data collection tool, we used
the VIREPA questionnaire and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. The results show that the most
frequent forms of violence in young couples’ relationships are emotional, followed by physical and
sexual violence, and emotional violence, followed by physical and psychological violence, with sexual
aggression being slightly lower. Concerning the variable sex, although the averages are very close,
women have higher averages in terms of emotional, physical, and psychological abuse; personal
devaluation; and sexual abuse, while men have higher averages in terms of social and economic
control. In addition, low levels of sexism were found to be ambivalent in the sample, with the results
being highly differentiated by gender, with men having higher arithmetic means than women. This
led us to design educational strategies that avoid inequalities between men and women and that
contribute to the eradication of sexism and, consequently, the perpetration of violence.

Keywords: violence among couples; ambivalent sexism; young people; university

Citation: Muñoz-Galiano, Inés María,

Gracia González-Gijón, Nazaret
1. Introduction
Martínez-Heredia, and Erika
González García. 2024. Gender-Based Violence, in general, is a social scourge present in all societies, regardless of age, sex,
Violence and Sexism among Young ethnicity, or educational level (Gallardo López and Gallardo Vázquez 2019; Madrona-Bonastre
Couples. Social Sciences 13: 179. et al. 2023). During the last few decades, there has been a worrying increase in cases of violence
https://doi.org/10.3390/ among couples as a means of resolving conflicts (Díaz-Aguado et al. 2013; Pazos et al. 2014;
socsci13030179 Rubio-Garay et al. 2019), referring to the methods of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse
inflicted by one party to induce a state of compliance in and attain dominance over the other
Academic Editor: Robert L. Peralta
person. Partner violence can manifest and be exercised in different typologies, situations, or
Received: 19 January 2024 contexts (González-Gijón and Soriano-Díaz 2021; Soriano 2011).
Revised: 13 March 2024 The most recent research focuses on the violence exercised among younger couples,
Accepted: 19 March 2024 as it increases in adolescence, with a high rate occurring between 20 and 25 years of age
Published: 21 March 2024 (Garrido Antón et al. 2020; O’Leary and Slep 2011; Rubio-Garay et al. 2017). Furthermore,
at this stage, evolutionary behaviours are acquired in terms of the ways of interacting in
romantic relationships that will most likely continue into adulthood (González-Ortega et al.
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
2008; Paíno-Quesada et al. 2020; Van de Bongardt et al. 2015; Wekerle and Wolfe 1999).
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Some studies point out the importance of considering some risk factors that are
This article is an open access article involved in the perpetuation of violent behaviour in relationships, including the acceptance
distributed under the terms and of violence, sexism, and jealousy (Muñoz-Ponce et al. 2020; Muñoz-Rivas et al. 2015). Sexism
conditions of the Creative Commons is understood as an attitude through which both behaviours are prescribed, behaviours
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// such as the way people relate based on biological sex (Bonilla-Algovia 2021; Carretero
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and Nolasco 2019; Lameiras 2002). These behaviours are considered to lead to an attitude
4.0/). of prejudice towards the female sex and, as a consequence, constitute a causal factor of

Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030179 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci

Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 2 of 12

violence against women and one of the main manifestations of inequality between the sexes
(López-Sáez et al. 2019). Also, ambivalent sexism, according to Glick and Fiske (1996) and
Martín-Fernández et al. (2018), is a multidimensional construction that includes hostile and
benevolent attitudes that promote the preservation of traditional gender roles to ensure the
maintenance of a patriarchal social structure, with hostile sexism being the most prevalent
explicit prejudice against women exhibited by men (Formiga et al. 2002; López-Sáez et al.
2019; Rodríguez del Pino and Jabbaz 2022). Benevolent sexism consists of the idealisation
of women as figures associated with motherhood, protection, respect, etc., assigning them
the position of romantic objects. This manifests as a positive-negative attitude with the
objective of having control over women and considering them inferior to men (Janos and
Espinosa 2018; Rodríguez et al. 2009).
This is how the affective elements that represent ambivalent sexism can be considered
tools for silencing and normalising violence and making it invisible, making it difficult to
understand the magnitude of its impact on the lives of the victims and the possibility of
criminalising violence (Velázquez 2003).
Research on sexism shows that, although progress has been made in recent decades
regarding equality between men and women, sexist attitudes still persist in society (Herrero
et al. 2017) and among young Spaniards (Aguaded 2017; Alonso-Martínez et al. 2022; Azorín
Abellán 2017; Esteban and Fernández 2017; García-Díaz et al. 2020; León and Aizpurúa
2020; Rodríguez del Pino and Jabbaz 2022), and they are linked to violence among young
couples, so they require interventions for prevention.
In this sense, educational institutions can and should play a key role in prevention
to overcome sexism and violence between couples, especially the youngest ones (Agüero
et al. 2017; Gila-Ordóñez and Callejón-Chinchilla 2018; Gallardo López and Gallardo
Vázquez 2019; Gauna et al. 2022). Furthermore, as Álvarez del Cuvillo (2020b) points out,
universities are distinct from other educational institutions due to their size and relative
independence, characterising them to a greater extent as a “miniature society” since social
relationships on university campuses transcend those purely work-related or academic;
they become a conducive space for raising awareness and prevention (p. 45). In fact, all
Andalusian Universities are committed to the eradication of sexism and building more
egalitarian relationships between men and women, thus fulfilling their ultimate purpose:
the comprehensive development of the students and their social functions (Álvarez del
Cuvillo 2020a; Tomé 2017).
From this perspective, it is advisable to consider the university environment a space
in which to develop violence prevention programmes that take into account the different
types of violence, from the most subtle to the serious, and the factors associated with each
of them, i.e., how to resolve conflicts that arise, and different ways to regulate emotions
to prevent more serious types of violence (Castro 2017; Ferreiro 2017; Huerta Mata 2021;
Morlana 2017; Pérez-Dueñas et al. 2023).
Considering the above, this study focuses on identifying the violence suffered and
ambivalent sexism exhibited in relationships between young university students based on
gender in order to analyse perceptions and attitudes towards intimate partner violence.
The results of this research will allow for predicting violent behaviour, designing strategies
and educational measures that avoid inequalities between men and women, and promote
social and psychological mechanisms that overcome the obstacles hindering the eradication
of sexism and consequently violence.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design
A descriptive, quantitative study was conducted. This study was undertaken through
a single group measurement taken with respect to the groups and courses selected from a
probabilistic sampling of the Degree of Primary Education and Early Childhood Education
at the University of Córdoba and the University of Jaén in Andalusia, Spain.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 3 of 12

2.2. Participants
The participating sample was selected through random sampling between all courses
and groups relating to the Primary Education degree and Early Childhood Education
program taught at the University of Córdoba and Jaén University. The sample consisted of
848 participants, of which 215 were men and 630 women, and the majority of participants
were less than 21 years old (N = 454; 53.5%), followed by participants who were between
21 and 24 years old (N = 337; 39.7%) and, finally, the group over 24 years old (N = 54; 6.4%).
Likewise, 352 (41.5%) were seeking an Early Childhood Education degree (41.5%), and 493
(58.1%) were seeking a Primary Education degree. In Table 1, we can see the distribution of
the participants by course.

Table 1. Participant distribution according to course.

Percentage Percentage
Course Frequency Percentage
Valid Accumulated
First 198 23.3 23.4 23.4
Second 300 35.4 35.5 58.9
Valid Third 309 36.4 36.6 95.5
Fourth 38 4.5 4.5 100.0
Total 845 99.6 100.0
Lost System 3 0.4
Total 848 100.0

2.3. Measuring Instruments

The instruments used for this study were the questionnaire developed by González-
Gijón and Soriano-Díaz (2021) and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory created by Glick and
Fiske (1996) and adapted to Spanish by Expósito et al. (1998).
The Violence in Young Couple Relationships Questionnaire (VIREPA), created by
González-Gijón and Soriano-Díaz (2021), comprises two parts: firstly, an analysis of so-
ciodemographic variables divided into demographic factor information about the couples
and their self-perceptions of abuse (victimisation) and the rest of the variables, 20 in to-
tal, that measure the types of abuse that can occur in relationships and are grouped into
5 dimensions, namely, Emotional Abuse, Physical and Psychological Abuse, Personal
Devaluation, Social and Economic Control, and sexual abuse (González-Gijón et al. 2023;
Montero-Fernández et al. 2022). The dimensions according to González-Gijón and Soriano-
Díaz (2021) are defined as follows:
1. Emotional Mistreatment (EM): This dimension allows us to evaluate the form of
psychological abandonment that involves the absence of attention to the affective needs and
moods of a person as well as the form of mistreatment that is exercised through forms of
contempt intended to convince another of their low value as an individual and of the social
value of the other member of the relationship. 2. Physical and Psychological Mistreatment
(PPM): This dimension allows us to detect physical mistreatment defined as any action or
omission, which is not accidental, that causes physical harm to a person or places them at
risk of suffering it; psychological mistreatment is defined as any behaviour that induces
devaluation, suffering, or psychological harm and Münchhaussen Syndrome, which occurs
in situations in which fictitious symptoms and/or pathologies are fabricated or induced,
which are actively generated by the corresponding partner. 3. Personal devaluation
(PD): This form of abuse consists of an attempt to devalue a person’s religious beliefs
and ideological values while emphasising gender roles and stereotypes. 4. Social and
Economic Control (SEC): This dimension refers to social control consisting of surveillance
and obstacles and prohibitions that are put in place in order to hinder or prevent the
interpersonal relationships of a partner, as well as economic control or abuse, understood
as the use, without consent and in an abusive manner, of the objects of one’s partner.
5. Sexual abuse (SA): This dimension refers to the existence of abusive behaviours of a
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 4 of 12

sexual nature, carried out from a position of power, without consent and against the will of
the other partner, as well as the implementation of sexual behaviours that the other person
feels to be degrading and humiliating (pp. 7–8).
The evaluation of the questionnaire is carried out through a Likert-type scale of five
response options (1, Never; 2, Sometimes (1 to 2); 3, Many times (3 to 5); 4, Almost always
(6 or more); and 5, Always). Regarding the reliability of the instrument, it has an Alpha
coefficient, both in general form (α = 0.937), as in the five dimensions, with values greater
than 0.700.
The Omega coefficient also provides high reliability for the total value (ω = 0.908)
and each of the factors, exceeding 0.826. Both indices give the instrument high internal
consistency (González-Gijón and Soriano-Díaz 2021).
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, developed by Glick and Fiske (1996) and translated
into Spanish by Expósito et al. (1998), assesses ambivalent attitudes (both hostile and
benevolent) towards women and whether they are at risk of victimisation. It consists of
22 items with a Likert-type response scale with five alternatives ranging from completely
false (1) to completely true (5). It consists of the following dimensions: Hostile Sexism
and Benevolent Sexism; and these dimensions consist of three sub-dimensions. The first
is Protective Paternalism, which reinforces the belief that women are weaker than and
inferior to men and validates male dominance. The second sub-dimension is Gender
Differentiation, which describes men’s desire to differentiate themselves positively from
women by keeping them in different spheres. Less emphasis is placed on the significance
of heterosexual intimacy, which prioritises relationships with the opposite sex as a means
of attaining happiness (Zubieta et al. 2011). Through the Cronbach’s alpha test, it was
determined that the scale score is indicative of an increased degree of prejudice against
women, with a reliability coefficient of 0.91.

2.4. Procedure
For the gathering of information, ethical considerations in line with the Declaration of
Helsinki were ensured. The confidentiality of data was also guaranteed in accordance with
Organic Law 7/2021, passed on May 26th, which pertains to the protection of personal data
processed to detect, prevent, investigate, and prosecute. This study investigates criminal
offences and the administration of criminal sanctions while ensuring participant anonymity.
To conduct this research, we prepared instruments to be administered in person to each
group, selected via a sampling process, throughout the 2021–2022 academic year.

2.5. Data Analysis

The data analysis was performed using descriptive statistical techniques and non-
parametric inferential tests due to the absence of normal data. The data were previously
checked for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and the result was p < 0.05.
Consequently, the Mann–Whitney U test was applied, with sex as the grouping variable.
To conduct these analyses, we utilised the SPSS v.26 statistical package.

3. Results
We begin this section by describing, based on a general analysis, the data on violence in
the participants’ relationships. The results (Figure 1) offer us information on the arithmetic
means obtained in the dimensions related to the different types of violence analysed
regarding victimisation and show us that the highest means correspond to emotional
abuse (M = 1.33), followed by physical and psychological abuse (M = 1.19) and social and
economic control (M = 1.18). The type of violence least suffered by our participants was
sexual abuse (M = 1.09), closely followed by personal devaluation (M = 1.14).
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179

economic control (M = 1.18). The type of violence least suffered by our participants 5was
of 12
sexual abuse (M = 1.09), closely followed by personal devaluation (M = 1.14).

Typesofofviolence
Figure1.1.Types
Figure violencesuffered.
suffered.

Regardingthe
Regarding themean
meanvalues
valuesobtained
obtainedfor foreach
eachtype
typeofofviolence
violenceconcerning
concerningthethesex
sex
variable, as displayed in Table 2, women have higher arithmetic means than
variable, as displayed in Table 2, women have higher arithmetic means than men in terms men in terms
ofofemotional,
emotional,physical,
physical,and
andpsychological
psychologicalabuse;
abuse;personal
personaldevaluation;
devaluation;andandsexual
sexualabuse.
abuse.
The means are very close between genders, with men scoring higher than women
The means are very close between genders, with men scoring higher than women in social in social
and economic control.
and economic control.
TableOn
2. the
Typesother hand, regarding
of maltreatment thebyanalysis
suffered gender. of the differences in the types of violence
regarding the function of sex, carried out using the Mann–Whitney U test for two inde-
pendent samples
Types of when the
Maltreatment p-valueMales
Suffered is significant
(N = 215)(p < 0.05), we can accept,
Female (N =with
630) 95% confi-
dence, that there are statistically significant
M differences
DT M between
DT men andUwomen inpthe
average value of the social and economic control variable (p = 0.001), wherein men have a
Emotional Abuse 1.29 0.63 1.35 0.73 65407.000 0.680
higher value and
Physical (M =Psychological
1.23) than women (M = 1.16) (Table 2), and in sexual abuse (p = 0.010),
where womenAbuse present a higher value 1.17 0.40 than 1.19
(M = 1.10) men (M 0.52
= 1.05). 64034.000 0.313
Personal devaluation 1.13 0.36 1.14 0.38 66154.500 0.885
TableSocial
2. Types
and of maltreatment
Economic suffered1.23
Control by gender.
0.57 1.16 0.45 58824.000 0.001
Sexual abuse 1.05 0.38 1.10 0.41 62776.500 0.010
Types of Maltreatment Suffered Males (N = 215) Female (N = 630)
M DT M DT U p
On the other hand, regarding the analysis of the differences in the types of violence
Emotional Abuse 1.29 0.63 1.35 0.73 65407.000 0.680
regarding the function of sex, carried out using the Mann–Whitney U test for two indepen-
Physical and Psychological Abuse 1.17 0.40 1.19
dent samples when the p-value is significant (p < 0.05), we can accept, 0.52 with
64034.000 0.313
95% confidence,
Personal
that there devaluation
are statistically 1.13
significant differences 0.36
between 1.14
men and0.38women
66154.500 0.885
in the average
value of the social and economic control variable (p = 0.001), wherein men have a 0.001
Social and Economic Control 1.23 0.57 1.16 0.45 58824.000 higher
Sexual
value (M = 1.23) abuse
than women (M = 1.16)1.05 (Table 2),0.38
and in1.10
sexual0.41
abuse62776.500
(p = 0.010),0.010
where
women present a higher value (M = 1.10) than men (M = 1.05).
Concerning
Concerningthe the internalisation of
ofsexism
sexismamong
amongthe theparticipants,
participants, it can
it can be affirmed
be affirmed that
that
the the sample
sample hadhadlow low levels
levels of ambivalent
of ambivalent sexism.
sexism. However,
However, highest
highest results
results werewere ob-
observed
served in the gender
in the gender differentiation
differentiation subdimension
subdimension (M =followed
(M = 1.04), 1.04), followed by protective
by protective pa-
paternalism
ternalism (M = 0.69)
(M = 0.69) (Figure 2).(Figure 2).
However, the analysis of the data provided by the study participants has revealed
that the male and female university students in this study exhibited varying degrees of
ambivalent sexism based on their gender. There are statistically significant disparities
between male and female individuals in the average values of all the variables related
to sexism, as revealed by this analysis regarding ambivalence towards women (Table 3).
Specifically, in all the dimensions analysed (hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (and,
within the latter, protective paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy)),
men demonstrate higher average arithmetic means than women.
Soc.
Soc.Sci.
Sci.2024,
2024,13,
13,x179
FOR PEER REVIEW 6 6ofof13
12

Theinternalisation
Figure2.2.The
Figure internalisationofofsexism.
sexism.

Table 3. Types ofthe

However, abuse suffered
analysis ofaccording
the data to gender. by the study participants has revealed
provided
that the male and female university students in this study exhibited varying degrees of
Ambivalent Sexism Male (N = 215) Female (N = 630)
ambivalent sexism based on their gender. There are statistically significant disparities be-
tween male and female individuals M DT
in the average M
values of DT U
all the variables relatedp to
sexism, as Hostile
revealed sexism 1.16
by this analysis regarding 0.97 0.68 towards
ambivalence 0.79 women
46260.000 0.000
(Table 3). Spe-
Benevolent sexism 0.90 0.80 0.54 0.53 49671.000
cifically, in all the dimensions analysed (hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (and, 0.000
within Protective
the latter,paternalism 1.01
protective paternalism, 1.00
gender 0.58 0.74
differentiation, and49723.500
heterosexual0.000
inti-
Gender Differentiation 1.16 0.99 1.00 0.97 61287.000 0.038
macy)),Heterosexual
men demonstrate higher
intimacy average
0.58 arithmetic
0.93 means
0.15 than
0.39women.
49546.000 0.000

Table 3. Types of abuse suffered according to gender.

Despite the previously observed low levels of sexism overall, significant differences
Ambivalent
in means based on Sexism
gender remain Male (N = 215)
apparent. Hostile sexismFemale
directed(Nat= women,
630) with a
p-value of 0.010, averaged 1.16 in menM comparedDT to 0.68M in women
DT from the U sample group
p
(refer toHostile sexism
Table 3). 1.16
In the realm of benevolent 0.97
sexism,0.68 0.79 a higher
men exhibit 46260.000 0.000 in
mean value
comparison to women,
Benevolent sexismspecifically concerning
0.90 0.80protective
0.54 paternalism
0.53 (men: 1.01; women:
49671.000 0.000
0.58) and overall (men:
Protective paternalism 0.90; women:
1.01 0.54), with
1.00 a p-value
0.58 of 0.000.
0.74 These
49723.500 results allow
0.000
us to identify
Gender certain behaviours that
Differentiation 1.16 can cause
0.99 women
1.00to become
0.97 victims
61287.000of crime more
0.038
frequently than men.
Heterosexual intimacy 0.58 0.93 0.15 0.39 49546.000 0.000
4. Discussion
Despite the previously observed low levels of sexism overall, significant differences
Thisbased
in means studyon aimed to investigate
gender the experiences
remain apparent. of intimate
Hostile sexism partner
directed violence
at women, withamong
a p-
young university student couples, as well as any examples of
value of 0.010, averaged 1.16 in men compared to 0.68 in women from the sample groupambivalent sexism that
may to
(refer be Table
related 3).to
In gender.
the realmThe findings reveal
of benevolent that,
sexism, although
men exhibit with a low
a higher or very
mean valuelow
in
tendency, emotional maltreatment has the highest mean scores, followed by physical
comparison to women, specifically concerning protective paternalism (men: 1.01; women:
maltreatment and physical abuse. In addition, emotional abuse ranks highest in terms
0.58) and overall (men: 0.90; women: 0.54), with a p-value of 0.000. These results allow us
of average scores, followed by physical and psychological abuse, social and economic
to identify certain behaviours that can cause women to become victims of crime more
control, and psychological abuse. Sexual abuse is the least prevalent type of violence
frequently than men.
among our participants. Thus, it is clear that emotional violence, together with physical
and psychological violence, are the most constant, effective, and widespread forms of
4. Discussion
the exercise of power. Lack of affection, contempt, lack of recognition of a person, and
This study
intimidation andaimed to investigate
humiliation in privatetheorexperiences of intimate
in public, with partner
the aim of violence
undermining among
a person’s
young
self-esteem, are the most frequent forms of violence among couples (Lapierre et al. may
university student couples, as well as any examples of ambivalent sexism that 2019;
be related
Renner et to
al.gender. The findings
2020; Winstok reveal that, although
and Sowan-Basheer 2015). with a low or very low tendency,
emotional
In thismaltreatment
respect, severalhasstudies
the highest
show mean scores,psychological
that, among followed by physical maltreatment
and emotional violence,
and
the physical abuse. Inmost
risk behaviours addition, emotional
frequently abuseby
exercised ranks highest
young in terms
people of average
are insults, scores,
humiliation,
followed by physical
marginalisation, and psychological
jealousy, control, threats,abuse, social and
infidelity, and economic
blackmail,control, and psycho-
and, although these
logical abuse.may
aggressions Sexual
seemabuse is the
obvious toleast
many prevalent typethey
adolescents, of violence amongand
go unnoticed ourare
participants.
not usually
Thus, it is clear
perceived that emotional
as violent, and thereforeviolence, together
importance is with physicaltoand
not attached thepsychological
consequencesvio-that
lence, are the most constant, effective, and widespread forms of the exercise of power.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 7 of 12

arise (Smith et al. 2022; Muñoz-Ponce et al. 2020; Cava and Buelga 2018; Kidman and
Kohler 2020). This type of violence against women has physical, social, and thus emotional
consequences. It can even lead to the development of Stockholm syndrome (Obeid and
Hallit 2018).
Studies have consistently found emotional violence to be the most common form of
abuse amongst young couples, followed by physical and psychological violence (Alarcón-
Vásquez et al. 2022; Hilario Ramos et al. 2020; Paíno-Quesada et al. 2020). Sexual abuse is
slightly less frequent (Garrido Antón et al. 2020).
However, when comparing the results obtained from men and women in terms of
victimisation, it is evident that women experienced various forms of violence. This study
identifies emotional, physical, and psychological abuse; personal devaluation; and sexual
abuse as the prevalent types of violence suffered by women. Only men reported experiencing
violence of the social-and-economic-control type. Previous studies indicate that aggression
is higher in females (Arbach-Lucioni et al. 2015; Elmquist et al. 2016; Guillén Verdesoto et al.
2021), which corresponds with our research findings. However, in relation to the influence
of gender on the results, it cannot be forgotten that this study focuses on seekers of Infant
Education and Primary Education degrees, which are feminised degrees in Spain (Luzón-
Trujillo and Montes-Moreno 2018). In this sense, the results characterise the situation of
intimate partner violence corresponding to people striving to achieve these degrees. The
slight discrepancy in the findings concerning the incidence of sexual violence among young
couples confirms that among young couples, men and women are equally likely to perpetrate
violence (Alegría del Ángel and Rodríguez 2017; Guillén Verdesoto et al. 2021). Furthermore,
recent research demonstrates that intimate partner violence among young couples is typically
bidirectional (Bringas Molleda et al. 2023; Herrero et al. 2020; Lozano-Martínez et al. 2022;
Paíno-Quesada et al. 2020). However, statistically significant differences exist only for the
type of abuse related to social and economic control, where men show a higher value, and
for types of abuse for which women show a higher value. These findings align with earlier
research, for instance, the study by Garrido Antón et al. (2020).
Concerning the internalisation of sexism, the sample exhibited low levels of ambiva-
lent sexism, with the most significant outcomes linked to benevolent sexism regarding
gender differentiation. This refers to the inclination for men to favourably distinguish
themselves from women by keeping them in spheres perceived as different and of lower
importance (Zubieta et al. 2011). Furthermore, paternalistic protector attitudes legitimis-
ing the dominant male figure were observed. From this approach, it is confirmed that
beliefs regarding the difference in status between men and women play a significant role
in the victimisation of women (Agadullina et al. 2022). In this sense, sexism, an ideology
that supports unequal statuses, becomes a crucial factor. This issue becomes relevant for
consideration in the examination of domestic violence among couples.
This analysis demonstrates statistically significant disparities between the genders
concerning ambivalent sexism directed towards women. Therefore, studies have shown
a higher incidence of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism among men (Antonio and
Laca-Arocena 2017; Arnoso et al. 2017; Muñoz-Ponce et al. 2020). Within the context
of benevolent sexism, we observed a greater disparity between genders in terms of the
role of the paternal protector. Numerous studies identify hostile sexism as a predictor
of the attitudes that justify psychological violence ain relationships (Agadullina et al.
2022; Herrero et al. 2020; Martín-Fernández et al. 2018; Ponce-Díaz et al. 2019; Soto
2020). The idea that women’s progress poses a threat to the hierarchical position held
by men, as they aim to control and dominate women in personal, work, and public re-
lationships, is often cited as a justification for psychological violence against women in
relationships (Connor et al. 2016; Glick et al. 2015). In this sense, the purpose of hostile
attitudes is to harm an individual’s self-esteem and limit their liberty to maintain authority.
Rollero et al. (2019) substantiate that the extent of one’s hostile and benevolent sexism is
inversely related to their perceived credibility. Limiting women’s rights and even subjecting
them to humiliation are examples of psychological violence.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 8 of 12

Based on the above, this study demonstrates that gender discrimination is linked
to the victimisation and perpetuation of violence among young couples, with variations
observed according to sex. The identified differences confirm a higher incidence of violence
towards women. Consequently, our results reinforce the significance of addressing sexism
as a strategy for preventing violence in relationships between young people (Carrascosa
et al. 2019; Madrona-Bonastre et al. 2023).
The relevance of this study lies in its identification of emotional violence as the most
frequent form of violence among young couples, as well as the association between sexism
and the maintenance of violence among young couples, and it also indicates the importance
of paying attention to emotions, especially in the educational sphere. Ramírez Hernández
(2020) points out that emotions are culturally and socially shaped, specifically through
their relationship with the intersubjectivity produced through interactions between human
beings in close coexistence. In this sense, emotions are shaped by personal and social
perceptions of the body, whose acceptance or rejection is determined according to certain
established cultural schemes, so if this perception does not conform to these schemes,
stereotypes are generated, which can victimize partners in a relationship and produce
violent attitudes. This idea can justify sexism and its link to intimate partner violence,
which raises the need for a long-term process of cultural transformation to eradicate it
(Kaplan and Szapu 2020).
Studies have found that violence is not a spontaneous or natural phenomenon. In-
stead, men and women deliberately learn to use violent behaviours to harm their partners
(Echeburúa 2019; Ibabe et al. 2020; Salguero-Alcañiz et al. 2023; Zamora-Damián et al. 2018).
Violence in couple relationships tends to begin progressively, with a higher frequency
at early ages (Borrás et al. 2017; Rubio-Garay et al. 2017). In this sense, it is considered
necessary to continue advancing the associated study and analyse how the gender roles
observed in one’s family and peer group influence their perceptions and attitudes towards
intimate partner violence, and it would be interesting to know its relationship with the
socioeconomic and educational levels of one’s family.
Therefore, the study of sexism and violence in relationships between young people is
of great importance due to their prevalence (Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) 2022)
and consequences (Rodríguez et al. 2018) and the stages in which they occur (Kidman
and Kohler 2020). In addition, identifying their prevalence based on gender allows us to
identify a key factor in their incidence and consequently to focus prevention programs.
The findings allow us to draw objective conclusions that aid in creating effective edu-
cational strategies for combating sexism, thus reducing violence and positively impacting
society. It is imperative to overcome the hindrances that obstruct sexism’s eradication.

5. Conclusions
The study allows identifying the violence suffered and ambivalent sexism in relation-
ships between young university students based on gender in order to analyse perceptions
and attitudes towards intimate partner violence. The most frequent form of violence in
young couples’ relationships is emotional, followed by physical and sexual violence, and
emotional violence, followed by physical and psychological violence, with sexual aggres-
sion being slightly lower. Concerning the variable sex, although the averages are very
close, women have higher averages in terms of emotional, physical, and psychological
abuse; personal devaluation; and sexual abuse, and men have higher averages in terms of
social and economic control. In addition, low levels of sexism were found to be ambivalent
in the sample, the results being highly differentiated by gender, with men having higher
arithmetic means than women.
Faced with all this, from the educational perspective, we consider it appropriate to
design new proposals and strategies that can prevent inequalities between men and women.
It is not a question of denying the existing differences between men and women but of
preventing them from being an excuse for the domination of one over the other, hence the
advisability of introducing these issues in a transversal manner in studies, teaching about
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 9 of 12

the identification of violence (physical, sexual, or psychological), increasing knowledge

about this type of mistreatment among young people, and developing emotional education
programmes. It is also important to provide young people with tools and competences
that aid in the use of social networks in their relationships, whether for dating, sexual
partnerships, or other types of relationships (Pérez-Dueñas et al. 2023). The creation of
gender equality bodies, the implementation of specific protocols for dealing with harass-
ment issues, and the implementation of actions that seek to generate knowledge on the
subject and raise awareness among students are some preventive measures that prevent
victimisation and the perpetration of violent behaviour. In this sense, some examples in-
clude programmes and resources that have had a positive impact in the educational sphere
by reducing violent behaviour, raising awareness of gender-based violence, or reducing
emotional aggression (Peskin et al. 2014; Taylor et al. 2010).

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, I.M.M.-G. and E.G.G.; methodology, G.G.-G.; software,

G.G.-G.; validation, G.G.-G.; formal analysis, G.G.-G. and N.M.-H.; investigation, I.M.M.-G.,
G.G.-G., N.M.-H. and E.G.G.; resources, I.M.M.-G., G.G.-G., N.M.-H. and E.G.G.; data curation,
G.G.-G. and N.M.-H.; writing—original draft preparation, I.M.M.-G., G.G.-G., N.M.-H. and E.G.G.;
writing—review and editing, I.M.M.-G., G.G.-G., N.M.-H. and E.G.G.; visualisation, I.M.M.-G.,
G.G.-G., N.M.-H. and E.G.G.; supervision, I.M.M.-G. and N.M.-H.; project administration
G.G.-G.; funding acquisition, G.G.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Junta de Andalucía—Ministry of Economic Transformation,
Industry, Knowledge and Universities, under grant number (P18-RT-1475). This paper is part of
the results of the research project titled “Violence in relationships among students of the Degree in
Early Childhood and Primary Education in Andalucía, Ceuta and Melilla. Study and proposals for
prevention and training in values”.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of University of Granada.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data are unavailable due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
Agadullina, Elena, Andrey Lovakov, Maryana Balezina, and Olga Gulevich. 2022. Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women:
A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology 52: 819–59. [CrossRef]
Aguaded, Eva María. 2017. Análisis de la presencia de sexismo en alumnado universitario. ENSAYOS, Revista de la Facultad de Educación
de Albacete 32: 127–43.
Agüero, Julián, María B. Gauna, and Esteban Agüero. 2017. Perspectiva ecológica de la figura del abusador sexual intrafamiliar a partir
del análisis de un caso. Paper presented at IX Congreso Internacional de Investigación y Práctica Profesional en Psicología XXIV,
Jornadas de Investigación, XIII Encuentro de Investigadores En Psicología Del MERCOSUR, Buenos Aires. p. 6. Available online:
https://www.aacademica.org/000-067/629.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2024).
Alarcón-Vásquez, Yolima, Lilieth De la Cruz, Lauri Arrieta-Fernández, Daniela Figueroa-Chico, Candelaria López-Bosso, and Jaime
Llanos. 2022. Factores asociados a la violencia de pareja en jóvenes universitarios. Tejidos Sociales 1: 1–14.
Alegría del Ángel, Manoella, and Adriana Rodríguez. 2017. Violencia mutua en el noviazgo: Perfil psicosocial víctima-victimario en
universitarios. Psicología y Salud 27: 231–44.
Alonso-Martínez, Laura, Simón Forrest, Davinia Heras-Sevilla, Joannes Hönekopp, and María Fernández-Hawrylak. 2022. Sexual Risk
Behavior, Sexism, and Prejudices Towards Sexual Openness, Homosexuality, and Trans Individuals Among Young People in
Spain and the UK. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 20: 1081–95. [CrossRef]
Antonio, Alejandro C., and Francisco A. Laca-Arocena. 2017. Sexismo ambivalente y estilos de manejo de conflictos en estudiantes de
bachillerato. Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo 8: 182–209. [CrossRef]
Arbach-Lucioni, Karin, Truy Nguyen-Vo, and Antonella Bobbio. 2015. Violencia física en el noviazgo: Análisis de los tipos diádicos en
población argentina. Revista Argentina de Ciencias Del Comportamiento 7: 38–46.
Arnoso, Ainara, Izaskun Ibabe, Maitane Arnoso, and Edurne Elgorriaga. 2017. El sexismo como predictor de la violencia de pareja en
un contexto multicultural. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 27: 9–20. [CrossRef]
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 10 of 12

Azorín Abellán, Cecilia M. 2017. Actitudes hacia la igualdad de género en una muestra de estudiantes de Murcia. Revista Complutense
de Educación 1: 45–60. [CrossRef]
Álvarez del Cuvillo, Antonio. 2020a. El análisis la realidad del acoso sexual y sexista en la Universidad y propuestas de mejora: Un estudio de
caso. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades.
Álvarez del Cuvillo, Antonio. 2020b. La eficacia de las políticas frente al acoso sexual y sexista en la universidad: Marco teórico. In En
análisis la realidad del acoso sexual y sexista en la Universidad y propuestas de mejora: Un estudio de caso. Edited by Antonio Álvarez del
Cuvillo. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades, pp. 21–56.
Bonilla-Algovia, Enrique. 2021. Acceptance of ambivalent sexism in trainee teachers in Spain and Latin American countries. Anales de
Psicología 37: 253–64. [CrossRef]
Borrás, Carmen, Alfonos Palmer, Azucena Hernández, and Joana Llobera. 2017. Socio-cognitive and personal characteristics of juvenile
offenders: A field study. International Journal of Psychological Research 10: 45–52. [CrossRef]
Bringas Molleda, Carolina, Manuel Beltrán Espitia, Yineth Mosquera Ruiz, Javier Herrero Díez, and Francisco J. Rodríguez Díaz. 2023.
Evaluation of Affective Coexistence in Young Afro-Colombians in the Department of Chocó-Colombia. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 20: 1147. [CrossRef]
Carrascosa, Laura, María J. Cava, Sofía Buelga, and Jesús Saúl Neves. 2019. Reduction of sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and
aggressive behaviors in adolescents: Efficacy of the DARSI program. Psicothema 31: 121–27. [CrossRef]
Carretero, Raúl, and Alberto Nolasco. 2019. Sexismo y formación inicial del profesorado. Educar 5: 293–310. [CrossRef]
Castro, Luna. 2017. Violencia de género en la adolescencia: ¿cómo podemos prevenir? Unirevista.es 2: 54–65.
Cava, María Jesús, and Sofía Buelga. 2018. Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de ciber-violencia en parejas adolescentes (Cib-VPA).
Suma Psicológica 25: 51–61. [CrossRef]
Connor, Rachael A., Peter Glick, and Susan Fiske. 2016. Ambivalent Sexism in the 21st Century. In Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology
of Prejudice. Edited by Swathy Sibley and Devika Jayaraj. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 295–320. [CrossRef]
Díaz-Aguado, María José, Rosa Martínez-Arias, and Javier Martín-Babarro. 2013. La evolución de la adolescencia española sobre la igualdad
y la prevención de la violencia de género; Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.
Echeburúa, Enrique. 2019. Crítica de Artículos: Sobre el Papel del Género en la Violencia de Pareja contra la Mujer. Comentario a
Ferrer-Pérez y Bosch-Fiol. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 29: 77–79. [CrossRef]
Elmquist, Joana, Citlin Wolford-Clevenger, H. Zapor, Jeniimarie Febres, Ryan. C. Shorey, Jhon Hamel, and Gregory. L. Stuart. 2016.
A gender comparison of motivations for physical dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31:
186–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Esteban, Beatriz, and Patricia Fernández. 2017. ¿Actitudes sexistas en jóvenes?: Exploración del sexismo ambivalente y neosexismo en
población universitaria. Femeris 2: 137–53. [CrossRef]
Expósito, Francisca, Miguel C. Moya, and Peter Glick. 1998. Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. Revista de Psicología Social 13:
159–69. [CrossRef]
Ferreiro, Lola. 2017. (Co)Educación afectivo-emocional y sexual, para despatriarcalizar la escuela y caminar hacia la igualdad.
Atlánticas. Revista Internacional de Estudios Feministas 2: 134–65. [CrossRef]
Formiga, Nilton. S., Valdineir Gouveia, and Maria Santos. 2002. Inventário de sexismo ambivalente: Sua adaptação e relação com o
gênero. Psicologia em Estudo 7: 103–11. [CrossRef]
Gallardo López, José Alberto, and Pedro Gallardo Vázquez. 2019. Educar en igualdad: Prevención de la violencia de género en la
adolescencia. Revista Educativa Hekademos 26: 31–29.
García-Díaz, Vanesa, Ana Fernández-Feito, Carolina Bringas-Molleda, Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Díaz, and Alberto Lana. 2020.
Tolerance of intimate partner violence and sexist attitudes among health sciences students from three spanish universities. Gaceta
Sanitaria 34: 179–85. [CrossRef]
Garrido Antón, María José, Ana Arribas Rey, Jesús M. de Miguel, and Ángel García-Collantes. 2020. La violencia en las relaciones
de pareja de jóvenes: Prevalencia, victimización, perpetración y bidireccionalidad. Revista Logos Ciencia & Tecnología 12: 8–19.
[CrossRef]
Gauna, Belén, Sandro Comba Javier Chilo, Gabriela Homenuc, Verónica Quiroz, Paulina Rosa, and Antonella Alberon. 2022. Inventario
de estereotipos de género y ejercicio de violencia en varones denunciados por sus parejas. Revista Estudios Psicológicos 2: 22–41.
[CrossRef]
Gila-Ordóñez, Juana María, and María Dolores Callejón-Chinchilla. 2018. Necesidad de trabajar las relaciones de pareja saludable
desde contextos socio-educativos. Sophia 14: 31–38. [CrossRef]
Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating and Hostil Benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 70: 491–512. [CrossRef]
Glick, Peter, Mariah Wilkerson, and Marshall Cuffe. 2015. Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender
subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology 46: 210–17. [CrossRef]
González-Gijón, Gracia, and Andrés Soriano-Díaz. 2021. Análisis psicométrico de una escala para la detección de la violencia en las
relaciones de pareja en jóvenes. RELIEVE 27: 1–17. [CrossRef]
González-Gijón, Gracia, Francisco Javier Jiménez-Ríos, Nazaret Martínez-Heredia, and Andrés Soriano-Díaz. 2023. Study on the types
of abuse in young couples as a function of sex. Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1166834. [CrossRef]
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 11 of 12

González-Ortega, Itxaso, Enrique Echeburúa, and Paz de Corral. 2008. Variables significativas en las relaciones violentas en parejas
jóvenes: Una revisión. Behavioral Psychology 16: 207–25.
Guillén Verdesoto, Ximena, Juana Ochoa Balarezo, Gustavo Delucchi, Eliabeth León Mayer, and Jorge Folino. 2021. Celos y violencia
en parejas de estudiantes de la Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador. Ciencias Psicológicas 15: e-2353. [CrossRef]
Herrero, Juan, Francisco J. Rodríguez, and Andrea Torres. 2017. Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and
attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women 23: 351–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Herrero, Juan, Luis Rodríguez-Franco, Lorena Rejano-Hernándezb, Joel Juarros-Basterretxea, and Francisco J. Rodríguez-Díaz. 2020.
The actor-partner interdependence model in the study of aggression and victimization within couples: An empirical examination
in 361 dyads. Intervención Psicosocia 29: 165–74. [CrossRef]
Hilario Ramos, Gina E., Johana V. Izquierdo Muñoz, Víctor Martín Valdez, and Claudia Ríos Cataño. 2020. Dependencia emocional y
su relación con la violencia en parejas. Una aproximación descriptiva a la revisión de literatura. Desafíos 11: 165–70. [CrossRef]
Huerta Mata, Rosa María. 2021. Apoyo social y violencia de pareja en estudiantes universitarias. Secuencia 110: e1851. [CrossRef]
Ibabe, Izaskun, Ainara Arnoso, and Edurne Elgorriaga. 2020. Child-to-Parent Violence as an Intervening Variable in the Relationship
between Inter-Parental Violence Exposure and Dating Violence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 1514.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). 2022. Estadística de violencia doméstica y violencia de género. Año 2022. Available
online: https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736176866&menu=ultiDatos&idp=
1254735573206 (accessed on 26 January 2024).
Janos, Erika, and Agustín Espinosa. 2018. Sexismo ambivalente y su relación con la aceptación de mitos sobre la violencia sexual en
una muestra de Lima. Revista de Investigación Psicológica 19: 61–74.
Kaplan, Carolina, and Ezaquiel Szapu. 2020. Conflictos, violencias y emociones en el ámbito educativo. México: Nosótrica Ediciones.
Kidman, Rachel, and Hans-Peter Kohler. 2020. Emerging partner violence among young adolescents in a low- income country:
Perpetration, victimization and adversity. PLoS ONE 15: e0230085. [CrossRef]
Lameiras, María. 2002. El sexismo y sus dos caras: De la hostilidad a la ambivalencia. Anuario de Sexología 8: 91–102.
Lapierre, Adréanne, Alison Paradis, Emily Todorov, Martin Blais, and Martine Hébert. 2019. Trajectories of psychological dating
violence perpetration in adolescence. Child Abuse and Neglect 97: 104167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
León, Carmen María, and Eva Aizpurúa. 2020. ¿Persisten las actitudes sexistas en los estudiantes universitarios? Un análisis de su
prevalencia, predictores y diferencias de género. Educación XX1 23: 275–96. [CrossRef]
Lozano-Martínez, Josefina, Irina Castillo-Reche, Francisco José Morales-Yago, and Francisco Javier Ibáñez-López. 2022. Control
violence begins in adolescent dating: A research from students’ perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health 19: 8974. [CrossRef]
López-Sáez, Miguel Ángel, Dau García-Dauder, and Ignacio Montero. 2019. El sexismo como constructo en psicología: Una revisión de
teorías e instrumentos. Quaderns de Psicologia 21: 1–14. [CrossRef]
Luzón-Trujillo, Antonio, and Soledad Montes-Moreno. 2018. Perspectiva histórica de la formación del inicial del profesroado de
Educación Infantil y Primaria en España. Una tarea incabada. Historia Caribe 13: 121–52. [CrossRef]
Madrona-Bonastre, Raquel, Belén Sanz-Barbero, Vanesa Pérez-Martínez, Daniel Abiétar, Francisca Sánchez-Martínez, Lluís Forcadell-
Díez, Gloria Pérez, and Carmen Vives-Cases. 2023. Sexismo y violencia de pareja en adolescentes. Gaceta Sanitaria 37: 102221.
[CrossRef]
Martín-Fernández, Manuel, Enrique Gracia, and Marisol Lila. 2018. Assessing victim-blaming attitudes in cases of intimate partner
violence against women: Development and validation of the VB-IPVAW scale. Psychosocial Intervention 27: 133–43. [CrossRef]
Montero-Fernández, Delia, Antonio Daniel García-Rojas, Ángel Hernando Gómez, and Francisco Javier Del Río. 2022. Validación
del Cuestionario de Violencia Digital (Digital Violence Questionnaire, DVQ) en la pareja sentimental. Revista Electrónica de
Investigación y Evaluación Educativa 28. [CrossRef]
Morlana, Gabriela. 2017. Educación en igualdad de género para prevenir la violencia machista. Cuestiones de Género: De la Igualdad y la
Diferencia 12: 267–86. [CrossRef]
Muñoz-Ponce, Norma, Fermina Espinobarros-Nava, Chistian Romero-Méndez, and José Luis Rojas-Solís. 2020. Sexismo, celos
y aceptación de violencia en jóvenes universitarios mexicanos. Katharsis 29: 15–31. Available online: https://n2t.net/ark:
/13683/ppxs/n9d (accessed on 30 January 2024).
Muñoz-Rivas, Marina, Pilar González-Lozano, Liria Fernández-González, and Sandra Fernández. 2015. Violencia en el noviazgo. Realidad
y prevención. Madrid: Psicología Pirámide.
Obeid, Sahan, and Souheil Hallit. 2018. Correlation of the Stockholm syndrome and early maladaptive schemas among Lebanese
women victims of beating into domestic/marital violence. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice 7: 171–82. [CrossRef]
O’Leary, K. Daniel, and Ami Slep. 2011. Prevention of partner violence by focusing on behaviors of both young males and females.
Prevention Science 13: 329–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Paíno-Quesada, Susana Gaspara, Noelia Aguilera-Jiménez, Luís Rodríguez-Franco, Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Díaz, and Jose Ramón
Alameda-Bailén. 2020. Adolescent Conflict and Young Adult Couple Relationships: Directionality of Violence. International
Journal of Psychological Research 13: 36–48. [CrossRef]
Pazos, María, Alfredo Oliva, and Ángel Hernando. 2014. Violencia en relaciones de pareja de jóvenes y adolescentes. Revista
latinoamericana de psicología 46: 148–59.
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 179 12 of 12

Peskin, Melisa, Christine M. Markham, Ross Shegog, Elizabeth Baumier, Robert Addy, and Susan Tortolero. 2014. Effects of the It’s
Your Game . . . Keep It Real Program on Dating Violence in Ethnic-Minority Middle School Youths: A Group Randomized Trial.
American Journal of Public Health 104: 1471–77. [CrossRef]
Pérez-Dueñas, Carolina, Joaquín Sánchez-Moral, and Purificación Checa. 2023. Influencia del manejo de conflictos y la regulación
emocional en la violencia cometida en la pareja. Psychology, Society & Education 15: 20–29. [CrossRef]
Ponce-Díaz, Carlos, Jesús Aiquipa, and Manuel Arboccó. 2019. Dependencia emocional, satisfacción con la vida y violencia de pareja
en estudiantes universitarias. Propósitos y Representaciones 7: e351. [CrossRef]
Ramírez Hernández, Irazema E. 2020. Prólogo. In Conflictos, violencias y emociones en el ámbito educativo. Edited by Kaplan Carolina and
Ezequiel Szap. Mexico: Nosótrica Ediciones, pp. 9–14.
Renner, Lynette M., Laura M. Schwab-Reese, Elizabeth C. Coppola, and Shamra Boel-Studt. 2020. The contribution of interpersonal
violence victimization types to psychological distress among youth. Child Abuse and Neglect 106: 104493. [CrossRef]
Rodríguez del Pino, Juan Antonio, and Marcela Jabbaz. 2022. Deconstruyendo machos, construyendo personas. Relatos de alejamiento
de la masculinidad hegemónica en España. Revista de Estudios Sociales 79: 108–24. [CrossRef]
Rodríguez, Rogelio, Leticia Riosvelasco, and Nemesio Castillo. 2018. Violencia en el noviazgo, género y apoyo social en jóvenes
universitarios. Escritos Psicológicos 11: 1–9. [CrossRef]
Rodríguez, Yolanda, María Lameiras, María Victoria Carrera, and José María Faílde. 2009. Aproximación conceptual al sexismo
ambivalente: Estado de la cuestión. SUMMA Psicológica UST 6: 131–42. Available online: https://biblat.unam.mx/hevila/
SummapsicologicaUST/2009/vol.6/no2/11.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
Rollero, Chiara, Elisa Bergagna, and Stefano Tartaglia. 2019. What is Violence? The Role of Sexism and Social Dominance Orientation
in Recognizing Violence Against Women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36: NP11349–NP11366. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rubio-Garay, Fernando, M. Ángeles López-González, Miguel Ángel Carrasco, and Pedro Javier Amor. 2017. Prevalencia de la violencia
en el noviazgo: Una revisión sistemática. Papeles del Psicólogo 38: 135–47. [CrossRef]
Rubio-Garay, Fernando, Miguel Ángel Ortiz, and Beatriz García-Rodríguez. 2019. Moral disengagement and violence in adolescent
and young dating relationships: An exploratory study. Revista Argentina De Clínica Psicológica 28: 22–31.
Salguero-Alcañiz, María Pilar, Ana Merchán-Clavellino, and José Ramón Alameda-Bailén. 2023. Youth Dating Violence, Behavioral
Sensitivity, and Emotional Intelligence: A Mediation Analysis. Healthcare 11: 2445. [CrossRef]
Smith, Sharon G., Jieru Chen, Ashley Lowe, and Kathleen Basile. 2022. Sexual violence victimization of US males: Negative health
conditions associated with rape and being made to penetrate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37: 20953–71.
Soriano, Andrés. 2011. La violencia en las relaciones de pareja en estudiantes universitarios. Propuestas educativas. Pedagogía Social.
Revista Interuniversitaria 18: 87–97. [CrossRef]
Soto, Rocío. 2020. Sexismo y justificación de la violencia en adolescentes ecuatorianos de contextos en riesgo psicosocial. Avances en
Psicología 28: 229–41. [CrossRef]
Taylor, Bruce, Nan Stein, and Frances Burden. 2010. The effects of gender violence/harassment prevention programming in middle
schools: A randomized experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims 25: 210–23. [CrossRef]
Tomé, Amparo. 2017. Estrategias para elaborar proyectos educativos en las escuelas. Atlánticas. Revista Internacional de Estudios
Feministas 2: 89–116. [CrossRef]
Van de Bongardt, Daphne, Rongqin Yu, Maja Dekovic, and Wim Meeus. 2015. Romantic relationships and sexuality in adolescence and
young adulthood: The role of parents, peers, and partners. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 12: 497–515. [CrossRef]
Velázquez, Susana. 2003. Violencias Cotidianas, Violencia de Género. Escuchar, Comprender, Ayudar. Barcelona: Paidós.
Wekerle, Christine, and David. A. Wolfe. 1999. Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention
initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review 19: 435–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Winstok, Zeev, and Wafa Sowan-Basheer. 2015. Does psychological violence contribute to partner violence research? A historical,
conceptual and critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 21: 5–16. [CrossRef]
Zamora-Damián, Gloria, Salvador Alvídrez Villegas, Alazne Aizpitarte, and José Luis Rojas-Solís. 2018. Prevalencia de violencia en
el noviazgo en una muestra de varones adolescentes mexicanos. Revista de Psicología y Ciencias del Comportamiento de la Unidad
Académica de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales 9: 30–53. [CrossRef]
Zubieta, Elena, Maite Beramendi, Fernanda Sosa, and José Alejandro Torres. 2011. Sexismo ambivalente, estereotipos y valores en
el ámbito militar. Revista de Psicología (PUCP) 29: 101–30. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.pe/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0254-92472011000100004&lng=es&tlng=es (accessed on 26 January 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.