www.ijcrsee.com

765

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Original scientific paper

Received: October 05, 2025.

Revised: December 03, 2025.

Accepted: December 14, 2025.

UDC:

316.624:305(497.11)

10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-3-765-778

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author: olivera.radovic@pr.ac.rs

Abstract: Gender-based violence represents one of the most serious forms of violation of women’s human rights,

deeply rooted in gender stereotypes and patriarchal patterns. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between

gender beliefs, authenticity in romantic relationships, and attitudes towards domestic violence against women. The research

was conducted on a sample of 201 participants through an online platform. The variables were operationalized using the

Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale, the Gender Equality Attitudes Scale and the Serbian adaptation of the Authen-

ticity in Relationships Scale – AIRS-22. The results indicate strong and consistent gender differences: on average, men

express greater tolerance towards violence compared to women, while women show stronger support for egalitarian gender

roles across all domains. The most stable predictor of attitudes towards the justification of partner violence was egalitarian-

ism in the educational role, pointing to the importance of the educational system as a key space for socialization and value

transmission. Furthermore, participants from rural areas displayed greater tolerance towards violence and more traditional

attitudes about gender roles compared to participants from urban areas. Contrary to expectations, authenticity in romantic

relationships did not make a significant contribution in predicting attitudes towards violence, suggesting that global attitudes

are predominantly shaped by cultural and social norms rather than individual characteristics. These findings have important

implications for the development of preventive and educational programs that emphasize the strengthening of egalitarian

values in educational contexts and society as a whole, with particular attention to differences between urban and rural settings.

Keywords: gender-based violence, justification of violence, gender roles, authenticity, romantic relationships.

Olivera B. Radović

, Zvezdan M. Arsić

, Dragana Z. Stanojević

Department of Psychology, University of Priština, temporarily seated in Kosovska Mitrovica,

e-mail: olivera.radovic@pr.ac.rs, dragana.stanojevic@pr.ac.rs

Department of Pedagogy, University of Priština, temporarily seated in Kosovska Mitrovica, zvezdan.arsic@pr.ac.rs,

e-mail: zvezdan.arsic@pr.ac.rs

Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender

Beliefs and Authenticity

Introduction

Gender-based violence is among the most widespread forms of violation of women’s human rights.

Its roots lie in historical discrimination, customs, and traditional power structures, where male dominance

obtains institutional and cultural legitimacy (Perrin et al., 2022; Watts and Zimmerman, 2022). According to

the Istanbul Convention, gender-based violence is that which is directed against a woman because she is

a woman or disproportionately affects women, and it encompasses a wide spectrum of phenomena: from

domestic violence, sexual harassment, forced marriages, to violations of human rights in armed conflict

settings (Council of Europe, 2011; European Commission, 2024). Especially concerning is the presence of

violent practices in everyday life, as well as their new face in the digital sphere, where the internet and social

networks become arenas for novel forms of control, surveillance, and harassment of women( Wattson, 2021).

According to the UN (CEDAW, 1992), any act of violence based on sex that leads to physical, psycho-

logical, or sexual suffering of a woman, including threats of such acts, is a violation of her fundamental rights.

Gender-based violence does not remain confined to the private sphere, it also includes institutional neglect,

human trafficking, and structural violence manifested through unequal access to resources and decision making

(Krug et al., 2002). Violence against women is a serious social and public health issue in Serbia. According to

Interior Ministry data, in 2023 some 28,413 domestic violence cases were registered, with victims in over 70 %

www.ijcrsee.com

766

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

of cases being women (Autonomous Women’s Center, 2023). Femicide presents a tragic dimension: between

2011 and 2023, 406 women and girls were killed in family-partner settings (Autonomous Women’s Center, 2023).

Gender beliefs, as well as the ways partner relationships are constructed and maintained, play a

central role in understanding and justifying domestic violence, particularly when aimed at women (San-

toniccolo et al., 2023). Modern societies, despite formal equality, continue to reproduce patriarchal pat-

terns through institutions, media, and interpersonal relations. Santoniccolo et al. (2023) argue that media

representations perpetuate stereotypes, objectification, and sexualization, reinforcing belief in patriarchal

gender roles and tolerance toward gender injustice. In that context, socially accepted norms and roles

may become a basis for tolerating or even justifying violence. Historically, women’s subordination was

often justified by appeal to biological differences, attributing women the exclusive role of mother and

homemaker, while men retained social power and mobility. These roles are not merely socially imposed

but deeply embedded in personal and partner relations, contributing to the normalization of violence as a

means of control (Indora, 2022).

For these reasons, understanding and deconstructing gender stereotypes, as well as promoting

authenticity and equality in partner relationships, are essential steps in violence prevention and in building

a society in which all individuals have equal opportunity for a life of dignity without fear. Accordingly, this

paper aims to investigate how gender beliefs and the experience of authenticity in partner relationships

affect the tendency to justify domestic violence against women.

Gender roles and partner relationships

Gender roles are a multidimensional concept and may refer to a wide spectrum of characteristics,

from attitudes and behaviors related to gender roles to personality traits associated with gender (Hentschel

et al., 2019). According to the Dictionary of Gender Equality, a gender role is “a set of community expecta-

tions related to the behavior of individuals in relation to their sex. These are implicit, unquestioned rules

that we adopt through upbringing in the family, at all levels of education, through media, cultural content,

and within scientific research” (Jarić and Radović, 2010).

Attitudes toward gender roles, ranging from traditional to egalitarian, significantly influence the

dynamics of family relationships (Marks and Dollahite, 2009). Traditionalism implies a clear division of

roles: the man as provider and authority figure, the woman as caregiver and homemaker (Kokorić et al.,

2013; Radcliffe, 2023). In contrast, egalitarian models emphasize equality in decision-making, financial

responsibility, and childcare (Knight and Brinton, 2017).Differences in gender roles can be observed in

various social contexts: access to education, political power, economic resources, and social representa-

tion (Zlatanović, 2022). Women are often assigned less prestigious jobs, face limited access to resources,

and in the family setting, responsibilities and obligations are distributed unequally (Marks and Dollahite,

2009). Such distribution not only affects satisfaction within the family but may also contribute to the nor-

malization of inequality and tolerance of violence (Knight and Brinton, 2017).

Partner relationships unfold within a context of deeply ingrained gender expectations. Although the

concept of partnership is increasingly free from institutional restrictions, traditional roles still influence how

individuals perceive and shape their relationships. According to Antović (2016), intimate partner relationships

require adaptation, emotional exchange, and conflict resolution skills. However, when partnership is based

on rigid gender roles, conflicts may arise regarding the distribution of power, expectations, and responsibili-

ties (Amato, 2010). Traditional views of male dominance and female submissiveness may reduce women’s

sense of authenticity and autonomy, thereby increasing the risk of tolerating violence (Yodanis, 2004).

In practice, gender inequality is often institutionalized and manifests itself through various social,

economic, and political mechanisms. Legal frameworks, such as the CEDAW Convention (CEDAW Com-

mittee, 1992) and the Gender Equality Act (Republic of Serbia, 2009), define discrimination as any act

that undermines or interferes with women’s enjoyment of fundamental rights on the basis of sex. Never-

theless, legal measures are often insufficient if deeply rooted cultural patterns and gender stereotypes

remain unchanged (Inglehart and Norris, 2003).

Gender-based violence

Gender-based violence represents the most drastic manifestation of gender inequality. It encom-

passes different forms of violenc: physical, psychological, sexual, and economic directed against individu-

www.ijcrsee.com

767

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

als because of their sex, gender, or sexual orientation (United Nations General Assembly, 1993; Council

of Europe, 2011). Women and girls are most often victims of such violence, which is a direct consequence

of their subordinate position in patriarchal society (WHO, 2013; Watts and Zimmerman, 2002). A specific

form is intimate partner violence, characterized not only by cohabitation but also by the intimate relation-

ship between the perpetrator and the victim. In addition to physical and sexual forms, psychological and

economic violence also have profound consequences, although they are often less visible. Such forms

of violence may include financial control, isolation, threats, manipulation, and denial of basic resources

(EIGE, 2022). Violence rarely exists in isolation; multiple forms often overlap simultaneously, which further

complicates recognition and intervention (WHO, 2013).

Intimate partner violence often occurs within a pattern that has its internal logic and predictabil-

ity. It is most often described through the so-called “Cycle of Abuse,” which includes three phases: the

phase of tension building, the phase of violence escalation, and the phase of remorse and reconciliation

(Ignjatović, 2011). This cycle contributes to the victim’s continuous entrapment in a violent relationship, as

hope for change arises after each violent incident, accompanied by apologies and short-term stabilization.

Typologies of perpetrators of intimate partner violence indicate that violent behavior is not ho-

mogeneous. Three dominant types are distinguished: the self-controlled, the impulsive-cyclical, and the

instrumental-antisocial (Despotović, 2017; Kelly and Johnson, 2008). The first type is emotionally inhib-

ited and dependent on the partner, the second type is characterized by instability, jealousy, and emotional

outbursts, while the third, most dangerous type, uses violence as a conscious means of domination and

control, often beyond the family context. Partner violence can also be classified by type: physical, sexual,

psychological, economic, and increasingly present stalking. Physical and sexual violence are the most

visible forms, but psychological and economic ones have equally destructive consequences, particularly

for the victim’s self-esteem, emotional stability, and economic independence (WHO, 2013). Economic vio-

lence is often the reason why victims remain in violent relationships — due to financial dependence on the

perpetrator (EIGE, 2022). Johnson’s typology (2008) distinguishes intimate terrorism (violence aimed at

controlling the entire relationship), situational couple violence (reactive, episodic), and separation-instigat-

ed violence, which is particularly dangerous during the phase of emotional destabilization of the partner.

Intimate terrorism is most often associated with male perpetrators and represents the most dangerous

and persistent form, often with elements of femicide as the most extreme manifestation of gender-based

violence (Johnson, 2008).

The roots of gender-based violence lie in structural inequality and male dominance in most spheres

of society. Gender roles, as social constructions, define what is considered “acceptable” for women and

men, thus shaping perceptions of violence (Popadić, 2011). For violence to occur, three preconditions

must be present: power, authority, and trust, components often inherent in intimate relationships (Popadić,

2011). Research shows that traditional gender roles, which support male dominance and female subordi-

nation, increase the risk of violence and the willingness to justify it. In contrast, egalitarian gender ideolo-

gies, which promote equality and reject stereotypes, are associated with lower levels of tolerance toward

violence (Popadić, 2011). Gender roles affect not only the division of domestic and parental roles but also

the perception of fairness and satisfaction within partnerships.

In this sense, deconstructing traditional gender roles and promoting authenticity and equality in

partner relationships represent essential steps in preventing violence against women and in building a

more just society.

Authenticity as a Protective Factor in Partner Relationships

The quality of intimate relationships is strongly influenced by mutual trust, emotional closeness,

and equality. Research shows that high-quality relationships contribute to both partners’ psychological

and physical well-being (Kiecolt-Glaser and Wilson, 2017). According to social exchange theory, relation-

ship stability stems from perceived benefits and mutual dependence (Cropanzano et al., 2016).

Authenticity, defined by Rogers (1961) as congruence between one’s self and experience, is cen-

tral to healthy relationships. Kernis and Goldman (2006) describe authenticity as a dynamic process

involving self-awareness, openness, and behavior aligned with personal values. Authentic individuals

are better equipped to express needs, set boundaries, and maintain emotional stability (Rogers, 1961;

Seligman, 2002).

www.ijcrsee.com

768

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Rigid internalization of traditional gender roles can suppress authenticity, increasing vulnerability

to control and manipulation (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Kernis and Goldman, 2006). Humanistic and social-

psychological perspectives emphasize that authenticity evolves through social interaction and is vital

in resisting external pressures (Lazarus, 1991; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Within intimate relationships,

authenticity fosters mutual understanding and protects against gender-based inequality and violence

(Brown, 2010; Gottman and Silver, 1999).

By encouraging self-expression over conformity, authenticity strengthens resilience to gender ste-

reotypes and promotes relationships based on respect and equality. In this way, it can serve as a protective

factor against destructive dynamics and support the development of healthier partnerships (Perel, 2006).

Understanding the interplay between authenticity, gender beliefs, and attitudes toward violence

provides valuable insight into the socio-psychological mechanisms that sustain gender-based violence.

This framework connects individual psychological processes with broader social norms, highlighting key

points for intervention through education, psychosocial support, and cultural change.

Materials and Methods

he subject of this study concerns the examination of the relationship between gender roles, beliefs

about intimate relationships, and attitudes toward violence against women. The primary objective of the

research is to investigate the relationship between gender beliefs, authenticity in intimate relationships,

and the tendency to justify family or gender-based violence against women. Special emphasis is placed on

the role of gender-role beliefs in different domains of life as predictors of tolerance toward violence, as well

as the potential significance of authenticity in intimate relationships as a protective psychological factor.

This study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. To what extent do respondents in Serbia tend to endorse traditional or egalitarian gender roles, and

are there differences among groups defined by socio-demographic variables (gender, rural/urban

residence, education, age)?

2. Is there a significant association between gender beliefs (traditional/egalitarian) across different do-

mains, authenticity in intimate relationships, and justification of violence?

3. Can gender-role beliefs predict justification of violence in intimate relationships?

4. Does authenticity in intimate relationships moderate the relationship between gender-role beliefs

and justification of violence, that is, does authenticity in partnerships act as a moderator between

gender beliefs and justification of violence?

Research Hypotheses

H1: Respondents in Serbia will, on average, be more inclined toward traditional than egalitarian

gender roles. Women, younger individuals, those with higher education, and urban residents will hold more

egalitarian attitudes compared to men, older individuals, less educated participants, and rural residents.

Serbia and the Western Balkans are characterized by long-standing patriarchal patterns that still shape

gender roles and expectations (Browne et al., 2017; USAID, 2020). However, there is generational and

educational differentiation: younger generations, women, and more highly educated respondents show a

stronger tendency toward egalitarian attitudes, which aligns with the findings of Almeida et al. (2023), who

note that demographic variables such as age and education significantly explain variability in attitudes

toward violence and gender roles. Research in Serbia, particularly in rural contexts, indicates that tradi-

tional patterns and gender norms are among the key factors shaping attitudes about intimate relationships

(Soković and Ranđelović., 2024).

H2: Traditional gender beliefs will be positively associated with justification of violence in intimate

relationships. Egalitarian beliefs will be associated with greater authenticity in partnerships, while high-

er authenticity will be negatively associated with justification of violence. Traditional gender beliefs rest

on an asymmetrical distribution of power in partnerships, which often normalizes control and violence

(González and Rodríguez-Planas, 2021). Research in Serbia shows that acceptance of patriarchal pat-

terns is strongly linked to greater risk of justifying and tolerating violence (Djikanović et al., 2010). By con-

trast, egalitarian beliefs promote equality and facilitate freer expression in partnerships, which enhances

www.ijcrsee.com

769

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

the experience of authenticity in relationships (Almeida et al., 2023).

H3: Gender beliefs significantly predict justification of violence in intimate relationships, with tradi-

tional beliefs increasing and egalitarian beliefs decreasing justification. Gender socialization theory em-

phasizes that beliefs about the “proper” roles of men and women are key factors influencing attitudes

toward the acceptability of violence (Gage, 2012). In the Serbian context, where patriarchal culture re-

mains strong, traditional beliefs may facilitate justification of violence as a “disciplinary tool” (Soković and

Ranđelović., 2024). Conversely, egalitarian beliefs encourage equality and non-violent conflict resolution,

leading to lower justification of violence (Almeida et al., 2023).

H4: Authenticity in intimate relationships moderates the relationship between gender beliefs and

justification of violence. The negative effect of traditional beliefs on justification of violence will be weaker

among individuals with high authenticity. Authenticity entails the capacity for honest expression and con-

sistency with one’s values in intimate relationships. Research indicates that this aspect of relationships is

linked to healthier emotional functioning and lower tolerance for aggressive behaviors (Miller et al., 2024).

Thus, individuals with traditional beliefs who nevertheless highly value authenticity are more likely to reject

justification of violence, as it would contradict their sense of personal integrity. Conversely, low levels of

authenticity may amplify the negative impact of traditional beliefs (González and Rodríguez-Planas, 2021).

Variables and Instruments

Attitudes toward violence against women were operationalized using the Domestic Violence

Myth Acceptance Scale (DMVAS; Peters, 2003). The scale consists of 18 statements measuring the de-

gree of agreement with misconceptions about domestic violence. It includes four dimensions: (a) victim

character blame, (b) victim behavior blame, (c) excusing or justifying the perpetrator, and (d) minimizing

the severity of violence. Respondents answer on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher total scores indicating

greater tolerance and justification of violence.

Gender-role beliefs were measured using the Gender Role Attitudes Scale (Raboteć-Šarić, 2002).

This instrument is an adaptation of the Sex-Role Egalitarianism Scale (SRES; Rollero and De Piccoli,

2020) and was constructed to assess beliefs about gender equality across different spheres of social

life. Respondents indicate their level of agreement with items on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = “strongly

disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). The scale comprises five subscales: Parental role: equality in childcare,

upbringing, and household responsibilities; Social-interpersonal-heterosexual role: gender expectations

in social and intimate relationships, including partnership dynamics and interpersonal interaction; Pro-

fessional role: beliefs about gender equality in employment and careers; Marital/partnership role: atti-

tudes toward decision-making, financial responsibilities, and organization of family life; Educational role:

beliefs about gender equality in education, including access, choice of studies, and career orientation.

Scores on each subscale range from 16 to 80, with higher scores reflecting more egalitarian attitudes and

lower scores reflecting more traditional attitudes.

Beliefs about intimate relationships were operationalized using the Serbian adaptation of the

Authenticity in Relationships Scale (AIRS-22; Grljak, 2018), based on the original version developed by

Lopez and Rice (2006). The scale includes 22 items across two subscales: Unacceptance of Decep-

tion and Intimate Risk-Taking, and has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties in the Serbian

context. Items are rated on a 9-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater authenticity. Un-

acceptance of Deception refers to authenticity through honesty, measuring the extent to which a person

rejects lying or concealment in a relationship. Intimate Risk-Taking measures willingness to embrace

psychological vulnerability and trust, including sharing deep thoughts and feelings even at the risk of

misunderstanding or rejection.

Socio-demographic variables were collected through a short questionnaire, including gender

(male/female), place of residence (urban/rural), age (in years) and education level (secondary school,

college, university, master’s degree, doctoral studies).

Sample and Research Procedure

The sample was convenient and consisted of 201 respondents, of whom 122 (60.7%) were female

and 79 (39.3%) male. Participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 67 years, with a mean age of 37.8 years (SD =

10.10). Regarding residence, 149 participants (74.1%) were from urban areas and 52 (25.9%) from rural

www.ijcrsee.com

770

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

areas. With respect to education, 58 participants (28.9%) completed secondary school, 27 (13.4%) higher

vocational education, 59 (29.4%) university, 53 (26.4%) master’s, and 4 (2%) doctoral studies.

The research was conducted online via Google Forms in December 2024, and the link was distrib-

uted through social media platforms.

Results

In this section, descriptive measures of the main research variables are first presented, followed by

the results of the correlation analysis, the relationship between the main variables and socio-demographic

variables through t-tests and Pearson correlation coefficients, and finally, the results of the hierarchical

regression analysis.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the main research variables

Variables Min Max M SD Sk Ku Α

Attitudes toward violence against women 23 126 68,66 23,22 0,28 -0,51 ,89

Interpersonal relations 1,38 5,00 3,97 0,76 -0,66 -0,19 ,73

Educational role 1,57 5,00 4,14 0,83 -0,90 -0,05 ,76

Professional role 1,44 5,00 4,32 0,73 -1,17 0,81 ,82

Partner role 1,20 5,00 4,11 0,76 -0,98 0,77 ,81

Parental role 2,15 5,00 4,21 0,73 -0,96 0,10 ,85

Rejection of deception 12 108 75,38 -1,51 0,99 0,78 ,86

Risk-taking 15 90 75,51 -1,36 1,45 0,52 ,87

Note: Min – minimum; Max – maximum; M – mean; SD – standard deviation; Sk – skewness; Ku – kurtosis; α – Cron-

bach’s alpha (internal consistency reliability)

The data in Table 1 show that all variables are normally distributed, as skewness and kurtosis

values fall within the ±1.5 range, which some authors suggest as a criterion of normality (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 2013, as cited in Dinić, 2019). This satisfies the assumption of normality for applying parametric

techniques, which were thus used in further analysis (Fajgelj, 2013).

Regarding attitudes toward partner violence, the average score (M = 68.66, SD = 23.22) indicates a

medium level of acceptance/rejection of violence, with relatively high variability among respondents. Skewness

(0.28) and kurtosis (-0.51) indicate an approximately normal distribution. Scale reliability was high (α = .89).

All domains of gender roles (interpersonal, educational, professional, partner, parental) had means

above 4 on a five-point scale, indicating a tendency toward egalitarian attitudes. The highest egalitarian-

ism was found in the professional role (M = 4.32; α = .82), and the lowest in interpersonal-heterosocial

relations (M = 3.97; α = .73), though in all domains responses leaned toward egalitarian values. All sub-

scales demonstrated good to very good internal reliability (α = .73–.85).

Regarding the rejection of deception in partner relations, the high mean score (M = 75.38) indicates

that participants largely reject deception as a relational strategy. The distribution was skewed toward

higher values, and reliability was high (α = .86). The intimacy risk-taking subscale also showed a high

mean score (M = 75.51), indicating openness and honesty in relationships even at the risk of emotional

hurt. The distribution was skewed toward higher values (Sk = –1.36), with high reliability (α = .87).

Further, in order to examine the relationships between the main research variables and socio-

demographic variables (gender and place of residence), t-tests were first conducted, followed by Pearson

correlation coefficients.

www.ijcrsee.com

771

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Table 2. Gender differences in attitudes toward family violence, gender roles and authenticity in relationships

Variable Gender N M t p

Attitudes toward family violence

M 79 79.23

5.56 .000***

F 122 61.83

Interpersonal relations

M 79 3.44

-8.54 .000***

F 122 4.31

Educational role

M 79 3.56

-8.80 .000***

F 122 4.53

Professional role

M 79 3.81

-8.57 .000***

F 122 4.66

Partner role

M 79 3.50

-10.45 .000***

F 122 4.51

Parental role

M 79 3.81

-6.27 .000***

F 122 4.47

Rejection of deception

M 79 65.84

-5.09 .000***

F 122 81.57

Intimacy risk-taking

M 79 73.00

-1.89 .060

F 122 77.15

Note: M = Men; F = Women; ***p < .001

The results presented in Table 2 indicate significant gender differences in almost all examined vari-

ables. When it comes to attitudes toward family violence, men on average reported significantly higher ac-

ceptance of violence (M = 79.23) compared to women (M = 61.83), t = 5.56, p < .001. Women expressed

more egalitarian gender role attitudes across all domains: interpersonal, educational, professional, part-

ner, and parental, with statistically significant differences for each domain (p < .001). Regarding authentic-

ity in partner relations, women scored significantly higher on the dimension of rejection of deception (M

= 81.57) compared to men (p < .001). On the intimacy risk-taking dimension, women also scored slightly

higher, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).

Table 3. Differences in attitudes toward family violence, gender roles and authenticity in relationships by place of

residence (urban/rural)

Variable Place of residence N M t p

Attitudes toward family violence

Urban 149 63.63

-5.467 .000***

Rural 52 83.10

Interpersonal relations

Urban 149 4.14

5.588 .000***

Rural 52 3.48

Educational role

Urban 149 4.37

6.549 .000***

Rural 52 3.50

Professional role

Urban 149 4.49

4.792 .000***

Rural 52 3.87

Partner role

Urban 149 4.28

5.434 .000***

Rural 52 3.63

Parental role

Urban 149 4.39

5.351 .000***

Rural 52 3.71

Rejection of deception

Urban 149 80.85

5.609 .000***

Rural 52 59.73

Intimacy risk-taking

Urban 149 75.70

0.294 .769

Rural 52 74.78

Note: ***p < .001

www.ijcrsee.com

772

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

The findings presented in Table 3 indicate statistically significant differences between urban and

rural participants in most of the examined variables. Respondents from rural areas showed significantly

higher acceptance of family violence compared to those from urban areas (p < .001). Conversely, par-

ticipants from urban areas reported significantly more egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles across all

domains — interpersonal, educational, professional, partner, and parental (p < .001).On the dimension of

rejection of deception within partner authenticity, urban respondents scored significantly higher than rural

respondents (p < .001). On the intimacy risk-taking dimension, however, no significant difference was

found (p = .769).

Table 4. Correlations of attitudes toward family violence, gender roles and authenticity in relationships

with age and educational status

Variable Age Educational status

Attitudes toward violence –.022 –.187**

Interpersonal relations .067 .136

Educational role .083 .139*

Professional role . 048 .038

Partner role .108 .136

Parental role .049 .116

Rejection of deception –.028 .139*

Intimacy risk-taking –.039 –.190**

Note: p < .05*, **p < .01

As shown in Table 4, age was not significantly related to most of the variables, suggesting that

participants’ age is not a relevant factor in shaping attitudes toward gender roles, authenticity in partner

relationships, or attitudes toward domestic violence.

Educational status, on the other hand, showed moderate positive correlations: individuals with high-

er education valued egalitarianism more strongly in interpersonal relations (r = .136), educational role (r =

.139), parental role (r = .116), as well as in the dimension of rejection of deception (r = .139). At the same

time, higher education was associated with lower scores on the intimacy risk-taking scale (r = –.190**).

Table 5. Correlations between attitudes toward violence, gender role dimensions, and authenticity

Variable Attitudes toward violence

Interpersonal relations –.538**

Educational role –.611**

Professional role –.418**

Partner role –.548**

Parental role –.493**

Rejection of deception –.572**

Intimacy risk-taking .120

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

The results in Table 5 show that attitudes toward violence were strongly and negatively correlated

with egalitarian beliefs across all gender role domains (interpersonal, educational, professional, partner,

parental), as well as with rejection of deception. All these correlations were statistically significant at p

< .01. This means that greater acceptance of violence is associated with lower valuation of egalitarian

gender roles and greater tolerance for deception in partner relationships.

On the other hand, attitudes toward violence were not significantly correlated with intimacy risk-

taking (r = .12, ns).

www.ijcrsee.com

773

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for predictors of Attitudes toward family violence, Based on So-

cio-Demographic Characteristics, Gender Role Beliefs, and Authenticity in Partner Relationships (n = 201)

Predictors Model 1 β Model 2 β Model 3 β Model 4 β

Age .056 .045 .042 .034

Educational status –.136* –.117* –.113* –.113*

Gender (0 = female; 1 = male) .245** –.040 –.037 –.045

Place of residence

(0 = urban; 1 = rural)

–.272** –.113 –.107 –.107

Interpersonal role — –.142 –.150 –.172

Educational role — –.448*** –.415*** –.367**

Professional role — .139 .158 .132

Partner role — –.117 –.118 –.144

Parental role — –.042 –.040 –.021

Authenticity (total score) — — –.074 –.050

Interactions (roles × authenticity) — — — –.019 to .181

R² .22 .42 .42 .44

F 13.53*** 15.20*** 13.81*** 9.61***

Note: p < .05, *p < .01, **p < .001

Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to examine predictors of attitudes toward fam-

ily violence- In the first step (Model 1), among socio-demographic variables, significant predictors were

educational status (β = –.136, p < .05), gender (β = .245, p < .01), and place of residence (β = –.272, p <

.001). Higher educational status, female gender, and urban residence were associated with less tolerant

attitudes toward violence. Age did not show a significant effect.

In the second step (Model 2), gender role beliefs were added, which significantly increased ex-

plained variance. The strongest predictor was egalitarian beliefs in the educational role domain (β =

–.448, p < .001). Attitudes in other role domains (interpersonal, professional, partner, parental) were not

significant. In this model, the effect of gender was no longer significant, while educational status remained

a marginal predictor (β = –.117, p < .05).

In the third step (Model 3), the overall authenticity scale was introduced, but its contribution was not

significant (β = –.074, ns). The effect of egalitarian educational role beliefs remained strong and stable (β

= –.415, p < .001).

In the final step (Model 4), interactions between authenticity and each subscale of egalitarian gen-

der roles were included, but none were significant. Egalitarianism in the educational role domain remained

the only consistent and strong predictor (β = –.367, p < .01), while educational status was marginally

significant (β = –.113, p = .050).

Valuing equality in educational opportunities was the most important factor associated with rejec-

tion of family violence, even when controlling for demographic characteristics and authenticity in partner

relationships. Studies on gender roles and intimate relationships (e.g., García-Díaz et al., 2020; Dinić,

2019) indicate that rigid gender norms predict higher tolerance of violence. Given that authenticity entails

balance and open communication, a negative association with traditional gender roles can therefore be

expected. Authenticity, although theoretically relevant, did not emerge as a significant predictor nor as a

moderator between gender roles and attitudes toward violence.

Discussions

The findings of this study indicate that the justification of intimate partner violence is at a medium

level, with high variability among participants. This result points to the existence of significant individual

differences in tolerance toward violence, which is consistent with previous studies showing that accept-

ance of domestic violence myths varies depending on sociodemographic factors, cultural contexts, and

gender beliefs (Peters, 2008, Gracia and Tomás, 2014). The medium level of tolerance observed in our

www.ijcrsee.com

774

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

sample may be interpreted as a reflection of the ambivalent social context in Serbia, where traditional

patriarchal patterns intersect with contemporary values of gender equality (Blagojević, 2013).

Gender differences emerged as one of the most consistent findings: men reported higher levels of

violence acceptance and more traditional gender role beliefs, while women expressed stronger support

for egalitarianism. These results can be explained through social role theory (Eagly, 1987), according to

which men and women are socialized into different value systems. Women, who have historically been

more frequently exposed to discrimination and violence, develop greater sensitivity to gender inequality

and lower tolerance for violence (Flood and Pease, 2009). Similar results have been obtained in Europe-

an research, where men systematically show a greater tendency to justify violence and endorse domestic

violence myths (Gracia and Herrero, 2006).

In this study, women scored higher across all domains of gender role egalitarianism, which is in line

with the findings of Raboteg-Šarić (2002) and Vinagre González et al. (2023), who reported that women

internalize expectations involving support for equality in both family and public life. This result may also be

related to the fact that egalitarian gender ideologies provide women with a direct protective effect against

violence and discrimination (Waltermaurer, 2012).

Differences between urban and rural respondents revealed that participants from rural areas dis-

played higher tolerance toward violence and more traditional attitudes toward gender roles. This finding is

consistent with research suggesting that more traditional cultural contexts, as often found in rural areas,

support patriarchal norms legitimizing male dominance and control (Inglehart and Norris, 2003; Kandiyoti,

1988). In contrast, urban participants, exposed to modernization processes and global values of equality,

expressed more egalitarian attitudes and lower tolerance toward violence, which aligns with findings from

other post-socialist countries (Krizsán and Popa, 2014).

Although authenticity in intimate relationships was highly valued in the sample, the results show

that it was not significantly associated with attitudes toward justifying violence. This is noteworthy, as

theoretical models suggest that authenticity, understood as consistency with oneself and honesty in re-

lationships (Lopez and Rice, 2006; Kernis and Goldman, 2006), contributes to health and stability in

intimate partnerships. A possible explanation lies in the fact that attitudes toward violence have a strong

social-normative dimension, and are therefore primarily determined by cultural values and educational

context rather than intrapsychic factors (Ajzen, 1991). In other words, authenticity may be more relevant

for the quality of specific intimate relationships, but not necessarily for general attitudes toward violence.

Educational status emerged as a relevant factor: higher levels of education were associated with

greater egalitarianism across all domains of gender roles and lower acceptance of violence. These find-

ings align with studies showing that education acts as a protective factor by fostering critical thinking and

adoption of equality values (Waltermaurer, 2012; World Health Organization, 2021). Age, however, was

not significantly related to the variables under study, suggesting that generational differences are not deci-

sive, and that education and sociocultural context play a more dominant role (Gracia and Herrero, 2006).

Strong negative correlations between acceptance of violence and egalitarian gender roles con-

firm theoretical assumptions that patriarchal gender ideologies are key factors sustaining tolerance for

violence (Heise, 1998; Flood and Pease, 2009). Similarly, the association between lower rejection of

deception and higher acceptance of violence suggests that individuals who tolerate manipulation and in-

authenticity in relationships may be more prone to relativizing violence. On the other hand, the dimension

of intimate risk-taking was not significantly related to attitudes toward violence, which may indicate that

this aspect of authenticity is more linked to individual intimacy style than to value systems.

Hierarchical regression analysis provided deeper insights into the factors shaping attitudes toward

domestic violence. In the first model, among sociodemographic variables, significant predictors were

educational status, gender, and place of residence. Higher educational status, female gender, and urban

residence were associated with lower levels of violence tolerance. These findings are consistent with

previous studies indicating that education plays a protective role against violence tolerance by promoting

critical thinking and egalitarian values (Waltermaurer, 2012; Flood, 2015). Furthermore, research consist-

ently shows that men justify violence more often than women (Flood and Pease, 2009; Gracia and Her-

rero, 2006), while urban contexts, due to greater exposure to modernization processes and global equality

values, foster lower tolerance for violence compared to rural settings (Inglehart and Norris, 2003).

When beliefs about gender roles were added in the second model, the explained variance sig-

nificantly increased, with educational role egalitarianism emerging as the strongest predictor of lower

www.ijcrsee.com

775

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

violence acceptance. This result confirms that not all domains of egalitarian beliefs are equally relevant,

but that the educational context represents a key space for internalizing values that counteract violence

justification. From a social constructionist perspective (Berger and Luckmann, 1966), education is not only

an institution for knowledge transmission but also a mechanism through which social norms are formed.

It is therefore understandable that educational egalitarianism, as an indicator of a broader belief system

of equality, has the strongest predictive significance.

The introduction of authenticity in the third step did not show a significant contribution, indicating

that individual intrapsychic characteristics do not play a decisive role in shaping general attitudes toward

violence. This can be interpreted within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991),

according to which attitudes are more strongly shaped by social norms and contextual expectations than

by personal traits. Although authenticity is relevant for the quality of specific intimate relationships (Kernis

and Goldman, 2006; Lopez and Rice, 2006), its influence on global attitudes toward violence appears to

be mediated by cultural factors.

In the final model, introducing interactions between authenticity and gender egalitarianism sub-

scales did not yield significant effects, suggesting that authenticity does not moderate the relationship

between gender roles and attitudes toward violence. In this model, educational role egalitarianism re-

mained the only stable and strong predictor, while educational status was at the threshold of statistical

significance. This suggests that education has a dual role: it directly influences attitudes toward violence,

but even more strongly through shaping egalitarian beliefs in the educational domain.

Conclusions

The findings indicate that support for gender equality in the educational domain is the strongest

predictor of attitudes toward domestic violence, underscoring the educational system’s crucial role in

violence prevention. Promoting egalitarian values through formal education and targeted programs can

significantly reduce tolerance for violence.

Attitudes toward domestic violence are not merely individual but reflect broader cultural and social

structures. Gender and urban-rural differences were evident, with women and urban participants showing

higher rejection of violence and stronger egalitarian beliefs. Although authenticity in intimate relationships

is theoretically relevant, it did not emerge as a significant predictor in this study, suggesting that educa-

tional and cultural factors play a more prominent role.

These results highlight the importance of integrating gender-sensitive education policies and tai-

lored interventions, especially in rural areas where patriarchal norms remain influential. However, the

study has limitations: a convenience sample, gender and urban bias, and reliance on self-reported meas-

ures may affect the generalizability of findings. Future research should use more representative samples,

combine methods, and explore how educational and cultural contexts influence attitudes toward violence.

Such efforts can support the development of effective, evidence-based prevention strategies.

Asknowledgments

This study was supported by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of

the Republic of Serbia (Contract No. 451-03-66/2025-03/200184).

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,

or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material,

further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

www.ijcrsee.com

776

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Formal approval from an ethics committee was not required for this study. However, all participants

were fully informed about the nature and purpose of the research and provided their voluntary, anony-

mous, and informed consent in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author Contributions

Olivera Radović: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft.

Zvezdan Arsić: Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization.

Dragana Stanojević: Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing. All authors have read and

approved the final version of the manuscript.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Almeida, I., Ramalho, A., Morgado, R., & Baúto, R. V. (2023). Gendered Perspectives on Intimate Partner Violence: A Com-

parative Study of General Population, Students and Professionals’ Beliefs. Social Sciences, 12(9), 528. https://doi.

org/10.3390/socsci12090528

Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3),

650–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

Antović, A. R. (2016). Predikcija i prevencija femicida u nasilnim partnerskim odnosima (Doktorska disertacija). Univerzitet u

Beogradu – Fakultet za specijalnu edukaciju i rehabilitaciju. COBISS ID: 1025563629.

Autonomous Women’s Center. (2023). Independent reports on Law on prevention of domestic violence – 2023 data. https://

www.womenngo.org.rs/en/independent-reports-on-law-on-prevention-of-dv

Babović, M. (2010). Rodne ekonomske nejednakosti u komparativnoj perspektivi: Evropska unija i Srbija. Beograd: Institut za

sociološka istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.

Blagojević Hjuson, M. (2013). Rodni barometar u Srbiji: Razvoj i svakodnevni život. Beograd: UNDP i OEBS.

Blagojević, M. (2013). Rodni barometar u Srbiji: Razvoj i svakodnevni život [Gender barometer in Serbia: Development and

everyday life]. UN Women. [in Serbian]

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Center

City, MN: Hazelden Publishing.

Browne, Evie (2017). Gender Norms in the Western Balkans. The Institute of Development Studies and Partner Organisations.

Report. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/13114

CEDAW Committee. (1992). General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women. United Nations Committee on the

Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/cedaw/1992/en/96542

Council of Europe. (2011). Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic

violence (Istanbul Convention). https://www.coe.int/en/web/istanbul-convention/about-the-convention

Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2016). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical

remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.

Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Despotović, M. (2017). Tipologija nasilnika u partnerskim odnosima. Beograd: Institut za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja.

Dinić, B. M. (2019). Psihometrija i statistika u psihološkim istraživanjima. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.

Djikanovic, B., Jansen, H. A., & Otasevic, S. (2010). Factors associated with intimate partner violence against women in

Serbia: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 64(8), 728-735. https://doi.org/10.1136/

jech.2009.090415

Đorđević, D. (2015). Psihološki aspekti kvalitetnih partnerskih odnosa. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

European Commission. (2024). What is gender-based violence? https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/

justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-based-violence/what-gender-based-violence_en

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2022). Gender-based violence. https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence

Fajgelj, S. (2013). Psihometrija: metod i teorija psihološkog merenja (IV izdanje). Beograd:Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.

www.ijcrsee.com

777

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Flood, M. (2015). Work with men to end violence against women: A critical stocktake. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(sup2),

159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1070435

Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors inuencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2),

125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131

Gracia, E., & Tomás, J. M. (2014). Correlates of victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner violence against women among

the Spanish general population. Violence Against Women, 20(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213520577

Gage A. J. (2005). Women’s experience of intimate partner violence in Haiti. Social science & medicine (1982), 61(2), 343–364.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.078

García-Díaz, V., Fernández-Feito, A., Bringas-Molleda, C., Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J., & Lana, A. (2020). Tolerance of intimate part-

ner violence and sexist attitudes among health sciences students from three Spanish universities. Gaceta Sanitaria,

34(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.01.003

González, L., & Rodríguez-Planas, N. (2021). Gender norms and intimate partner violence. Labour Economics, 70, 101990.

Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Crown Publishers.

Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). Acceptability of domestic violence against women in the European Union: A multilevel analy-

sis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.036533

Grljak, Đ. (2018). Validation of Serbian adaptation of Authenticity in Relationships Scale (AIRS). Primenjena psihologija, 11(1),

89–104. https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2018.1.89-104

Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002

Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s

and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/

fpsyg.2019.00011

Ignjatović, T. (2011). Porodično nasilje – modeli razumevanja i intervencije. Beograd: Autonomni ženski centar.

Indora, A. (2022). Contextualize the role of media in the propagation of gender stereotypes. Bulletin Monumental, 22(10), 12–26.

Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University

Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550362

Jarić, V., & Radović, N. (2010). Rečnik rodne ravnopravnosti [Gender equality dictionary]. Beograd: Kancelarija za rodnu

ravnopravnost Vlade Republike Srbije.

Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequi-

ties in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977),

1580–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence.

Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004

Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implica-

tions for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x

Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Wilson, S. (2017). Lovesick: How couples’ relationships inuence health. Annual Review of Clinical

Psychology, 13, 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045111

King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Role conict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity. Psychological

Bulletin, 107(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.48

Knight, C. R., & Brinton, M. C. (2017). One egalitarianism or several? Two decades of gender-role change in the United States

and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 122(6), 1869–1905. https://doi.org/10.1086/689814

Kokorić, M., Šimunić, A., & Gregov, L. (2014). Stav o bračnim ulogama i percepcija obiteljskih odnosa kod zaposlenih

supružnika. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 21(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v21i1.1138

Krizsán, A., & Popa, R. M. (2014). Equality policymaking in post-communist Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.

Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R. (Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. World

Health Organization

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.362

Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2009). Religion, relationships, and responsible fathering in Latter-day Saint families of children

with special needs. Family Relations, 58(5), 482–495.

Miller, E., Gillani, B., & O’Donnell, K. (2024). Theories of relational health in interpersonal violence research: A scoping review.

Families in Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894241227650

www.ijcrsee.com

778

Radović, O., Arsić, Z., & Stanojević, D. (2025). Predictors of Attitudes Towards Domestic Violence: The Role of Gender Beliefs

And Authenticity, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 765-778.

Pavlović, M., & Čičkarić, L. (2018). Gender norms and domestic violence in Serbia. Sociološki pregled, 52(3), 975–999.

Perel, E. (2006). Mating in captivity: Unlocking erotic intelligence. New York: Harper Collins.

Perrin, N., Marsh, M., Clough, A., Desgroppes, A., Yope Phanuel, C., Abdi, A., & others. (2019). Social norms and beliefs about

gender-based violence scale: A measure for use with gender-based violence prevention programs in low-resource and

humanitarian settings. Conict and Health, 13(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-019-0189-x

Peters, J. (2003). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and initial validation of the Domestic Violence

Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 7(1–2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/

J146v07n01_01

Popadić, D. (2011). Psihologija nasilja. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike.

Raboteć-Šarić, Z. (2002). Stavovi o rodnim ulogama: Skala stavova o rodnim ulogama. U A. Proroković, Z. Penezić, V. Lacković-

Grgin, & V. Ćubela (Ur.), Zbirka psihologijskih skala i upitnika, svezak 1 (str. 37–41). Filozofski fakultet u Zadru.

Radcliffe, L. S. (2023). Work–family habits? Exploring the persistence of traditional work–family decision making in dual-earner

couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 144, 103914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103914

Republic of Serbia. (2009). Zakon o ravnopravnosti polova [Law on Gender Equality], Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, 104/2009.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifin.

Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2020). Myths about intimate partner violence and moral disengagement: An analysis of socio-

cultural dimensions sustaining violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public

Health, 17(21), 8139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218139

Santoniccolo, F., Trombetta, T., Paradiso, M. N., & Rollè, L. (2023). Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the

Literature on Gender Stereotypes, Objectication and Sexualization. International Journal of Environmental Research

and Public Health, 20(10), 5770. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105770

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulll-

ment. New York: Free Press.

Soković, S., & Ranđelović, V. (2024). Domestic violence in rural Serbia: Etiological-phenomenological approach. NBP. Nauka,

bezbednost, policija, 29(2), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.5937/nabepo29-49005

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social

psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole

Tošić, J., & Todorović, J. (2011). Rodne uloge i stavovi prema nasilju u porodici. Sociološki pregled, 45(3), 421–440.

United Nations General Assembly. (1993). Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (A/RES/48/104). United Nations.

USAID. (2020). Gender Analysis for the Western Balkans. United States Agency for International Development. https://banyan-

global.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/USAID-Serbia-Final-Gender-Analysis-Report.pdf

VinagreGonzález, A. M., PuenteLópez, E., AguilarCárceles, M. M., AparicioGarcía, M. E., & Loinaz, I. (2023).Differences

between men and women in the acceptance of gender roles and stereotypes in intimate partner violence. Revista

Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud.

Waltermaurer, E. (2012). Public justication of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,

13(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447699

Wattson, S. (2023). Online abuse of women: an interdisciplinary scoping review of the literature. Feminist Media Studies, 24(1),

51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2023.2181136

Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude. The Lancet, 359(9313), 1232–

1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08221-1

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health ef-

fects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. WHO. https://www.who.int/publications/i/

item/9789241564625

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national preva-

lence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-

partner sexual violence against women. WHO.

Yodanis, C. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence

against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504263868

Zlatanović, S. (2022). Everyday practices of gender in the Serbian community of post-war South-East Kosovo. Genealogy,

6(4), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy6040078