Official statistics and data from police and judicial systems consistently show that intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide problem predominantly affecting women perpetrated by male partners. Yet, certain behavioral checklists yield similar IPV rates for both genders, sparking the gender symmetry/asymmetry debate. Some possible explanations for this discrepancy reside in (a) considering or not the consequences of violence, (b) possible inadequacies of the instructions given to participants when answering checklists, and (c) considering or not certain behaviors typically asymmetrical (e.g., economic violence). In order to test these three hypotheses, we conducted two studies in the Spanish context using the Partner Victimization Scale (PVS). In Study 1, participants ( n = 449) answered a Spanish version of the PVS (with the instructions “Not including horseplay or joking around”) and reported consequences of violence on their self-esteem and health. In Study 2 ( n = 172), we experimentally manipulated the instructions given to participants when answering the PVS (including those of Study 1 or not) and also added some items of typically asymmetrical violence. Other measures of consequences of violence were assessed. Results of Study 1 replicated the original PVSs factor structure and showed gender asymmetry (more female than male victimization) in four of five items, and the victimization rates were related to consequences of violence, providing construct validity to this version of the scale. Results of Study 2 underlined the relevance of the instructions and of the addition of certain types of violence in the symmetry/asymmetry rates informed. Additionally, the IPV reported was associated with worse consequences for women than for men. Our findings suggest that the detection of IPV increases when the instructions are clarified, when certain items are added, and when the consequences of IPV are considered.

中文翻译：

---

揭开性别对称辩论的面纱：探索亲密伴侣暴力中的后果、指示和暴力形式


来自警察和司法系统的官方统计数据和数据一致表明，亲密伴侣暴力 （IPV） 是一个世界性问题，主要影响男性伴侣实施的女性。然而，某些行为检查表得出了两性的相似 IPV 率，引发了性别对称/不对称的争论。对这种差异的一些可能解释在于 （a） 是否考虑暴力的后果，（b） 在回答清单时对参与者的指示可能不足，以及 （c） 考虑或不考虑某些通常不对称的行为（例如，经济暴力）。为了检验这三个假设，我们在西班牙背景下使用伴侣受害量表 （PVS） 进行了两项研究。在研究 1 中，参与者 （n = 449） 回答了西班牙语版本的 PVS（说明“不包括嬉戏或开玩笑”），并报告了暴力对他们自尊和健康的后果。在研究 2 （ n = 172） 中，我们实验性地操纵了在回答 PVS（包括研究 1 或非研究 1 的指令）时给参与者的指令，还添加了一些典型的不对称暴力项目。评估了暴力后果的其他衡量标准。研究 1 的结果复制了原始的 PVSs 因子结构，并在五个项目中的四个项目中显示性别不对称（女性受害人数多于男性），受害率与暴力后果相关，为该版本的量表提供了结构有效性。研究 2 的结果强调了指示的相关性以及在所告知的对称/不对称率中增加某些类型的暴力的相关性。此外，报告的 IPV 对女性的后果比对男性更严重。 我们的研究结果表明，当澄清说明、添加某些项目以及考虑 IPV 的后果时，IPV 的检测率会增加。