Next Article in Journal
COVID-19-Related Discrimination and Mental Distress: Mediating Role of Loneliness, Resilience, and Financial Worries
Previous Article in Journal
Perceptions of Employability Factors in Social Work: A Study Involving Students and Professionals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Wanting Beauty, Fearing Beauty: Mate Preference, Intimacy, Deception, and the Femme Fatale
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/socsci15060369
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Associations Between Gender Equality Perceptions and Psychological and Physical Dating Violence Among Young Adults

by
Sultan Akel
1,*,
Zekiye İrem Gözübol
2 and
Kerem Toker
3
1
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, İstanbul Atlas University, Anadolu Street, 40, İstanbul 34408, Türkiye
2
IQVIA Türkiye, Maslak Office Building (MOB), Sümer Street, 4, İstanbul 34485, Türkiye
3
Health Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bezmiâlem Vakif University, Silahtarağa Street, 189, İstanbul 34050, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(6), 369; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15060369
Submission received: 27 January 2026 / Revised: 19 May 2026 / Accepted: 2 June 2026 / Published: 4 June 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intimate Relationships in Diverse Social and Cultural Contexts)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the relationship between young adults’ perceptions of gender equality and their recognition of psychological and physical dating violence while considering the role of sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 465 young adults aged 18–24 in Türkiye. Data were collected via an online questionnaire that included the Gender Equality Scale, the Perceptions of Dating Violence Scale, and sociodemographic variables. Nonparametric tests, Spearman correlation analyses, and OLS multiple regression analyses were used to assess group differences, bivariate relationships, and the unique predictive contribution of gender equality perceptions while controlling for sociodemographic variables. Results: The findings revealed a significant positive correlation between lower perceptions of gender equality and greater tolerance for psychological and physical dating violence. Educational level, perceived economic status, and romantic relationship status were associated with differences in perceptions of gender equality and violence, while gender and employment status were not significant factors. Conclusions: This study highlights the link between perceptions of gender equality and attitudes toward dating violence. These findings suggest that individual beliefs and sociodemographic characteristics influence how young adults perceive and respond to psychological and physical violence. Further research is needed to explore these relationships across broader populations and cultural contexts.

1. Introduction

Gender equality is equal access to rights, resources, opportunities, and security for both men and women. Achieving gender equality is closely related to the social roles and responsibilities attributed to men and women. Socially and culturally determined gender roles and stereotypes can lead to gender inequality (Dilli et al. 2019). Gender norms—the socially shared expectations about how individuals of different genders should behave, think, and feel—prescribe distinct roles for men and women, typically assigning dominance, authority, and agency to men while ascribing submissiveness, caregiving, and emotional dependence to women. These prescriptive norms create and reinforce power asymmetries that extend beyond the domestic sphere into educational, occupational, and interpersonal contexts (Heise et al. 2019). Such inequalities can have severe consequences in various areas of life, and dating violence is one of them (García-Díaz et al. 2020; Kearns et al. 2020). It is stated in the literature that the concept of gender prepares the ground for the development of violent attitudes in male–female relations. It is also emphasized that gender-related stereotypes are a vital component that causes people to resort to dating violence. It is argued that the stereotypes attributed to men and women play an important role in the development of dating violence, and these stereotypes have an even more critical role in the development of dating violence in individuals with a traditional attitude to gender roles (Angelone et al. 2015; Reyes et al. 2016). In this context, according to an analysis by the World Health Organization (WHO 2024), approximately one-quarter (24%) of adolescent girls in relationships—around 19 million—will experience physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence by the time they reach 20 years of age. Furthermore, close to one-sixth (16%) of these girls reported experiencing such violence in the past year.
Gender inequality operates beyond individual attitudes as a structural and cultural phenomenon embedded within social institutions, family systems, educational contexts, and media representations. Research shows that inequitable gender norms-socially shared expectations about appropriate behaviors for men and women-are significantly associated with the acceptance of controlling behaviors and violence in dating relationships. For instance, inequitable norms have been found to contribute to dating violence among adolescents and young adults in various settings. These norms influence the behaviors partners consider “normal” and the extent to which such behaviors are socially accepted or downplayed. This sociological perspective emphasizes that dating violence reflects broader power asymmetries and culturally sanctioned roles, rather than merely individual pathology. These socially rooted norms influence how young adults interpret, justify, or minimize violence in their intimate relationships (Meiksin et al. 2025; Liu et al. 2025).
Dating violence is defined as any form of words, gestures, and behavior, including the use of painful or hurtful physical or psychological force, and it poses a threat to partners in romantic relationships (Ibabe et al. 2020; Murray 2019). Dating violence is also a form of psychological, physical, and sexual violence that occurs in adolescent and young adult romantic relationships (Anderson and Danis 2007). Dating violence is inherently gendered in nature: it disproportionately affects women and girls as victims, while men and boys are more frequently identified as perpetrators, a pattern that directly reflects the power imbalances embedded in traditional gender norms (Kearns et al. 2020; Johnson et al. 2024). Traditional masculinity norms that valorize dominance, control, and emotional suppression, and femininity norms that reward compliance and deference, create relational dynamics in which aggression may be normalized or minimized. Consequently, individuals who internalize more traditional gender role attitudes tend to exhibit greater tolerance for dating violence and are less likely to identify violent behaviors as abusive (Cuccì et al. 2024; Villanueva-Blasco et al. 2024). Psychological violence includes behaviors such as humiliating the partner, controlling the partner’s behavior, not giving information, threatening behavior, denying the partner’s right to privacy, and isolating the partner from friends and/or family (Rodríguez-Díaz et al. 2017; Ureña et al. 2015). Physical violence in dating contexts includes behaviors directed at the partner, such as hitting, biting, pushing, throwing objects, and using a weapon (Wolfe et al. 2001). The World Health Organization (WHO 2019) defines sexual violence as any sexual act, attempts to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic or otherwise directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.
Dating violence leads to severe and often lifelong problems in the physical, psychological, and social functions of young people (Garthe et al. 2021a). Dating violence has negative effects on young people’s biopsychosocial health and future marital relationships and is passed on to future generations (Fernet et al. 2021; Horton 2021; Pastor et al. 2020). Young people exposed to dating violence show symptoms of depression and anxiety at higher rates (Garthe et al. 2021b; Van Ouytsel et al. 2017) tend to self-harm and suicide (Baker et al. 2015). Also, it is known that alcohol and substance use is increasing (Baker 2016; Parker and Bradshaw 2015), and risky sexual behavior is increasing (Kaukinen 2014). Given these findings, it is evident that dating violence is a critical issue for young people, and public health requires urgent attention.
From an ecological point of view, dating violence is understood as the result of interacting risk factors at individual, intimate relationship, community, and sociocultural levels, which has led to the development of explanatory models based on various theoretical approaches. Among them, the gender perspective, widely approved by the scientific community, stands out: it gives great weight to patriarchal mechanisms deciphering the role of men and women in society and defends gender as a central category of analysis in the explanation of violence (Santoro et al. 2018; Savage et al. 2017; Wilchek-Aviad et al. 2018). This highlights the need for a critical understanding of gender roles and power imbalances in dating violence prevention and intervention. Examining dating violence from a social perspective requires an approach that connects individual beliefs to collective norms, cultural ideologies, and structural inequalities. Macro-level gender inequality, or the systemic imbalance of power, resources, and social influence between men and women, has been linked to a higher prevalence of intimate partner and dating violence in global contexts. This suggests that attitudes about gender equality do not emerge in isolation, but rather, are shaped and reinforced by collective social norms that either legitimize or challenge unequal gender relations. Understanding how young adults perceive gender equality within these broader social structures provides insight into how structural power dynamics manifest in interpersonal violence (Johnson et al. 2024).
From a theoretical perspective, this study draws on social learning theory (Bandura and Walters 1977) and gender role theory (Eagly 1987) to understand how gendered socialization shapes attitudes toward aggression and violence in romantic relationships. Gender Role Theory posits that individuals internalize normative expectations about gender-appropriate behaviors, which in turn regulate their conduct in intimate relationships. According to this framework, adherence to traditional gender roles—wherein men are expected to be dominant and women subordinate—can reinforce power imbalances and justify controlling or aggressive behaviors as normative expressions of masculinity (Cuccì et al. 2024; Matud et al. 2023). A substantial body of research has tested this theory across diverse cultural contexts, consistently finding that endorsement of traditional gender roles is associated with greater tolerance for partner violence (Villanueva-Blasco et al. 2024; Rebollo-Catalan et al. 2025). Social Learning Theory complements this perspective by explaining how such role expectations are acquired: individuals observe and reinforce gendered behaviors throughout socialization, normalizing patterns of dominance and submission that can escalate into violence (Meiksin et al. 2025). Importantly, the construct of “perceptions of dating violence” used in this study refers not to experiences of victimization or perpetration, but to individuals’ recognition and sensitivity toward violent behaviors in dating contexts—specifically, the degree to which they identify psychological and physical acts as constituting violence (Toplu-Demirtaş et al. 2022). Lower perceptions thus reflect reduced sensitivity to, or greater normalization of, violent behaviors. Building on this theoretical foundation, the present study serves as an empirical test of gender role theory in the Turkish context, extending prior cross-cultural work by examining whether the predicted association between egalitarian gender attitudes and violence recognition holds in a setting characterized by distinct gender norms and ongoing sociopolitical tensions around gender equality.
The cultural context of Türkiye renders this study particularly timely and relevant. Despite belonging to the European region in global comparisons, Türkiye consistently ranks among the lowest-performing countries on gender equality indices: the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2024 placed Türkiye 127th out of 146 countries with a parity score of 64.5%, last in the European group (WEF 2024). This structural inequality is reinforced by persistent traditional gender norms emphasizing women’s roles as homemakers and mothers, and by social expectations that, in many contexts, continue to normalize male dominance within intimate relationships (DFAT 2025). These conditions are further compounded by Türkiye’s 2021 withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention—the Council of Europe’s landmark treaty on preventing violence against women—which raised international concern about the potential normalization of gender-based violence and the erosion of legal protections (UN HRC 2024). At the same time, Türkiye is experiencing notable social change driven by rising educational attainment among women and growing feminist activism challenging traditional norms. This tension between entrenched patriarchal structures and emerging egalitarian values makes Türkiye a theoretically valuable testing ground: examining whether the association between gender equality attitudes and violence recognition holds in this context can reveal both the cross-cultural robustness and the potential boundary conditions of gender role theory predictions. Given that empirical research on dating violence perceptions among Turkish young adults remains limited, and given that replication in underrepresented populations strengthens the generalizability of theoretical claims, the current study addresses an important gap in the comparative literature (Keçeci and Ümmet 2025). The focus on young adults aged 18–24 is theoretically motivated: this developmental period, often described as emerging adulthood, is characterized by the formation of first serious romantic relationships, consolidation of gender-related attitudes, and heightened vulnerability to dating violence (Arnett 2000; Matud et al. 2023). Research consistently identifies young adults as both the population most at risk for dating violence and the cohort whose gender-role attitudes are most amenable to intervention (Villanueva-Blasco et al. 2024). Examining this group in the Turkish context therefore maximizes both scientific relevance and practical applicability for prevention programming.
This study primarily aimed to examine young adults’ perceptions of gender equality and explore how these perceptions relate to their recognition of dating violence in the Turkish context, thereby providing an empirical test of gender role theory in an underrepresented national setting. More specifically, the research sought to: (a) assess levels of gender equality perception among Turkish young adults; (b) analyze the relationship between gender equality perceptions and the recognition of psychological and physical dating violence as a test of gender role theory’s predictions; and (c) determine whether sociodemographic characteristics moderate these perceptions, thus contributing to understanding boundary conditions on the theory’s generalizability.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

This study employed a cross-sectional quantitative design. Data were collected through a structured online questionnaire developed to meet the research objectives. A power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 to determine the minimum required sample size for correlation analyses. Assuming a medium effect size (r = 0.30), an alpha level of 0.05, and desired power of 0.90, the analysis indicated that a minimum of 384 participants would be required. The current study’s sample of 465 participants therefore exceeded this threshold, ensuring sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful associations among variables. The final sample consisted of 465 young adults aged 18–24 years (M = 21.25, SD = 2.54) residing in Türkiye who volunteered to participate. Of the participants, 279 (60.0%) identified as female and 186 (40.0%) as male. The majority were single (N = 451, 96.99%) and not employed (n = 390, 83.87%), with most identifying as students (N = 390, 83.87%). Educational attainment ranged from illiterate (n = 3, 0.65%) to university or college graduate (n = 208, 44.73%), with the largest group being high school graduates (n = 213, 45.81%). Perceived financial status was predominantly moderate (n = 316, 67.96%). Approximately 39.6% (n = 184) reported being in an ongoing romantic relationship at the time of data collection. Individuals with known neurological or psychiatric diagnoses were excluded. All participants provided informed electronic consent prior to completing the survey.

2.2. Procedure

Data were collected between May and December 2024 through an online questionnaire distributed via social media platforms, specifically Instagram, Twitter/X, and WhatsApp. The survey link was shared through the researchers’ personal and professional networks, and snowball dissemination was encouraged among participants. No financial incentives were offered. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and standardized scales measuring gender equality and perceptions of dating violence. Completing the survey took approximately 10 to 12 min. Participation was anonymous and voluntary, and no personal identifiers were collected. The online format was selected to maximize reach among young adults and to facilitate disclosure on sensitive topics by ensuring confidentiality. Participation was anonymous and voluntary, and no personal identifiers were collected. This procedure aims to gather unbiased and comprehensive data on sensitive topics from a diverse audience of young adults.

2.3. Measurements

The study’s data collection tools were chosen to thoroughly assess the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions regarding the variables.
Gender Equality Scale (GES): Developed by Gözütok et al. (2017), this 13-item scale measures attitudes toward gender equality among Turkish adults. It comprises two dimensions: “Opinion that Men are Superior to Women” (OMSW; 7 items) and “Opinion that Women are Dependent on Men” (OWDM; 6 items). Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more unequal gender attitudes. Sample items include “Men approach events more rationally than women” and “Women should obtain their husband’s approval before seeing anyone.” The original validation study reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.88 for OMSW and 0.70 for OWDM, indicating acceptable to good internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis in the original study supported the two-factor structure, and convergent validity was established through correlations with related gender attitude measures (Gözütok et al. 2017). In the present study, the scale demonstrated adequate reliability (OMSW: α = 0.88; OWDM: α = 0.70), consistent with the original validation (Appendix A).
Perceptions of Dating Violence Scale (PDVS): Developed and validated by Toplu-Demirtaş et al. (2022), this 15-item scale measures individuals’ tolerance for dating violence, specifically their tendency to minimize or normalize violent behaviors in romantic relationships. It comprises two subscales: psychological violence (8 items) and physical violence (7 items). Items describe a scenario involving a couple (named Hakan and Pınar) and ask respondents to evaluate the male partner’s behavior. Responses are recorded on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree); items 2, 4, and 6 are reverse-scored. Higher total scores indicate lower sensitivity to dating violence, that is, greater tolerance for violent behaviors. Sample items include “Hakan had the right to act this harshly” and “Pınar provoked this incident.” The original validation study reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87 for the full scale) and supported the two-factor structure via confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity was established through associations with hostile sexism and violence myth acceptance (Toplu-Demirtaş et al. 2022). In the present study, the scale showed satisfactory internal consistency for the psychological (α = 0.84) and physical (α = 0.86) subscales.

2.4. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0. Normality of the distributions was assessed with Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. All three primary variables departed significantly from normality (all p < 0.001). The Gender Equality Scale scores were positively skewed (M = 1.74, SD = 0.64; skewness = 1.92, kurtosis = 5.61), as were psychological dating violence perception scores (M = 1.67, SD = 0.75; skewness = 2.03, kurtosis = 5.60), indicating that the majority of participants scored at the lower end of both scales, reflecting more egalitarian attitudes and lower tolerance for violence. Physical violence perception scores showed milder positive skew (M = 2.26, SD = 0.97; skewness = 0.67, kurtosis = 0.05). Given these non-normal distributions, non-parametric tests were used for group comparisons. Mann–Whitney U tests assessed differences between two-group variables (e.g., gender, employment status, romantic relationship status). Kruskal–Wallis H tests were used for variables with three or more categories (e.g., education level, perceived income). Post hoc comparisons were based on mean rank values. Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis was used to assess the bivariate relationships between gender equality perceptions and both psychological and physical dating violence perceptions. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. To examine the unique contribution of gender equality perceptions to dating violence recognition while controlling for sociodemographic variables simultaneously, two ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression analyses were conducted—one for each violence outcome (psychological and physical). The predictor set included gender equality perception score (continuous), gender (0 = female, 1 = male), education level (ordinal: 0 = illiterate to 3 = university graduate), perceived income (ordinal: 0 = low, 1 = moderate, 2 = high), employment status (0 = no, 1 = yes), and romantic relationship status (0 = no, 1 = yes). Given that Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests indicated non-normal residual distributions, heteroscedasticity-consistent (HC3) robust standard errors were used in all regression models to ensure validity of inference (Long and Ervin 2000). Both unstandardized (B) and standardized (β) regression coefficients are reported alongside 95% confidence intervals. The proportion of variance explained was assessed via R2 and adjusted R2.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committees of Bezmialem Vakıf University (Approval No: 2022/307). Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants.

3. Results

3.1. Participant Characteristics

The study included 465 individuals who met the inclusion criteria and volunteered to participate. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 24 years, with an average age of 21.25 ± 2.54 years. The demographic data of the participants were presented in Table 1.

3.2. Perceptions Across Sociodemographic Characteristics

The study revealed no statistically significant differences between female and male groups in terms of perceptions of gender equality (p = 0.327), psychological violence (p = 0.604), and physical violence (p = 0.192). The present results suggest that gender does not significantly affect participants’ perceptions of violence or their views on gender equality. The perceived financial status of the individual (classified as good, moderate, or poor) exerts a significant influence on perceptions of gender equality (p = 0.002), psychological violence (p = 0.006), and physical violence (p = 0.040). A notable disparity in participants’ perceptions of violence and gender equality was observed, contingent on their perceived financial status. The findings revealed that educational attainment did not demonstrate a substantial correlation with perceptions of gender equality (p = 0.646), psychological violence (p = 0.815), and physical violence (p = 0.788). The correlation between employment status and perceptions of gender equality (p = 0.111), psychological violence (p = 0.489), and physical violence (p = 0.771) was not statistically significant. The present study sought to ascertain the relationship between an ongoing romantic relationship and perceptions of gender equality and psychological violence. The findings, as illustrated in Table 2, revealed a non-significant relationship (p = 0.367) with regard to gender equality and a non-significant relationship (p = 0.240) with regard to psychological violence, though this p-value approached but did not reach the conventional significance threshold. However, a significant relationship was identified (p = 0.001) with regard to perceptions of physical violence.
Regarding gender equality perception, educational attainment was associated with increasing mean ranks from literate (mean rank = 156.34) through high school graduates (mean rank = 219.72) to university or college graduates (mean rank = 257.10), indicating that higher educational attainment was associated with more egalitarian gender attitudes. The illiterate group (n = 3) had an anomalously high mean rank (463.50); however, this finding must be interpreted with considerable caution, given the very small cell size, which limits the reliability and generalizability of this comparison. Regarding the perception of psychological violence, the literate group had a lower mean rank (180.92), while high school graduates had a mean rank of 231.00 and university/college graduates had the highest mean rank (241.19). Notably, the illiterate group again showed an elevated mean rank (461.50), though this outlying result is likely attributable to the extremely small sample size (n = 3) rather than a substantive pattern. Similar patterns were observed for physical violence perception, with the illiterate group exhibiting an elevated mean rank (461.50)—again subject to the same small-sample caveat—and the university/college graduate group showing the lowest mean rank (242.08), indicating the greatest sensitivity to physical violence.
Data examining the relationship between romantic relationship status and perceptions of gender equality, psychological violence, and physical violence show the mean rank and sum of ranks for each group. Regarding the perception of gender equality, individuals in romantic relationships have a mean rank of 240.30, while individuals not in romantic relationships have a mean rank of 228.47. The results reported that individuals in romantic relationships perceive gender equality more positively than those who are not. Regarding the perception of psychological violence, the mean rank of individuals in romantic relationships was 242.64, while the mean rank of individuals not in romantic relationships was 227.26. This trend indicates that individuals in romantic relationships rate the perception of psychological violence higher than individuals who are not in romantic relationships. Regarding the perception of physical violence, the mean rank of individuals in romantic relationships was 259.97, while the mean rank of individuals not in romantic relationships was 218.32. The current study’s outcomes reveal that individuals in romantic relationships rate the perception of physical violence higher than those who are not. Overall, these findings suggest that individuals in romantic relationships have higher values regarding perceptions of gender equality and violence (both psychological and physical).

3.3. Relationship Between Gender Equality and Perceptions of Dating Violence

A substantial positive correlation was identified between perceptions of gender equality and psychological violence. This finding suggests a correlation between perceptions of gender equality and greater tolerance for psychological violence. Individuals who perceive gender equality to be low may be more likely to tolerate psychological violence. Participants who obtained lower scores on the Gender Equality Scale may be indicative of individuals who hold fewer egalitarian views and exhibit greater tolerance for psychological dating violence. A similar positive relationship was also observed between perceptions of gender equality and physical violence. Participants exhibiting lower scores on the Gender Equality Scale demonstrated greater tolerance for physical dating violence, indicating that limited egalitarian perspectives are associated with greater tolerance for both psychological and physical forms of dating violence (Table 3).

3.4. Multivariate Predictors of Dating Violence Perceptions

Two OLS multiple regression models were estimated to assess the unique contribution of gender equality perceptions to dating violence recognition after simultaneously controlling for all sociodemographic variables (Table 4). The overall model predicting psychological violence perception was statistically significant, F(6, 429) = 12.23, p < 0.001, accounting for 30.4% of the variance (Adj. R2 = 0.294). Gender equality perception emerged as the strongest predictor (B = 0.554, β = 0.475, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.339, 0.769]): participants with lower egalitarian perceptions showed substantially higher tolerance for psychological dating violence when all other variables were held constant. Gender also emerged as a significant predictor in the multivariate model (B = 0.305, β = 0.169, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.113, 0.497]), with male participants showing higher tolerance for psychological violence independent of their gender equality scores. Education level, perceived income, employment status, and romantic relationship status did not contribute significantly to the prediction of psychological violence perception (all p > 0.25) after controlling for the other variables in the model.
The model predicting physical violence perception was similarly significant, F(6, 429) = 15.19, p < 0.001, explaining 24.5% of the variance (Adj. R2 = 0.235). Again, gender equality perception was the dominant predictor (B = 0.557, β = 0.367, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.347, 0.767]), confirming that lower egalitarian attitudes are independently associated with greater acceptance of physical dating violence. Gender remained a significant predictor (B = 0.480, β = 0.205, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.245, 0.715]), indicating that male participants showed higher tolerance for physical violence beyond what could be attributed to their gender equality perceptions. Notably, romantic relationship status was a significant predictor of physical violence perception (B = 0.333, β = 0.162, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.156, 0.510]), such that participants currently in a romantic relationship reported higher tolerance for physical dating violence after controlling for all other variables. Education level, perceived income, and employment status did not significantly predict physical violence perceptions (all p > 0.50) in the multivariate model. Taken together, these results indicate that gender equality perception is the primary independent predictor of both forms of dating violence tolerance, a finding that holds robustly after controlling for the full set of sociodemographic characteristics examined.

4. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between gender equality perceptions and tolerance for dating violence among Turkish young adults, serving as an empirical test of gender role theory in a cultural context characterized by persistent gender inequalities. Extending prior bivariate research, the multivariate analyses enabled isolation of the independent predictive role of gender equality perceptions after controlling sociodemographic factors—a methodological contribution that adds precision to the existing evidence base. The findings indicated that sociodemographic factors differentially influenced tolerance for dating violence, with gender equality perception consistently emerging as the dominant predictor.
Existing literature suggests that women have more egalitarian attitudes toward gender equality than men (Heise et al. 2019; Triulzi et al. 2024). In the bivariate analyses, our study found no significant gender differences in perceived gender equality or in perceptions of dating violence. However, the multivariate regression analyses revealed a different picture: after controlling for gender equality perceptions and other sociodemographic variables simultaneously, gender emerged as a significant independent predictor of both psychological (β = 0.169, p = 0.002) and physical (β = 0.205, p < 0.001) dating violence tolerance. Male participants showed higher tolerance for both forms of violence beyond what could be explained by their gender equality scores alone. This discrepancy between the bivariate and multivariate results underscores the importance of controlling for confounders: the bivariate non-significance of gender likely reflected suppression by correlated predictors. These multivariate findings align with the broader literature indicating that men tend to show greater tolerance for dating violence (Hamby and Turner 2013; Villanueva-Blasco et al. 2024), and are consistent with gender role theory’s prediction that socialized masculine norms promote greater tolerance for aggression in intimate relationships (Eagly 1987). The absence of a gender difference at the bivariate level, and its emergence in the multivariate model, may reflect the particular cultural context of Türkiye, where traditional gender norms may attenuate surface-level differences while underlying gender-linked attitudes continue to shape violence tolerance when examined more rigorously (Eisner 2021; Hunt et al. 2022).
Significant relationships emerged between perceived economic conditions, gender equality perceptions, and tolerance for psychological and physical violence. This finding aligns with previous studies suggesting that adverse socioeconomic conditions may normalize violence and undermine egalitarian attitudes. As socioeconomic resources increase, it has been reported that individuals’ levels of power and independence rise, while their tendency to accept or perpetrate violence decreases. Additionally, economic crises and income inequality have been shown to lead individuals to adopt more traditional gender norms (Berniell et al. 2024; Chon 2013). From a structural inequality perspective, the role of perceived economic status as observed suggests that material conditions intersect with gender norms to shape attitudes toward violence. Socioeconomic disadvantages can increase exposure to stressors, limit access to educational resources, and reinforce traditional gender ideologies that normalize unequal power relations. Conversely, greater economic security may facilitate more egalitarian worldviews and lower tolerance for violent behaviors. These findings emphasize that dating violence is a social justice concern linked to broader patterns of inequality, not merely a relational or psychological issue. Therefore, addressing violence requires attention to the social determinants that sustain gender hierarchies and vulnerability within intimate relationships.
The literature generally reports that higher educational attainment is associated with reduced justification of violence and more egalitarian attitudes (Raz-Yurovich and Okun 2024; Tuki 2025). The present findings partially align with, but also complicate, this pattern. While higher education was associated with lower tolerance for physical dating violence—consistent with prior research—it was paradoxically linked to higher recognition of psychological violence. Rather than contradicting the literature, this divergence likely reflects the differential social visibility of these two violence types. Physical violence is more explicitly condemned in Turkish legal and social discourse, and higher education may amplify already-strong rejection of it. Psychological violence, by contrast, involves subtler forms of coercion and control that may only become perceptible through greater educational exposure to concepts such as emotional manipulation, relational power dynamics, and personal autonomy (Keçeci and Ümmet 2025). In this sense, education appears to sharpen sensitivity to covert forms of violence while reinforcing rejection of overt ones—a theoretically coherent pattern that speaks to the multidimensional nature of dating violence literacy. From a gender role theory perspective, even among higher-educated individuals, traditional gender norms may selectively normalize psychological coercion while rendering physical aggression unacceptable. These findings underscore that educational interventions targeting dating violence should explicitly address psychological violence recognition, not assume that general literacy is sufficient.
No significant relationship was found between employment status and perceptions of gender equality or dating violence. This null finding is consistent with the broader literature, which reports inconsistent effects of employment on gender attitudes and violence tolerance. While some studies show that economic participation can promote egalitarian worldviews and reduce vulnerability to violence, others highlight that this relationship is contingent on employment quality, sector, and cultural context (Mendez and Avellaneda 2025; Reyal et al. 2024). In the Turkish context, where the majority of participants were students without stable employment, employment status may carry insufficient variation in economic power or exposure to diverse social norms to generate meaningful differences in gender-related attitudes. Future research should consider more nuanced operationalizations of economic participation, including job security, sector, and income level, rather than treating employment as a binary variable.
Individuals currently in romantic relationships reported more egalitarian perceptions of gender equality alongside higher tolerance for both psychological and physical dating violence—that is, they were less likely to identify violent behaviors as abusive. These two findings may appear paradoxical, but reflect the complexity of romantic relationship contexts: greater familiarity with a partner may simultaneously promote gender-egalitarian views while also increasing tolerance for boundary violations that are rationalized as expressions of intimacy or passion. While the literature suggests that romantic relationships can strengthen perceptions of equality by promoting awareness of gender roles and attitudes (Park et al. 2025), it also indicates that they can reinforce unequal roles through normative expectations (Cross et al. 2025). Furthermore, it has been reported that romantic contexts may distort perceptions by romanticizing certain forms of violence. Additionally, attachment styles and gender role perceptions may affect the psychological tolerance of violence (Keçeci and Ümmet 2025; Sasatake 2025). In this regard, it can be said that romantic relationships can provide a context that enhances perceptions of equality but also shape perceptions of violence in complex ways.
Positive correlations were identified between gender equality perceptions and tolerance for both psychological and physical dating violence. Individuals with lower egalitarian perceptions were more likely to tolerate violent behaviors in intimate relationships. These results align with existing literature indicating that sexist attitudes increase the tendency to justify violence and that egalitarian norms decrease tolerance for partner violence (Rebollo-Catalan et al. 2025; Villanueva-Blasco et al. 2024). Our findings suggest that perceptions of gender equality play a critical role in preventing violence. These findings can be interpreted within a broader framework of social norms and power relations, beyond individual-level associations. Perceptions of gender equality are not merely personal attitudes, but rather reflections of the socially constructed norms that regulate acceptable behaviors within intimate relationships. When hierarchical gender norms that legitimize dominance, control, or emotional authority become normalized, psychological and physical violence may be perceived as less problematic or even justifiable. Thus, dating violence can be understood as a social phenomenon rooted in culturally sanctioned power asymmetries rather than as solely an outcome of individual pathology. This interpretation aligns with sociological models that emphasize interpersonal violence is shaped by collective belief systems and gendered expectations embedded in everyday social interactions.
These findings carry concrete implications for prevention and intervention. Given that gender equality perception consistently emerged as the primary predictor of dating violence tolerance—stronger than any sociodemographic variable—intervention efforts should prioritize transforming gender-related attitudes rather than relying solely on general awareness campaigns. University settings are especially strategic sites for such work, as they bring together large numbers of young adults at a formative stage of relationship development. University-based initiatives that integrate gender equality education into orientation programs, student clubs, and health services could reach participants before harmful attitudes become entrenched. Critically, such programs should address psychological violence explicitly, given that this study found lower educational attainment was associated with lower recognition of psychological violence. Digital campaigns targeting social media platforms—where this study’s sample was recruited—offer additional reach for normalizing egalitarian relationship norms. At the policy level, incorporating gender-sensitive frameworks into Turkey’s national youth and education strategies could strengthen multi-level responses to interpersonal violence at a time when institutional protections for women have been under pressure (UN HRC 2024).
This study has certain limitations. Most importantly, the sample was recruited via social media platforms and consisted of volunteers, resulting in a convenience (non-probability) sample. This non-random sampling method means that the sample may not be representative of the broader Turkish young adult population, and findings should be interpreted with caution regarding their generalizability. First, the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inferences. Second, the reliance on self-reported data may be subject to social desirability bias. Additionally, the sample was limited to young adults within a specific age range and cultural context, which may further restrict the generalizability of the findings. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of gender equality perceptions and dating violence, future research should include more diverse and representative populations, employ longitudinal or mixed methods designs, and examine additional contextual variables, such as family background, peer influence, and cultural norms.

5. Conclusions

This study revealed a significant association between young adults’ perceptions of gender equality and their views on psychological and physical dating violence. Those with lower egalitarian perspectives showed greater tolerance for violence. Sociodemographic characteristics, such as educational level, perceived economic status, and relationship status, influenced these perceptions; however, gender and employment status were not significant factors. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of gender equality perceptions and sociodemographic variables in shaping young adults’ attitudes toward dating violence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A. and Z.İ.G.; methodology, K.T.; formal analysis Z.İ.G.; investigation, S.A.; resources, S.A.; data curation, Z.İ.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A. and Z.İ.G.; writing—review and editing, S.A., K.T. and Z.İ.G.; supervision, K.T.; project administration, K.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Bezmialem Vakıf University (Approval No. E-54022451-050.05.04-82428).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Gender Equality Scale (GES)

The Gender Equality Scale (Gözütok et al. 2017) consists of 13 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate less egalitarian gender attitudes. Items are organized across two subscales.
Subscale 1: Opinion that Men are Superior to Women (OMSW; 7 items)
1. Men approach events more rationally than women. 2. A woman earning more than her husband disrupts the relationship between men and women. 3. Men are more successful than women because they are more intelligent. 4. Priority should be given to men in professional life. 5. Politics is a “masculine” domain. 6. Upper-level positions in professional life are suited for men. 7. Men are always one step ahead of women.
Subscale 2: Opinion that Women are Dependent on Men (OWDM; 6 items)
8. A woman should obtain her husband’s approval before seeing anyone. 9. The family’s financial expenditures should be under the man’s control. 10. Domestic tasks (ironing, dishes, cleaning, childcare) are women’s responsibility. 11. Men are responsible for external household tasks (paying bills, etc.). 12. A woman’s freedom should always be under the man’s supervision. 13. Men are more successful than women in mathematics and science professions.

Appendix B. Perceptions of Dating Violence Scale (PDVS)

The Perceptions of Dating Violence Scale (Toplu-Demirtaş et al. 2022) consists of 15 items rated on a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Items describe a scenario in which a male partner (Hakan) behaves aggressively toward his female partner (Pınar). Higher scores indicate lower sensitivity to dating violence (greater tolerance). Items 2, 4, and 6 are reverse-scored. The scale comprises two subscales.
Subscale 1: Psychological Violence Perception (8 items)
1. Hakan had the right to act this harshly toward Pınar. 2. There was nothing wrong with Pınar’s behavior. (R) 3. Pınar was partly at fault in this incident. 4. Hakan is responsible for what happened. (R) 5. Pınar provoked this incident. 6. Hakan should blame himself for what happened. (R) 7. Pınar should not have behaved that way. 8. Hakan did not intend to behave this way.
Subscale 2: Physical Violence Perception (7 items)
9. Pınar is to blame for Hakan’s behavior. 10. It was appropriate for Hakan to behave this way to discipline Pınar’s behavior. 11. Hakan had the right to behave this way, but not this harshly. 12. Hakan was justified in being angry. 13. Pınar is to blame for Hakan’s behavior toward her. 14. As long as Hakan does not cause permanent physical harm to Pınar, it is his right to behave this way. 15. Pınar should be blamed because she behaved badly. (R) = reverse-scored item. Higher total scores indicate greater tolerance for dating violence (lower sensitivity).

References

  1. Anderson, Kim M., and Fran S. Danis. 2007. Collegiate sororities and dating violence: An exploratory study of informal and formal helping strategies. Violence Against Women 13: 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Angelone, David Jason, Damon Mitchell, and Laura Grossi. 2015. Men’s perceptions of an acquaintance rape: The role of relationship length, victim resistance, and gender role attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 30: 2278–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2000. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55: 469–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baker, Charlene K. 2016. Dating violence and substance use: Exploring the context of adolescent relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31: 900–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baker, Charlene K., Susana Helm, Kristina. Bifulco, and Jane Chung-Do. 2015. The relationship between self-harm and teen dating violence among youth in Hawaii. Qualitative Health Research 25: 652–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bandura, Albert, and Robert H. Walters. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
  7. Berniell, Inés, Leonardo Gasparini, Mariana Marchionni, and Marianan Viollaz. 2024. Hard Times, Hard Attitudes? The Effect of Economic Downturns on Gender Norms. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/307199 (accessed on 25 October 2024).
  8. Chon, Don Soo. 2013. Test of impacts of gender equality and economic development on sexual violence. Journal of Family Violence 28: 603–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cross, Emily J., Alyssa DeBlaere, and Amy Muise. 2025. Leveraging Man−Woman Romantic Relationships to Promote Men’s Awareness of Sexism and Gender Discrimination. Social Psychological and Personality Science 17: 326–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cuccì, Gaia, Camilla Chiara Colombo, and Emanuela Confalonieri. 2024. Gender role mindset and beliefs about own personal goals as a guide for young people’s behaviors towards the romantic partner. Behavioral Sciences 14: 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. DFAT. 2025. Türkiye Country Information Report; Canberra: Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Available online: https://www.dfat.gov.au/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  12. Dilli, Selin, Sarah. G. Carmichael, and Auke Rijpma. 2019. Introducing the historical gender equality index. Feminist Economics 25: 31–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eagly, Alice H. 1987. Sex Differences in Sexual Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisner, Manuel. 2021. The gender symmetry problem in physical teen dating violence: A commentary and suggestions for a research agenda. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2021: 157–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fernet, Mylène, Laura Désilets, Martine Hébert, and Marie-Marthe Cousineau. 2021. Informal help-seeking process regarding romantic issues and dating violence: A qualitative study. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 14: 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Garthe, Rachel C., Amandeep Kaur, Agnes Rieger, M. Blackburn, Shongha Kim, and Jacob Goffnett. 2021a. Dating violence and peer victimization among male, female, transgender, and gender-expansive youth. Pediatrics 147: e2020004317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Garthe, Rachel C., Terri N. Sullivan, and Kathryn L. Behrhorst. 2021b. A latent class analysis of early adolescent peer and dating violence: Associations with symptoms of depression and anxiety. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36: 2031–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gözütok, F. Dilek, Çetin Toraman, and Tuba Acar-Erdol. 2017. Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ölçeğinin (TCEÖ) geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online 16: 1036–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hamby, Sherry, and Heather Turner. 2013. Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. Psychology of Violence 3: 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Heise, Lori, Margaret E. Greene, Neisha Opper, Maria Stavropoulou, Caroline Harper, Marcos Nascimento, Debrework Zewdie, Gary L. Darmstadt, Margaret Eleanor Greene, and Sarah Hawkes. 2019. Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: Framing the challenges to health. The Lancet 393: 2440–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Horton, Karla. B. 2021. Assessing the correlation between parental incarceration and relational aggression: Factor structure of the diverse adolescent relational aggression scale (DARAS). Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 30: 491–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hunt, Kristen E., Luz E. Robinson, Alberto Valido, Dorothy L. Espelage, and Jun S. Hong. 2022. Teen dating violence victimization: Associations among peer justification, attitudes toward gender inequality, sexual activity, and peer victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37: 5914–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Johnson, Nicole L., Morgan Benner, Natania S. Lipp, C. Finn Siepser, Zeist Rizvi, Zhuozhi Lin, and Elise Calene. 2024. Gender inequality: A worldwide correlate of intimate partner violence. Women’s Studies International Forum 107: 103016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kaukinen, Catherine. 2014. Dating violence among college students: The risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 15: 283–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kearns, Megan C., Ashley S. D’Inverno, and Dennis E. Reidy. 2020. The association between gender inequality and sexual violence in the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 58: 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Keçeci, Berra, and Durmuş Ümmet. 2025. A study of psychological violence in intimate partner relationships among university students: A mixed-methods research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12: 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, Yijun K., Ben Bradford, and Alina Ristea. 2025. A Systematic Review Exploring Cultural Variables Related to Bystander Intentions, Interventions and Attitudes in the Context of Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Long, J. Scott, and Laurie H. Ervin. 2000. Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician 54: 217–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Matud, M. Pilar, D. Estefanía Hernández-Lorenzo, Demelsa Fortes, and Ignacio Ibáñez. 2023. Dating violence and mental health in emerging adulthood. Healthcare 11: 3172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Meiksin, Rebecca, Ruth Ponsford, Nambusi Kyegombe, and Chris Bonell. 2025. Social norms relating to gender and dating and relationship violence in English secondary schools: Exploring student, staff and parent/carer accounts. Social Science & Medicine 366: 117621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mendez, Nathalie, and Claudia N. Avellaneda. 2025. How context moderates public employees’ attitudes toward gender equality. Journal of Policy Studies 40: 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Murray, Ashlee. 2019. Teen dating violence: Old disease in a new world. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine 20: 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Park, Haeyoung G., Helena Y. Qin, Rebecca M. Horne, Emily A. Impett, Jeremy B. Yorgason, and Felix Cheung. 2025. Partner (in) congruence in gender role attitudes and relationship satisfaction. PNAS Nexus 4: 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Parker, Elizabeth M., and Catherine P. Bradshaw. 2015. Teen dating violence victimization and patterns of substance use among high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health 57: 441–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Pastor, Yolanda, Elena Pascual, Juan J. Muñoz, and Soraya M. Bravo. 2020. Wording effect in the measurement of attitudes towards dating violence. Psychosocial Intervention 29: 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Raz-Yurovich, Latz, and Barbara S. Okun. 2024. Are highly educated partners really more gender egalitarian? A couple-level analysis of social class differentials in attitudes and behaviors. Demographic Research 50: 1005–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rebollo-Catalan, Angeles, Rafael García-Pérez, Mercedes Cubero-Pérez, Miguel J. Bascón-Díaz, and Manuel De la Mata-Benítez. 2025. Myths About Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in Becoming a Professional: Influence of Gender and Degree in College Students. Behavioral Sciences 15: 833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Reyal, Haizana Parween, Nayomi Dissanayake, Harsha Gunarathna, Dilukshi Soysa, Manoj Sanjeewa Fernando, and Lalith Senarathna. 2024. Association between individual-level socioeconomic factors and intimate partner violence victimisation in women: A systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 14: e080117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reyes, Luz H., Vangie A. Foshee, Phyllis H. Niolon, Dennis E. Reidy, and Jeffrey E. Hall. 2016. Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45: 350–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rodríguez-Díaz, Francisco Juan, J. Herrero, Luis Rodríguez-Franco, Carolina Bringas-Molleda, Susana G. Paíno-Quesada, and Beatriz Pérez. 2017. Validation of dating violence questionnarie-r (DVQ-R). International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 17: 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Santoro, Chiara, Belen Martínez-Ferrer, Carmen Monreal Gimeno, and Gonzalo Musitu. 2018. New directions for preventing dating violence in adolescence: The study of gender models. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sasatake, Hideho. 2025. Effect of positive emotions on perceiving dating violence as affection. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 40: 396–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Savage, Matthew W., Jennifer A. Scarduzio, Kate Lockwood Harris, Kellie E. Carlyle, and Sarah E. Sheff. 2017. News stories of intimate partner violence: An experimental examination of participant sex, perpetrator sex, and violence severity on seriousness, sympathy, and punishment preferences. Health Communication 32: 768–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Toplu-Demirtaş, Ezgi, Gizem Öztemür, and Frank D. Fincham. 2022. Perceptions of dating violence: Assessment and antecedents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37: NP48–NP75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Triulzi, Isotta, Stefano Orlando, Ilaria Palla, Bryan Mthiko, Alinane L. Nyondo-Mipando, Sangare H. Mamary, Tambwali B. Playster, Fausto Ciccacci, Cristina M. Marazzi, and Giusebbe Turchetti. 2024. Determinants of gender-equitable attitudes among adult men in a health education program: A cross-sectional study in Southern Malawi. BMC Public Health 24: 3582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tuki, Daniel. 2025. Examining the effect of gender, education and religion on attitudes toward gender equality in Nigeria. Politics, Groups, and Identities 13: 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. UN HRC. 2024. Report on Türkiye—Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 142nd Session. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/ (accessed on 16 September 2024).
  50. Ureña, Julissa, Eva M. Romera, Jose A. Casas, Carmen Viejo, and Rosario Ortega-Ruiz. 2015. Psychometrics properties of psychological dating violence questionnaire: A study with young couples. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 15: 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Van Ouytsel, Joris, Koen Ponnet, and Michel Walrave. 2017. The associations of adolescents’ dating violence victimization, well-being and engagement in risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescence 55: 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Villanueva-Blasco, Victor J., Begona Iranzo, Joaquin Mateu-Mollá, Laura Carrascosa, Sandra Gómez-Martínez, Marta Corral-Martínez, Ma Teresa. Mitjans, and Ma Jesus Hernández-Jiménez. 2024. Teen dating violence: Predictive role of sexism and the mediating role of empathy and assertiveness based on gender. Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1393085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. WEF. 2024. Global Gender Gap Report 2024. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2024/ (accessed on 11 June 2024).
  54. WHO. 2019. Violence Against Women: Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women: Evidence Brief. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/540927/violence-against-women/1517849/ (accessed on 21 April 2025).
  55. WHO. 2024. Adolescent Girls Face Alarming Rates of Intimate Partner Violence. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-07-2024-adolescent-girls-face-alarming-rates-of-intimate-partner-violence (accessed on 29 July 2024).
  56. Wilchek-Aviad, Yael, Vered Neeman-Haviv, Nitzan Shagan, and Adva Ota-Shushan. 2018. The public perception of female and male violence in marital relationships. Smith College Studies in Social Work 88: 312–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wolfe, David A., Katreena Scott, Deborah Reitzel-Jaffe, Christine Wekerle, Carolyn Grasley, and Anna-Lee Straatman. 2001. Development and validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships inventory. Psychological Assessment 13: 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 465).
Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 465).
VariableCategoryParticipants%
GenderFemale27960
Male18640
Marital statusMarried143.01
Single45196.99
Educational statusIlliterate30.65
Literate275.81
High school graduate21345.81
University/college graduate20844.73
Working statusYes7516.13
No39083.87
ProfessionStudent39083.87
Private sector employee429.03
Public sector employee337.10
Perceived financial statusHigh11825.38
Moderate31667.96
Low418.82
Living environmentAlone7115.27
With parents32870.54
Student dormitory4710.11
With friends194.08
Ongoing romantic relationshipYes18439.57
No28160.43
Table 2. Sociodemographic Correlates of Perceptions on Gender and Violence.
Table 2. Sociodemographic Correlates of Perceptions on Gender and Violence.
VariablePerception of Gender EqualityPerception of Psychological ViolencePerception of Physical Violence
Genderp = 0.327p = 0.604p = 0.192
Perceived financial statusp = 0.002p = 0.006p = 0.040
Educational statusp = 0.646p = 0.815p = 0.788
Working statusp = 0.111p = 0.489p = 0.771
Ongoing romantic relationshipp = 0.367p = 0.240p = 0.001
Table 3. Relationship Between Perception of Gender Equality and Types of Violence.
Table 3. Relationship Between Perception of Gender Equality and Types of Violence.
Variables ComparedSpearman’s Rhop-Value
Perception of Gender Equality-Psychological Violence0.469<0.01
Perception of Gender Equality-Physical Violence0.347<0.01
Table 4. Multiple Regression Results Predicting Perceptions of Dating Violence (N = 436).
Table 4. Multiple Regression Results Predicting Perceptions of Dating Violence (N = 436).
VariableBSEβtp95% CI
Model 1: Psychological Violence Perception—R2 = 0.304, Adj. R2 = 0.294, F(6, 429) = 12.23, p < 0.001
Gender Equality Perception0.5540.1100.4755.045<0.001 ***[0.339, 0.769]
Gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male)0.3050.0980.1693.1200.002 **[0.113, 0.497]
Education Level−0.0170.058−0.014−0.2840.776[−0.131, 0.098]
Perceived Income0.0150.0630.0110.2430.808[−0.108, 0.139]
Employment Status−0.0150.089−0.007−0.1710.864[−0.190, 0.160]
Romantic Relationship Status−0.0700.063−0.044−1.1170.264[−0.193, 0.053]
Model 2: Physical Violence Perception—R2 = 0.245, Adj. R2 = 0.235, F(6, 429) = 15.19, p < 0.001
Gender Equality Perception0.5570.1070.3675.205<0.001 ***[0.347, 0.767]
Gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male)0.4800.1200.2054.005<0.001 ***[0.245, 0.715]
Education Level−0.0320.072−0.022−0.4410.659[−0.174, 0.110]
Perceived Income−0.0310.085−0.017−0.3700.711[−0.198, 0.135]
Employment Status0.0820.1210.0290.6730.501[−0.156, 0.319]
Romantic Relationship Status0.3330.0900.1623.687<0.001 ***[0.156, 0.510]
Note. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = robust standard error (HC3); β = standardized coefficient; CI = confidence interval. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akel, S.; Gözübol, Z.İ.; Toker, K. Associations Between Gender Equality Perceptions and Psychological and Physical Dating Violence Among Young Adults. Soc. Sci. 2026, 15, 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15060369

AMA Style

Akel S, Gözübol Zİ, Toker K. Associations Between Gender Equality Perceptions and Psychological and Physical Dating Violence Among Young Adults. Social Sciences. 2026; 15(6):369. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15060369

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akel, Sultan, Zekiye İrem Gözübol, and Kerem Toker. 2026. "Associations Between Gender Equality Perceptions and Psychological and Physical Dating Violence Among Young Adults" Social Sciences 15, no. 6: 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15060369

APA Style

Akel, S., Gözübol, Z. İ., & Toker, K. (2026). Associations Between Gender Equality Perceptions and Psychological and Physical Dating Violence Among Young Adults. Social Sciences, 15(6), 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15060369

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop