Attitudes and Beliefs About Gender Violence in Toledo University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the attitudes of Toledo University students toward gender and violence, as well as their sexist beliefs, considering different sociodemographic variables, and to examine the associations between these attitudes and the expression of sexism. A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed, which was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. The study population consisted of 1176 students who completed an online survey that collected sociodemographic information and incorporated the Questionnaire of Attitudes toward Gender and Violence (CAGV), along with measures of hostile and benevolent sexism derived from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). A descriptive analysis, an inferential analysis and a Pearson correlation were performed for the scores of the two scales used, controlling for the influence of sex and age. Among the participants, 67.1% were women and 32.0% were men. The average age was 20.1 years, with a deviation of 2.2 years, and the age was between 18 and 26 years. This work was carried out in several Faculties of the Campus. The results highlight the significant differences between the groups of men and women in both questionnaires. In general, men have higher scores than women do, so they have higher sexist attitudes and beliefs. The correlations between both questionnaires are significant among all categories. We believe that the data analyzed call for the implementation of action plans to reduce sexist behavior in university students. Universities must establish action plans against gender violence.

1. Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (2021), gender violence can cause significant damage to the physical, psychological and sexual health of women in the short and long term, affecting not only their well-being but also that of the people around them. and generating high socioeconomic costs for the whole society. According to World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, approximately one-third of women globally report having been subjected to physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by an intimate partner or former partner at some point in their lifetime.

The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (General Assembly, 1993) defines gender-based violence as “any act of violence based on belonging to the female sex that does or may result in physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, as well as threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether they occur in public or in private life” (United Nations, 1993).

At the European level, it was not until the approval of the Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe, 2021), when it was introduced into a binding text, that gender violence “constitutes a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls and a fundamental obstacle to the realization of the equality between women and men”.

Gender violence, or violence against women, occurs in societies where a system of gender relations maintains the power and superiority of men over women, assigning different attributes, roles and spaces depending on sex. The fundamental pillars that sustain this type of violence are the culturally instituted models of male domination (Herrero et al., 2017).

This is an issue that requires a commitment from institutions with respect to addressing it, and in this sense, Spain designed a pioneering strategy at the legal level in attention to gender violence. This was formulated in Spain as Law 1/2004 and is characterized by a desire for comprehensive and multidisciplinary action, which is recognized by some institutions in the European framework and internationally. However, the evolution of indicators shows that there is room for improvement for women in situations of gender violence (Pastor-Gosálbez et al., 2021).

According to data from the Ministry of Equality (2022) in Spain, the number of confirmed women murdered by gender violence between 1 January 2003, and 31 December 2022, was 1182. From 1 January to 31 December 2022, 49 women were murdered due to gender violence. A total of 53.06% of the fatalities were between the ages of 31 and 50.

It is interesting to learn about education in Spain. Education on gender equality within the education system is based on a solid legal framework that promotes the integration of the gender perspective at all levels of education. Organic Law 3/2020, which amends Organic Law 2/2006 on Education, establishes co-education and equality between women and men as fundamental principles, while Organic Law 3/2007 on Effective Equality between Women and Men requires public authorities to guarantee equal access, review educational materials and train teachers on equality issues.

In higher education, universities must develop gender equality plans and integrate this perspective into teaching, research and institutional management. However, studies reveal the persistence of androcentric approaches and insufficient teacher training, highlighting the need for a more effective and transformative implementation of education for equality throughout the Spanish education system (Cabedo-Laborda, 2024).

In this sense, the data provided by the different investigations to which we have access show that gender violence also occurs in the university environment; therefore, numerous initiatives and projects have already been launched at different universities around the world. Measures to prevent situations of gender violence in this context have begun to be implemented (Etura-Hernández et al., 2019). We found various studies, both national and international, that address this social scourge in the university environment (Expósito-Cívico et al., 2022; Garcés-Estrada et al., 2020; Duche-Pérez et al., 2020).

The recent concern of universities regarding discrimination and violence based on gender has led to the formulation of different programs and policies aimed at addressing this situation and promoting changes within higher education institutions. The Equality Plans of obligatory implementation in Spanish universities since the entry into force of Organic Law 3/2007 of 22 March for the effective equality of women and men constitute an important way, but not sufficient, to achieve equality in this ambit.

This concern of the university is evident when, on 8 March 2018, the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities (CRUE) (CRUE Universidades Españolas, 2018) published a statement in which they admitted the existing inequality in the university context and promised to turn universities into “promoters of social justice and integrate the gender perspective transversally in all areas of management, teaching and research”.

With this commitment in mind, the general objective of this research is to determine the attitudes and beliefs about the equality and gender violence held by university students in the city of Toledo.

2. Methods

2.1. Design

A descriptive cross-sectional study will be conducted to determine the attitudes of students from different faculties toward gender violence. The study was conducted following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist (Vandenbroucke et al., 2014).

2.2. Participants

The reference population was 5609 students enrolled at the Toledo Campus of the University of Castilla-La Mancha during the 2022–2023 academic year. The inclusion criteria were to be an undergraduate student at the Toledo Campus and to be enrolled at the time of data collection.

The sampling was carried out with the GRANMO program for a population estimate. For a confidence interval of 95%, a replacement rate of 10% and a population estimate of 71.4% of ambivalent sexism based on the study by Carrasco-Carpio et al. (2021), a sample of 329 students is sufficient. We computed the sample size with GRANMO (Sample size and power calculator, IMIM–Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain; v7.12). This free, web-based tool estimates sample sizes for proportions/means and between-group comparisons, allowing finite-population correction, expected non-response, and one- or two-sided tests (IMIM, 2012).

The minimum sample size was computed with GRANMO (population proportion, finite population correction) for N = 5609 students (Toledo Campus, 2022–2023), assuming an expected prevalence of 71.4% of ambivalent sexism (Carrasco-Carpio et al., 2021), 95% confidence, and ±5% absolute precision, adding 10% for potential losses/non-response. The required size was n = 329. We finally obtained 1.176 valid responses, which yields an approximate precision of ±2.3% for p ≈ 0.71.

All the faculties of the Toledo Campus of the University of Castilla-La Mancha were contacted (Faculties of Physiotherapy and Nursing, Biochemistry, Architecture, Humanities, Law and Social Affairs, Education, Industrial and Aerospace Engineering, and Sports Sciences) to disseminate the invitation to study among all the students of your faculty. However, a total of 1176 students completed the online survey, so the response rate was 21%.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

Age Categorized			Faculty of the UCLM in Which You Study								Total
			Physiotherapy Nursing	Biochemistry	Architecture	Humanities	Social Legal	Education	Engineering	Sciences Sport
Age Under 23	Sex	Men	93	61	4	12	19	91	44	1	325
		Women	183	107	16	39	82	147	92	26	692
		N/A	3	1	0	0	2	1	1	1	9
	Total		279	169	20	51	103	239	137	28	1026
Age 23 to 25	Sex	Men	8	10	1	1	1	3	2	5	31
		Women	24	16	5	0	0	11	6	3	65
		N/A	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
	Total		32	26	6	1	1	15	8	8	97
Older age 25	Sex	Men	3	9	2	1	1	3	1		20
		Women	9	6	0	2	1	11	3		32
		N/A	1	0	0	0	0	0	0		1
	Total		13	15	2	3	2	14	4		53
Total	Sex	Men	104	80	7	14	21	97	47	6	376
		Women	216	129	21	41	83	169	101	29	789
		N/A	4	1	0	0	2	2	1	1	11
	Total		324	210	28	55	106	268	149	36	1176

(N/A = Not applicable).

shows the demographic characteristics of the participants included in the study. First, the sex of the students is shown (67.1% women and 32.0% men), and 0.9% did not answer this question (options that were collected).

The mean age of the student sample was 20.13 years, with a deviation of 2.166, with the youngest being 18 and the oldest 26. The distribution by age revealed that 87% of the student sample was under 23 years of age. In terms of the faculty in which they are enrolled, physiotherapy and nursing students make up 27.6% (324) of the sample, followed by education (22.8%, 268), biochemistry (17.9%, 210) and engineering (12.7%, 149).

2.3. Main Variables and Questionnaires

As study variables, we have sociodemographic variables (sex, age, course and degree with which enrollment is held), the variables of attitudes toward gender violence that appear in the Questionnaire of Attitudes toward Gender and Violence (CAGV) and the sexism variables (hostile and benevolent) reflected in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ISA).

An anonymous and self-administered questionnaire was used as a data collection instrument, which consists of the following:

• Sociodemographic and educational information.
• Questionnaire of attitudes toward gender and violence (CAVG) by Díaz-Aguado (2002).
• The ambivalent sexism inventory was created by Glick and Fiske (1996) and adapted to Spanish by Expósito et al. (1998).

2.3.1. The Questionnaire of Attitudes Toward Gender and Violence (CAVG) by Díaz Aguado (2002)

It is a scale of 47 items (40 sexist statements and justifications of violence and 7 that are oriented in the opposite direction), which are grouped into four factors:

• Sexist beliefs about psychosocial differences and the justification of violence as a reaction (28 items).
• Beliefs about the biological fatality of sexism and violence (8 items).
• Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and unavoidable problem (8 items).
• Assessment of the women’s access to paid work outside the home and to positions of power and responsibility (3 items).

It has a Likert-type response scale with 7 response alternatives ranging from 1 to 7, taking into account that 7 reflects the maximum agreement and 1 the minimum agreement (or maximum disagreement).

The total score of the scale is the sum of the points of each item, with the highest possible score being 259.

The higher the score on the scale is, the greater the degree of agreement with sexist beliefs and with the justification of violence against women.

2.3.2. The Questionnaire Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ISA)

It consists of 22 items with a Likert-type response scale with six alternatives ranging from minimal agreement (1) to totally agree (6). The test is applicable from the age of 18 and lasts approximately 10–20 min for its resolution. It is composed of four dimensions:

Hostile sex: items 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 21.

Benevolent sexism (paternalism): items 3, 9, 17 and 20.

Benevolent sexism (gender differentiation): items 8, 19 and 22.

Benevolent sexism (heterosexual intimacy): items 1, 6, 13 and 12.

According to Glick and Fiske (15), theoretically ambivalent sexism leaves aside the conception of traditional sexism and proposes sexism as a union of two polarities, which is why ambivalent sexism arises, which manifests the existence of two points that have antagonistic affective charges: negative and positive. These findings open the way to two types of linked sexism, benevolent sexism and hostile sexism.

2.4. Data Collection

The study was conducted from 2022–2023. Beginning 26 October 2022 until 4 December 2022.

The questionnaires were completed online (Microsoft Forms) by the students of the faculties. Previously, it was reported that participation was voluntary and was guaranteed confidentiality. To complete the questionnaire, the first question to be asked before proceeding was consent to the questionnaire. If not, it was not possible to complete the questionnaire.

2.5. Data Analysis

For the subsequent analysis of the data, the IBM SPSS version 28 computer program was used. (License from the University of Castilla-La Mancha).

The data analysis was developed in several phases:

• First, a descriptive analysis was performed. Qualitative variables are expressed as counts (n) and percentages (%), and quantitative variables are expressed as arithmetic means (m) and standard deviations (SD).
• An inferential analysis was subsequently performed. For categorical variables, a comparison was made between groups via the chi-square test for contingency tables. Student’s t test was used for quantitative variables.
• Finally, a Pearson correlation was performed for the scores of the two scales used. In addition, to control for the influence of sex and age, a partial correlation was performed.

All hypothesis tests were two-sided. Values with a confidence level of 95% (p < 0.05) were considered statistically significant.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

The study was carried out after authorization was obtained from the University of Castilla la Mancha. A favorable report was obtained from the Ethics Committee for Social Research of the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Registration No. CEIS-664978-Y2G7). In addition, informed consent was obtained from the participants in this study.

The confidentiality and anonymity of the data were guaranteed when the questionnaire was completed (each student was assigned a code).

All the participants provided their consent to participate in the study. The questionnaire was completed online, and in the first part of the questionnaire, information about the research was passed on. Afterwards, the consent to participate in the study was given, and if this section was not answered affirmatively, the questionnaire was not passed on to the participants.

3. Results

Next, we describe the data obtained from each of the scales, considering the different sociodemographic variables mentioned above.

3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Results of the Questionnaire on Attitudes Toward Gender and Violence (CAVG)

First, regarding the Questionnaire of Attitudes toward Gender and Violence (CAVG), a descriptive analysis of the data was carried out, where an analysis compared the means of the responses obtained for each item with the means obtained for each group (Women and Men). The data are shown in

Table 2. Items from the Questionnaire of Attitudes toward Gender and Violence (CAGV) by Díaz-Aguado (2002).

CAGV Items	Sex	Mean	Standard Deviation	p
An acceptable solution to reduce unemployment would be not to favor the work of the M outside the home	M	1.80	1.53	<0.001
	W	1.41	1.27
2. The man who seems aggressive, is he more attractive?	M	1.80	1.50	<0.001
	W	1.35	1.01
3. It is okay for guys to date a lot of girls, but not the other way around.	M	1.32	1.05	<0.001
	W	1.11	0.69
4. It is justified to attack someone who has taken what was yours	M	2.53	1.70	<0.001
	W	1.47	1.02
5. The economic independence of women is a fundamental aspect of their independence as a person	M	5.34	2.03	0.443
	W	5.40	2.10
6. It is okay to sometimes threaten others, so they know you have a strong character	M	1.80	1.36	<0.001
	W	1.37	0.87
7. Women get depressed more often than men because they are weaker.	M	1.89	1.49	<0.001
	W	1.46	1.15
8. For the sake of her children, even if a woman must endure violence from her husband or partner, she should not report him.	M	1.36	1.16	<0.001
	W	1.18	0.89
9. The fact that in many companies’ women are paid less than men for the same job position is probably because men perform better.	M	2.18	1.75	<0.001
	W	1.17	0.79
10. The problem of violence against women by their husbands or partners affects the whole of society.	M	5.75	1.73	0.444
	W	5.98	1.72
11. Men tend to drive better than women.	M	3.23	2.14	<0.001
	W	1.42	1.07
12. If a woman is mistreated by her partner and does not abandon him, it will be because she does not completely dislike that situation.	M	1.62	1.19	<0.001
	W	1.20	0.78
13. The most important thing in a woman’s life is to have children.	M	1.67	1.26	<0.001
	W	1.36	0.96
14. It is correct to hit someone who has offended you.	M	2.21	1.54	<0.001
	W	1.44	0.98
15. On behalf of the children, if one of their parents need to travel due to their work, it should be the father.	M	1.93	1.57	<0.001
	W	1.42	1.04
16. Men should not cry.	M	1.77	1.59	<0.001
	W	1.11	0.70
17. Public money should be used to promote a greater presence of women in politics.	M	2.78	1.90	0.017
	W	3.83	2.09
18. The violence that some women suffer from their husbands and/or partners is because they cannot repress their biological instincts.	M	1.71	1.35	<0.001
	W	1.46	1.14
19. To facilitate the stability of a couple, it is convenient for the man to earn more money than a woman.	M	1.36	1.05	<0.001
	W	1.07	0.55
20. It is good for girls to play with dolls, but not for boys.	M	1.64	1.42	<0.001
	W	1.15	0.76
21. The woman who seems weak is more attractive.	M	1.49	1.20	<0.001
	W	1.10	0.60
22. In case one of the parents worked to take care of the children, it should be the woman.	M	1.85	1.53	<0.001
	W	1.30	0.92
23. Excessive importance is currently being attached to battered women.	M	2.78	2.01	<0.001
	W	1.70	1.41
24. If parents listen to their children too much, they can become complainers.	M	2.56	1.86	<0.001
	W	1.53	1.16
25. In a couple, the fact that the man exceeds the woman by several years has a similar importance to the fact that it is the woman who surpasses the man	M	3.97	2.46	0.620
	W	3.78	2.45
26. The prevention of pregnancy is the responsibility of the girls.	M	1.63	1.21	<0.001
	W	1.21	0.81
27. Being strong and brave is more important for boys than for girls.	M	2.18	1.79	<0.001
	W	1.46	1.17
28. It is best for the man to take responsibility for major family decisions	M	1.58	1.23	<0.001
	W	1.10	0.56
29. Most of the rapes that occur could have been avoided if the victims had dressed in a less provocative way or had not gone to dangerous areas and times.	M	1.85	1.48	<0.001
	W	1.27	1.00
30. Being understanding and caring is more important in girls than in boys.	M	1.75	1.42	<0.001
	W	1.23	0.83
31. Women’s work outside the home is a basic element of their development as a person.	M	5.23	2.14	0.625
	W	5.19	2.15
32. In marriage it is better for the man to take care of the car.	M	1.92	1.67	<0.001
	W	1.14	0.64
33. The natural wickedness of children must be corrected.	M	4.75	2.19	0.942
	W	4.52	2.21
34. By nature, women are more capable of caring for a baby than men.	M	3.64	2.12	<0.001
	W	2.77	1.85
35. There will always be violence against women, because of biological differences linked to sex.	M	2.31	1.76	0.142
	W	2.19	1.64
36. Men should work on household chores for the same amount of time as women.	M	5.91	1.80	<0.001
	W	6.57	1.28
37. It is logical that it is the daughter more than the son who takes care of his father or his mother when they need it.	M	1.36	1.02	<0.001
	W	1.16	0.79
38. When a woman is attacked by her husband, she will have done something to provoke him.	M	1.57	1.23	<0.001
	W	1.08	0.55
39. Women should only work outside the home if they can take care of their family and household chores at the same time.	M	1.48	1.12	<0.001
	W	1.24	0.80
40. A good father should let the rest of the family know who is boss	M	1.62	1.35	<0.001
	W	1.11	0.59
41. The incorporation of women to work outside the home has worsened the quality of family life.	M	1.62	1.32	<0.001
	W	1.26	0.94
42. Violence is just as rejectable in men as in women.	M	6.02	1.93	0.915
	W	6.00	1.95
43. To have a good relationship, it may be desirable for the woman to be sometimes submissive.	M	1.57	1.19	<0.001
	W	1.14	0.68
44. Violence that occurs within the home is a family matter and should not go outside.	M	1.69	1.43	<0.001
	W	1.29	0.98
45. Women occupy fewer important positions in society (heads of government, company directors) than men due to biological differences.	M	2.15	1.79	<0.001
	W	2.33	2.0
46. Sometimes it may be necessary for parents to slap their children in order for them to learn.	M	3.61	2.20	<0.001
	W	2.24	1.64
47. Violence is part of human nature, that is why there will always be wars.	M	3.93	2.15	<0.001
	W	2.56	1.77

(M = Man; W = Woman).

. Student’s t test was used to compare the means.

As shown in Table 2, all the answers differ significantly between the groups of men and women in all the items, except for questions 5, 10, 25, 31, 33, 35 and 42.

In this questionnaire, the items are grouped into four factors.

Table 3. Scores by factors in the CAVG.

Factor	Sex	Mean	Standard Deviation	p
Sexist beliefs about psychosocial differences and justification of violence as a reaction (FACTOR 1)	M	51.40	25.80	<0.001
	W	35.18	13.51
Beliefs about the biological fatality of sexism and violence. (FACTOR 2)	M	24.15	8.90	<0.001
	W	19.34	7.48
Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and unavoidable problem (FACTOR 3)	M	17.47	6.62	<0.002
	W	15.23	5.81
Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and to positions of power and responsibility (FACTOR 4)	M	13.35	4.11	<0.029
	W	14.43	4.48

(M = Man; W = Woman).

shows the results broken down by factors.

As shown in Table 3, the scores for men are higher than those for women, except for factor 4, where men have a lower score. The differences are statistically significant in all the cases.

Considering the age variable, significant differences were also observed between the age groups; the older the scores of the men were, the greater the degree of disagreement with the items, which favored less agreement with sexist beliefs and the justification of violence against women. The group of women also tends in this direction; the older the women are, the lower their scores are on most of the items of the CAGV Questionnaire.

For example, in the item “When a woman is attacked by her husband, she must have done something to provoke them”, the scores for men are as follows: <23 years: 1.62; 23–25 years: 1.19; and > 25 years: 1.10. For lower scores, this is true for most of the questionnaire items. The same occurs in the group of women: <23 years: 1.09; 23–25 years: 1.03; >25 years: 1.00.

3.2. Descriptive Analysis of the Results of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ISA)

Second, regarding the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ISA), a descriptive analysis of the data was carried out, where an analysis was carried out to compare the means of the answers obtained in each item with the means obtained in each group (women and men). The data are shown in

Table 4. Items from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory.

Inventory Items	Sex	Mean	Standard Deviation	p
A man is not truly complete without the love of a woman.	M	2.14	1.57	<0.001
	W	1.42	1.02
2. In the name of equality, many men try to get certain privileges.	M	3.88	1.86	0.113
	W	2.84	1.76
3. In catastrophes, women should be rescued before men.	M	2.20	1.61	<0.001
	W	1.65	1.10
4. Many women interpret innocent comments and actions as sexist.	M	3.59	1.79	<0.001
	W	2.46	1.49
5. Women are easily offended.	M	2.65	1.63	<0.001
	W	1.58	1.04
6. People can be truly happy without having a partner.	M	5.03	1.52	0.510
	W	5.29	1.54
7. Feminists try to give women more power than men.	M	3.19	1.95	<0.001
	W	1.97	1.57
8. Women are characterized by a purity that few men possess.	M	1.81	1.15	0.373
	W	1.75	1.23
9. Women should be loved and protected by men.	M	3.17	1.80	0.505
	W	2.50	1.82
10. Women do not sufficiently value everything that men do for them.	M	2.67	1.72	<0.001
	W	1.36	0.87
11. Women seek to gain power by manipulating men.	M	2.39	1.59	<0.001
	W	1.33	0.87
12. Every man should have a woman to love.	M	2.14	1.59	<0.001
	W	1.44	1.06
13. A woman is incomplete without a man by her side.	M	1.61	1.20	<0.001
	W	1.13	0.60
14. Women exaggerate the problems they have at work.	M	1.92	1.18	<0.001
	W	1.25	0.72
15. The woman seeks to commit to a man in order to control him.	M	1.59	1.08	<0.001
	W	1.09	0.47
16. Generally, when a woman is fairly defeated, she complains of having suffered discrimination.	M	2.43	1.65	<0.001
	W	1.37	0.89
17. A good woman should be put on a pedestal by her man.	M	2.22	1.60	0.040
	W	1.96	1.52
18. Many women, to make fun of men, use their sexual appearance to attract them and then reject them.	M	2.97	1.69	<0.001
	W	1.84	1.21
19. Women have a greater moral sensitivity than men.	M	2.62	1.56	0.076
	W	2.52	1.47
20. Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to provide economic well-being for women.	M	1.72	1.27	<0.001
	W	1.25	0.71
21. Women are making completely unreasonable demands on men.	M	2.47	1.71	<0.001
	W	1.41	0.93
22. Women tend to be more refined and have better taste than men.	M	2.31	1.51	0.026
	W	2.15	1.43

(M = Man; W = Woman).

. The statistics used for the difference between the means are the mean, standard deviation and statistical significance.

As seen in Table 4 of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, the differences between the mean responses to each item between the groups of women and men are significant for all the items except for 5 items, which correspond to questions 2, 6, 8, 9 and 19.

For the total score of the sexism scale, the scores were 53.7 for men and 38.0 for women, with statistically significant differences.

In terms of hostile sexism, there was a great difference between the two groups: 29.8% in men and 18.5% in women, with statistically significant differences between the two groups (

Table 5. Scores on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory.

	Sex	Mean	Standard Deviation	p
Hostile Sexism	M	29.77	13.81	<0.001
	W	18.51	8.20
Paternalistic Benevolent Sexism	M	9.31	4.28	<0.001
	W	7.37	3.47
Benevolent Sexism Gender Differentiation	M	6.74	3.17	<0.001
	W	6.41	3.17
Benevolent Sexism Heterosexual Intimacy	M	7.85	4.55	<0.001
	W	5.69	2.77
Total score sexism scale	M	53.68	20.86	<0.001
	W	37.99	13.47

M = man, W = woman.

).

In relation to benevolent sexism, we differentiate between paternalistic intimacy, gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy. In all three groups, the scores for men were significantly greater than those for women.

3.3. Analysis of Correlations Between the Different Subscales of the Inventory of Ambivalent Sexism (ISA) Questionnaire

Subsequently, correlation analyses were carried out between the different subscales of the ISA questionnaire. First, a Pearson correlation was performed for the scores on the ambivalent sexism scale (ISA), which revealed a significant correlation between all the categories of the questionnaire (

Table 6. Correlations between the different subscales of sexism.

	Hostile Sexism	SB Paternalistic	SBD Genre	SBI Straight
Hostile Sexism	-	0.467 **	0.380 **	0.523 **
SB Paternalistic		-	0.477 **	0.482 **
SBD Genre			-	0.304 **
SBI Straight				-

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 bilateral level.

).

The influence of the variables sex and age was subsequently controlled by means of a partial correlation (

Table 7. Partial correlations, controlling for age and sex, across the different sexism scales.

	Hostile Sexism	SB Paternalistic	SBD Genre	SBI Straight
Hostile Sexism	-	0.421 **	0.390 **	0.469 **
SB Paternalistic		-	0.476 **	0.449 **
SBD Genre			-	0.297 **
SBI Straight				-

** p < 0.001.

). Similar results were obtained between the different sexism subscales, with moderate correlations, but all of them were statistically significant.

Overall, a moderate correlation is observed between the different components of sexism, although all the correlations are significant. Hostile sexism is correlated with benevolent sexism.

When the correlations were made while controlling for age and sex, we obtained similar results between the different sexism subscales, with moderate correlations, but all of them were statistically significant. These results are similar to previous results.

3.4. Analysis of Correlations Between Both Questionnaires: Attitudes Toward Gender and Violence (CAGV) and Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ISA)

Finally, an analysis was carried out where correlations between both questionnaires (CAVG and ISA) were contrasted, comparing the factors with the different types of sexism, on the basis of previous studies (

Table 8. Pearson’s correlation between both questionnaires (CAVG and ASI).

	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3	FACTOR 4	Hostile Sexism	SB Paternalistic	SBD Genre	SBI Heterosexual
FACTOR 1	_	0.623 **	0.627 **	−0.176 **	0.700 **	0.479 **	0.357 **	0.598 **
FACTOR 2		-	0.418 **	−0.071 *	0.644 **	0.508 **	0.505 **	0.459 **
FACTOR 3			-	−0.312 **	0.485 **	0.389 **	0.289 **	0.466 **
FACTOR 4				-	−0.239 **	−0.038	0.024	−0.169 **
Hostile Sexism					-	0.467 **	0.380 **	0.523 **
SB Paternalistic						-	0.477 **	0.482 **
SBD Genre							-	0.304 **
SBI Straight								-

* p > 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

).

This analysis shows how FACTOR 1 involves existing beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifying violence as a reaction. A positive correlation with hostile sexism was evident, with a Pearson coefficient of r = 0.70 ** and a high index. There is also a positive correlation with paternalistic sexism, r = 0.479 **, gender differentiation, r = 0.357 ** and heterosexual intimacy, r = 0.598 **. In all cases, this indicates that if this type of belief increases or decreases, the types of sexism indicated also increase or decrease in the participants.

FACTOR 2 corresponds to beliefs about the biological fatality of sexism and violence. A positive correlation was found with hostile sexism, with a Pearson coefficient of r = 0.644 **, with paternalistic r = 0.508 **, with gender differentiation r = 0.505 ** and with heterosexual intimacy r = 0.459 **. For this factor, in all cases, the correlation is positive, which tells us that if this type of belief increases or decreases, the different types of sexism also increase or decrease in the same sense.

With respect to the conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and unavoidable problem, a positive association was also found with hostile sexism (r = 0.485 **), paternalistic sexism (r = 0.389 **), gender differentiation (r = 0.289 **) and heterosexual intimacy (r = 0.466 **); these associations are not as strong. In all cases, the correlation is positive; therefore, the belief will increase or decrease in the same way that the types of sexism will do.

In FACTOR 4, corresponding to the assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and to positions of power and responsibility, negative correlations were found with hostile sexism, with r = −0.239 **; with paternalistic sexism, with r = −0.038 ** (weak correlation); and with heterosexual intimate sexism, with r = −0.169 **, in these three cases, this negative association indicates that if this type of belief increases or decreases, the types of sexism decrease or increase in different directions. However, a positive association was found only with sex (r = 0.024), and this correlation was weak.

It was also considered necessary to calculate the correlations, controlling for the variables of age and sex. As shown in

Table 9. Partial correlations controlling for age and sex between the two questionnaires.

	FACTOR1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3	FACTOR 4	Hostile Sexism	SB Paternalistic	SBD Genre	SBI Heterosexual
FACTOR 1	-	0.580 **	0.619 **	−0.163 **	0.652 **	0.439 **	0.360 **	0.560 **
FACTOR 2		-	0.422 **	−0.078 *	0.607 **	0.477 **	0.510 **	0.418 **
FACTOR 3			-	−0.267 **	0.460 **	0.363 **	0.282 **	0.441 **
FACTOR 4				-	0.209 **	−0.010	0.034	−0.142 **
Sexism Hostile					-	0.421 **	0.390 **	0.469 **
SB Paternalistic						-	0.476 **	0.449 **
SBD Gender							-	0.297 **
SBI Straight								-

* p > 0.05; ** p < 0.001.

, similar results to the previous ones were obtained among the four factors and among the different subscales of sexism.

4. Discussion

For the results obtained in the Attitudes toward Gender and Violence questionnaire, we find that, among the sample of university students in Toledo, the group of men studied shows greater agreement with sexist beliefs than does the group of women. This finding is consistent with what has been reported in the international scientific literature (Erdem & Sahin, 2017; Macías-Seda et al., 2012; Wang, 2019).

Our results differ from those of the study by Herrera (2019) carried out on adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age from secondary schools in Peru, in which no differences were found between attitudes toward gender equality in either sex. These findings also differ from the results of Moreno and Rodríguez (2022), who also included young people (of the same age, in Colombia). However, it should be noted that, in our study, there was less agreement with sexist beliefs and with the justification of violence against women, both in the case of men and women. However, male–female differences persist regarding justifying intimate partner violence in young people under 23 years of age.

There are coincidences with other studies that have been carried out with university students (Cardenas et al., 2020; García-Díaz et al., 2018; Molina-Rico & Moreno-Méndez, 2015; Ferrer-Pérez et al., 2006; Saldarriaga-Genes et al., 2021) with the study by Freijomil-Vázquez et al. (2022), with which our results fully coincide in the four factors of the AVG scale. As in the abovementioned study, the female participants scored significantly lower than the men did in sexist attitudes and in the justification of violence in the first three factors, but this was not the case in the fourth factor (“opinions about women’s access to financial prospects, power and responsibility”).

We consider Barreiro-Maceira (2018), referring to the fact that sexist attitudes contribute to the appearance and maintenance of gender violence.

On the other hand, it is worrisome that the idea of biological determinism in sexism and in attitudes toward gender is one of the elements that is evident in our results. In particular, the belief that “there will always be violence against women, as a consequence of biological differences linked to sex” is especially significant. This result is shared by other studies (Cardenas et al., 2020).

The gender violence that gravitates in the power relations of men toward women comes largely from a supposed biological determinism that hierarchizes and subordinates women in all areas of their lives (Gallardo-López et al., 2020). According to Stolcke (2000), “The analytical concept of “gender” aims to question the essentialist and universalist statement that “biology is destiny” (Stolcke, 2000, p. 29). In other words, gender determines both the social order of inequalities between men and women and individual practices.

The presence of ambivalent sexist attitudes and beliefs among the university students included in our study is also evident in other studies carried out in Spain (Rodríguez-Otero & Mancinas-Espinoza, 2016).

Starting from the premise that sexism is based on the maintenance of power and a distinctive identity by men with respect to women, together with ambivalent desires for intimacy and sexual domination, it was expected that men would score more than women. women in sexism, both hostile and benevolent. These results coincide with those obtained by Aguaded-Ramírez (2017), Esteban-Ramiro and Fernández-Montaño (2017) and Madolell-Orellana et al. (2020), although they differ from those of León and Aizpurúa (2020) and Cross and Overall (2017), in which women scored higher in the dimension of benevolent sexism than men did, unlike our study.

Hostile sexism was shown to be mostly male in our study, in agreement with the findings of Arnoso et al. (2017), Bringas-Molleda et al. (2017), León and Aizpurúa (2020) and Moreno and Rodríguez (2022). In these investigations, hostile sexism is related to acts of psychological violence and its acceptance by women. women. This could be because this type of sexism, the hostile type, implies an asymmetry of power, where men take the dominant role and women take the subordinate role (Boira et al., 2017).

This hostile sexism is clearly noticeable in some of the items on the scale, such as “Feminists try to give women more power than men” or “Generally, when a woman is fairly defeated, she complains of having suffered discrimination”. This denotes both the existence of gender stereotypes and the erroneous conception of the feminist movement, which, far from being antagonistic to machismo, walks in the search for equality between the sexes.

Regarding benevolent sexism, we differentiate three dimensions: “paternalistic”, “gender differentiation”, and “heterosexual intimacy”. For all three dimensions, we found higher scores for men than for women. These results are fully aligned with the previously mentioned gender stereotypes that presuppose dependency, fragility, and the need for protection in women solely because they are women. This type of sexism, which is hidden behind an attitude of protection and even worship of women, masks a macho attitude.

Interestingly, in our study, the category “hostile sexism” was positively correlated with “benevolent sexism” in both men and women and at all ages. This suggests, in accordance with the theoretical approach of Glick and Fiske (1996), that benevolent sexist attitudes and hostile attitudes of sexist prejudice are intrinsically related and that although they are contradictory cognitions, they are capable of coexisting with the same person.

Our concern for the results obtained is based on the idea of those studies that show that men’s sexist beliefs are a risk factor for the perpetration of intimate partner violence against women (Arnoso et al., 2017), that benevolent sexism is the best predictor for the acceptance of myths about sexual violence (Janos Uribe & Espinosa Pezzia, 2018), as well as for having a more positive attitude toward intimate partner violence and for presenting a higher frequency of sexual risk behavior (Ramiro-Sánchez et al., 2018).

Everything presented in this section leads us to the conclusion that the university students in our study are sexist and that there are obvious differences between men and women, so we can affirm that they “maintain sexist stereotypes that fuel gender violence” (Megías & Ballesteros, 2015). We understand that this fact could be behind the presence of cases of gender violence among university students. In fact, studies on dating violence support this hypothesis (Barroso-Corroto et al., 2023).

At this point, the relationship between the results of the two scales applied in our study is interesting. Our study shows that attitudes toward gender violence are related to sexism in university students in the city of Toledo. Indeed, there is a strong positive correlation between predispositions to react to behavior that inflicts physical, psychological or sexual harm, motivated by their sex (attitudes toward gender violence), and stereotyped behavior that harms people of the other sex (sexism), accompanied by a self-perception of superiority. This is not a cause–effect explanation but a correlational expression in which the two variables move in parallel in the same direction: more, more and less, less.

This finding is consistent with the findings of the study by Velásquez-Centeno et al. (2020) on gender violence and the risk of femicide (in female students from public and private universities in Metropolitan Lima), in which it was evident that the greater the degree of rejection of violence was, the less experimentation with violence existed and that women from private universities with less rejection of gender violence experienced more physical, sexual and economic violence. The same occurs in two other studies carried out in the field of higher education (Alayo Huaringa, 2019; Lara-Palma, 2019), in which it was shown that attitudes of acceptance toward gender violence are directly associated with discriminatory behavior based on sex (sexism).

In addition, we found a positive correlation between Factors 1, 2 and 3 of the CAGV scale and the sexism of the ISA (both in hostile sexism and in the three dimensions of benevolent sexism).

In contrast, the correlation was negative for Factor 4, corresponding to the assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and to positions of power and responsibility, where negative correlations were found with ambivalent sexism: hostile and benevolent (paternalistic and heterosexual), which indicates that if this type of belief increases or decreases, the types of sexism decrease or increase in the opposite direction.

In this context, men agreed with the positive assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility, although women did so to a greater extent. Considering that “working outside the home is essential for the personal development of women, that economic independence is a key element for them” and that “it is necessary to use public economic funds to promote a greater presence of women in the political arena” would denote a low level of sexism.

We know that even benevolent sexism does not support the employment of women in positions where they are traditionally underrepresented; this is related to assigning women to less challenging roles and opportunities in the workplace (King et al., 2012) and supporting the employment of women in positions that are considered feminine but not masculine (Hideg & Shen, 2019). Along these lines, the scientific literature (Bear et al., 2017; Hammond et al., 2016) has shown that women who receive paternalistic treatment do not obtain important information or accurate feedback on performance, which allows them effective personal improvement and professional planning. In fact, we found that profession support is a key element in completing and succeeding in leadership positions (Allen et al., 2004).

Limitations

One of the limitations of this type of study is that the participants may have answered what they consider socially desirable.

The second limitation is that the sample, although large, has only been obtained from the faculties of the city of Toledo, so it is possible that, in other Faculties of the University of Castilla la Mancha located in other cities, the student attitudes are different from those found in our research. As a third limitation, we indicate that the response rate was low, and it may be that the people who answered the questionnaire were the most sensitive to the subject of study.

Finally, we have evaluated the student body only with a quantitative methodology, so we have not been able to delve into attitudes toward gender and violence and sexist beliefs.

However, this study uses a sample of the university population in the city of Toledo, which offers us insight into the phenomenon under investigation. However, much more research is needed in this field.

5. Conclusions

This study shows that there is a problem related to attitudes toward gender, violence and sexism among Toledo university students.

From the analysis of the results, it is concluded that there are differences by sex in relation to attitudes toward gender and violence. Sexist attitudes and the justification of violence against women are found mainly in men, acting as the idea of biological determinism as a perpetuator of gender violence, leaving the doors open to the excuse of acts of abuse against women, which is regarded as a private and unavoidable problem.

In our study, sexism, both hostilely and benevolent, is also more significant in men than in women. Bearing in mind that benevolent sexist attitudes are not usually seen negatively in society in general, an educational intervention is necessary to unmask the gender stereotypes on which the fragility and dependence of women in the face of superiority is based and the machism of men.

On the other hand, the strong positive correlation between attitudes toward gender violence and stereotyped behavior that harms people of the other sex (sexism) reaffirm the need to implement awareness actions aimed at university students, especially considering the high number of acts of gender violence in our current society.

We believe that the data analyzed call for the implementation of action plans to reduce sexist behavior in university students. Universities, for their part, must establish action plans against gender violence.