Perceptions of Sexism and Gender-Based Violence Among University Students Across Castilla-La Mancha: A Multi-Campus Descriptive and Correlational Analysis

Abstract

Gender-Based Violence (GBV) represents a major public health and social concern, with evidence linking persistent sexist beliefs to a higher likelihood of experiencing or perpetrating GBV, particularly among young adults. This study aimed to examine attitudes towards GBV among university students in Castilla-La Mancha, providing insight into ongoing gender inequalities within higher education. A total of 399 undergraduate and double-degree students at the University of University of Castilla-La Mancha completed the 47-item Gender and Violence Attitudes Questionnaire (GVAQ), and data were analyzed using descriptive and correlational methods. The results indicate the persistence of sexist beliefs and justifications for violence, with significant differences according to sex, age, and academic discipline: men scored higher overall on the GVAQ (M = 101.69) than women (M = 83.82), students in Engineering and Architecture scored higher (M = 100.89) than those in Arts and Humanities (M = 83.22), and younger students (≤25 years) scored slightly higher (M = 89.63) than older students (≥26 years) (M = 85.91). These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted educational programmes integrating a gender perspective to challenge entrenched sexist attitudes and reduce GBV in university contexts, fostering safer and more equitable learning environments.

1. Introduction

Violence against women, especially Gender-Based Violence (GBV), is recognized as a global public health issue due to the prevalence of its physical, psychological and social consequences and global reach (Stöckl & Sorenson, 2024). Globally, approximately 35% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by non-partners (WHO, 2021). Furthermore, up to 38% of women’s homicides worldwide are perpetrated by intimate partners (WHO, 2021). GBV is fundamentally rooted in structural violence, perpetuated within a framework of normalized asymmetrical power relations between men and women, leading to the subjugation and marginalization of women (Jaramillo-Bolivar & Canaval-Erazo, 2020). This systemic inequality is sustained by a framework of ideas, beliefs, and representations, collectively known as sexism, constructed within respective cultures and societies (Jaramillo-Bolivar & Canaval-Erazo, 2020; Mara Pereira de Souza et al., 2021; Sharoni & Klocke, 2019).

Gender is understood as a cultural construct built upon biological differences (Lamas, 2022), framed within a patriarchal model consisting of ideas and beliefs that historically position women in subordination to men (Hirata, 2023; Jaramillo-Bolivar & Canaval-Erazo, 2020). The persistence of sexist beliefs is reflected in attitudes that normalize gender inequality and justify violence (Saldarriaga Genes et al., 2021; Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020), particularly among adolescents and university students (Trujillo Cristoffanini & Pastor-Gosálbez, 2021; Varela Guinot, 2020a, 2020b). Previous research (Osuna-Rodríguez et al., 2023; Saldarriaga Genes et al., 2021; Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020) consistently shows that, despite advances in gender equality policies, these beliefs remain embedded within youth socialization processes and academic environments. In this context, universities play a crucial role not only as educational institutions (Mara Pereira de Souza et al., 2021; Sharoni & Klocke, 2019), but also as key socializing spaces where gender norms may be reproduced or challenged (Merayo & Ayuso, 2024; Osuna-Rodríguez et al., 2023).

Also, previous studies (Freijomil-Vázquez et al., 2022; Ugarte-Gurrutxaga et al., 2025; Yurrebaso Macho et al., 2024) demonstrate the existence of significant sociocultural differences in attitudes towards GBV and sexism, given that women tend to show lower acceptance of sexist beliefs and justifications of violence compared to men. This influences interactions between men and women, increasing the risk of GBV and, in extreme cases, femicide (Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020).

All these findings underscore the need for research on attitudes toward GBV among university students for developing effective prevention strategies (Gallardo-López et al., 2020). The present study is highly relevant as it addresses the persistent issue of GBV in the university setting, aiming to generate evidence that supports the design of more effective preventive actions. While the previous study conducted by Ugarte-Gurrutxaga et al. (2025) had primarily focused on a single-campus sample, the present research provides incremental originality by offering a multi-campus analysis across all five campuses of the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). This design enables the identification of structural patterns associated with sex, age, and knowledge area, moving beyond localized findings and contributing institutionally relevant evidence. Also, this level of specificity is essential for promoting social change by targeting the asymmetric gender relations rooted in students’ belief systems.

These belief systems operate at multiple, interrelated levels, ranging from the naturalization of violence and biological determinism to attitudes toward women’s access to the public and economic spheres. Analyzing these dimensions jointly allows for a more nuanced understanding of how different forms of sexism are articulated and reinforced within the university context. To address these gaps, this study is guided by the following research questions: (RQ1) To what extent do sexist attitudes and justifications for violence persist among university students in a multi-campus setting? (RQ2) How do sociocultural factors such as sex, age and knowledge area influence the prevalence of these attitudes? (RQ3) Is there a significant relationship between the acceptance of sexist beliefs and the rejection of women’s socioeconomic independence?

These research questions are addressed through a set of descriptive and inferential objectives. RQ1 and RQ2 are examined through the analysis of overall attitudes and group differences according to key sociodemographic variables, while RQ3 is specifically addressed through correlational analyses among the attitudinal dimensions examined. Correspondingly, the proposed hypotheses reflect these analytical strategies.

Considering the above, the following objectives were proposed: (a) To analyze attitudes toward GBV and sexism among undergraduate and double-degree students at the University of Castilla-La Mancha; (b) To evaluate the significant differences in attitudes toward GBV and sexism based on the participants’ sex, age, and knowledge areas.

Regarding these objectives, the following hypotheses are proposed: (H1) statistically significant differences will be observed based on sex, with men obtaining significantly higher total GVAQ scores compared to women; (H2) significant differences in attitudes toward gender and violence will be found based on the knowledge area of the students, and slight differences will be observed based on age; (H3) the GVAQ factors measuring sexist beliefs and violence justification will show a significant positive correlation with each other, and a significant negative correlation with the factor measuring assessment of women’s access to work and power.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The reference population included 13,728 undergraduate and double-degree students at the faculties of the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) participating in the 2023–2024 academic year. The sociodemographic variables collected from the participants include sex, age, area of knowledge and campus. Inclusion criteria required enrolment during the data collection period at a participating faculty. Using RAOSOFT Sample Size Calculator, the sample size was calculated with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and 50% response distribution, resulting in a required sample of 374 students. The final sample comprised 399 participants, exceeding the target.

Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Study Participants.

Campus	Age			Knowledge Areas					Total
				Arts & Humanities	Sciences	Health Sciences	Social & Legal Sciences	Eng. & Arch. *
Toledo	<=25	Sex	M 1		11	24	21		56
			W 2		20	66	50		136
		Total			31	90	71		192
	>=26	Sex	M		4	2	0		6
			W		3	2	3		8
		Total			7	4	3		14
	Total	Sex	M		15	26	21		62
			W		23	68	53		144
		Total			38	94	74		206
Cuenca	<=25	Sex	M				14	10	24
			W				30	13	43
		Total					44	23	67
	>=26	Sex	M				1	2	3
			W				1	0	1
		Total					2	2	4
	Total	Sex	M				15	12	27
			W				31	13	44
		Total					46	25	71
Ciudad Real	<=25	Sex	M	3	3	5	6	4	21
			W	16	1	19	11	9	56
		Total		19	4	24	17	13	77
	>=26	Sex	M		1	0	1	1	3
			W		0	5	2	0	7
		Total			1	5	3	1	10
	Total	Sex	M	3	4	5	7	5	24
			W	16	1	24	13	9	63
		Total		19	5	29	20	14	87
Albacete	<=25	Sex	M	2		0	7		9
			W	5		4	12		21
		Total		7		4	19		30
	>=26	Sex	M	0			1		1
			W	2			2		4
		Total		2			3		5
	Total	Sex	M	2		0	8		10
			W	7		4	14		25
		Total		9		4	22		35
Total		Sex	M	5	19	31	51	17	123
			W	23	24	96	111	22	276
		Total		28	43	127	162	39	399

¹ M: Man; ² W: Woman; * Eng. & Arch.: Engineering and Architecture.

summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.

2.2. Instruments

The data collection instrument used was the Gender and Violence Attitudes Questionnaire (GVAQ) (Díaz-Aguado Jalón & Martínez Arias, 2001). Prior to completing the questionnaire, participants were required to select the option that best corresponded to their sociodemographic situation, in a multiple-choice format. Subsequently, this 47-item scale included 40 statements reflecting sexist beliefs and justifications for violence, and 7 counter-statements, grouped into four factors: FACTOR 1, sexist beliefs about psychosocial differences and justification of violence (28 items, e.g., “When a woman is assaulted by her husband, she must have done something to provoke it”); FACTOR 2, beliefs about biological fatality of sexism and violence (8 items, e.g., “There will always be violence against women as a consequence of biological sex differences”); FACTOR 3, domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue (8 items, e.g., “Currently, excessive importance is being given to abused women”); FACTOR 4, attitudes toward women’s access to work and leadership roles (3 items), e.g., “A woman’s economic independence is a fundamental aspect of her independence as a person”).

Responses use a 1–7 Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater acceptance of sexist beliefs and GBV. The total score for the questionnaire is the sum of all item scores, with a maximum possible score of 259. Reliability was assessed via Cronbach’s Alpha (α > 0.5). Although FACTOR 4 showed a low internal consistency (α = 0.445), this result is likely influenced by the small number of items (n = 3). Given the theoretical relevance of this dimension, it was retained in the analysis to allow comparability with previous studies. However, the results related to this factor should be interpreted with caution. The results are shown in

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient for Each Factor of the GVAQ.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Elements
FACTOR 1 1	0.904 *	28
FACTOR 2 2	0.891 *	28
FACTOR 3 3	0.695 *	8
FACTOR 4 4	0.445	3

* α > 0.5; ¹ FACTOR 1 (Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction); ² FACTOR 2 (Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence); ³ FACTOR 3 (Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue); ⁴ FACTOR 4 (Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility).

.

2.3. Procedures and Data Analysis

All faculties were contacted via email, with 22 granting approval. The study invitation was disseminated through faculty members, the Student Delegation, email, posters, the virtual campus, and social media. Students accessed a Google Forms survey including consent, sociodemographic questions, and the GVAQ.

A cross-sectional descriptive analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS v29.0.1.0. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies (%), and quantitative variables as mean (M) ± SD. Spearman’s rank correlation assessed relationships due to non-normality, while Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests evaluated associations with dichotomous and multi-category variables, respectively. Two-tailed tests were used with significance at p < 0.05. Partial correlations were computed using a regression-based approach in SPSS, which yields Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the residuals of the variables while controlling for covariates (sex, age, or area of knowledge). This procedure allows the examination of the associations between GVAQ factors independently of these sociodemographic variables.

Given the exploratory nature of the item-level analysis and the strong theoretical basis of the GVAQ, no formal correction for multiple comparisons was applied. Applying such corrections in this context may increase the risk of Type II errors. Therefore, results should be interpreted cautiously, focusing on consistent patterns rather than isolated significant findings.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Data Analysis

Following the application of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test, all quantitative variables yielded p-values < 0.05, indicating that the data do not follow a normal distribution.

Table 3. Items from the Gender and Violence Attitudes Questionnaire (GVAQ).

FACTOR	GVAQ ITEMS	Sex	Mean	SD	p
1	1. An acceptable solution to reduce unemployment would be to discourage women from working outside the home.	M 1	1.82	1.488	0.002 *
		W 2	1.59	1.571
	2. Is an aggressive-looking man more attractive?	M	1.69	1.356	0.003 *
		W	1.31	0.876
	3. It is acceptable for boys to date many girls, but not the other way around.	M	1.19	0.750	0.032 *
		W	1.12	0.721
	4. It is justified to attack someone who has taken what was yours.	M	2.20	1.545	<0.001 *
		W	1.44	0.915
	6. It is acceptable to threaten others occasionally to show a strong personality.	M	1.56	1.209	0.036 *
		W	1.31	0.820
	7. Women become depressed more frequently than men because they are weaker.	M	1.66	1.165	<0.001 *
		W	1.42	1.074
	9. The fact that women earn lower wages than men in the same position in many companies is probably because men perform better.	M	1.92	1.491	<0.001 *
		W	1.18	0.813
	11. Men usually drive better than women.	M	2.98	2.150	<0.001 *
		W	1.42	1.050
	12. If a woman is mistreated by her partner and does not leave him, it must mean she does not entirely dislike the situation.	M	1.62	1.156	<0.001 *
		W	1.15	0.571
	14. It is acceptable to hit someone who has offended you.	M	2.02	1.373	<0.001 *
		W	1.33	0.761
	16. Men should not cry.	M	1.72	1.617	<0.001 *
		W	1.05	0.513
	19. To ensure the stability of a couple, it is advisable for the man to earn more money than the woman.	M	1.26	0.867	<0.001 *
		W	1.07	0.538
	20. It is good for girls to play with dolls but not boys.	M	1.46	1.217	<0.001 *
		W	1.10	0.667
	21. A weak looking woman is more attractive.	M	1.37	0.917	<0.001 *
		W	1.11	0.665
	24. If parents listen to their children too much, the children might become whinny.	M	2.23	1.588	<0.001 *
		W	1.41	1.070
	26. Preventing pregnancy is the responsibility of girls.	M	1.38	0.864	0.002 *
		W	1.20	0.700
	27. Being strong and brave is more important for boys than for girls.	M	2.37	1.905	<0.001 *
		W	1.59	1.352
	28. It is best for the man to take responsibility for the main family decisions.	M	1.47	1.051	<0.001 *
		W	1.12	0.753
	29. Most cases of rape could have been avoided if the victims had dressed less provocatively or avoided dangerous areas and times.	M	1.58	1.145	<0.001 *
		W	1.20	0.857
	30. Being understanding and affectionate is more important for girls than for boys.	M	1.73	1.397	<0.001 *
		W	1.29	0.891
	32. In a marriage, it is better for the man to be in charge of the car.	M	1.80	1.578	<0.001 *
		W	1.12	0.586
	36. Men should spend the same amount of time on household chores as women.	M	5.80	1.954	<0.001 *
		W	6.51	1.413
	37. It is logical for daughters rather than sons to take care of their parents when needed.	M	1.26	0.651	<0.001 *
		W	1.12	0.741
	38. When a woman is assaulted by her husband, she must have done something to provoke it.	M	1.36	0.841	<0.001 *
		W	1.09	0.603
	39. Women should only work outside the home if they can also take care of their family and household tasks.	M	1.38	0.883	0.005 *
		W	1.26	0.971
	40. A good father should make the rest of the family aware of who is in charge.	M	1.52	1.270	<0.001 *
		W	1.11	0.638
	41. Women joining the workforce has worsened the quality of family life.	M	1.62	1.245	<0.001 *
		W	1.21	0.823
	43. To maintain a good relationship, it can sometimes be desirable for a woman to be submissive.	M	1.42	0.950	<0.001 *
		W	1.08	0.516
2	15. For the sake of the children, if one parent has to travel often for work, it should be the father.	M	1.42	0.950	<0.001 *
		W	1.36	0.930
	22. If one parent has to stay home to take care of the children, it should be the mother.	M	1.85	1.491	<0.001 *
		W	1.33	0.917
	33. Children’s natural misbehaviour must be corrected.	M	4.66	2.232	0.656
		W	4.58	2.174
	34. By nature, women are better suited to care for babies than men.	M	3.39	2.027	0.006 *
		W	2.80	1.888
	35. Violence against women will always exist as a consequence of biological differences linked to sex.	M	2.32	1.794	0.395
		W	2.15	1.617
	45. Women occupy fewer high-ranking positions in society (e.g., heads of government, CEOs) than men due to biological differences.	M	2.06	1.803	0.810
		W	2.11	1.883
	46. Sometimes, parents may need to slap their children to teach them a lesson.	M	3.44	2.154	<0.001 *
		W	2.04	1.572
	47. Violence is part of human nature; that is why there will always be wars.	M	3.63	2.077	<0.001 *
		W	2.56	1.829
3	8. For the sake of her children, even if a woman has to endure violence from her husband or partner, she should not report him.	M	1.15	0.678	0.189
		W	1.15	0.852
	10. The issue of violence against women by their husbands or partners affects society as a whole.	M	5.38	2.031	<0.001 *
		W	6.20	1.473
	13. The most important thing in a woman’s life is to have children.	M	1.52	0.978	0.001 *
		W	1.29	0.872
	18. The violence some women suffer from their husbands and/or partners is because these men cannot repress their biological instincts.	M	1.76	1.374	<0.001 *
		W	1.40	1.096
	23. Excessive importance is currently being given to abused women.	M	2.21	1.646	<0.001 *
		W	1.52	1.152
	25. In a relationship, the man being several years older than the woman is as important as the woman being older than the man.	M	3.98	2.328	0.599
		W	3.82	2.324
	42. Violence is equally unacceptable in men and women.	M	5.67	2.156	0.129
		W	6.02	1.912
	44. Violence within the home is a family matter and should stay within the family.	M	1.37	0.918	<0.001 *
		W	1.20	0.827
4	5. A woman’s economic independence is fundamental to her independence as a person.	M	5.46	1.909	0.056
		W	5.72	1.910
	17. Public funds should be used to promote greater representation of women in politics.	M	3.08	2.015	<0.001 *
		W	4.22	2.107
	31. A woman’s work outside the home is a fundamental element of her personal development.	M	5.28	2.013	0.131
		W	5.53	1.949

¹ M: Man; ² W: Woman; * p < 0.05.

presents the descriptive analysis of the collected data, comparing the mean scores for each questionnaire item by sex and indicating the factor to which each one belongs. Items are presented grouped by factors to facilitate the interpretation of subsequent analyses. Although non-parametric tests were used, statistical measures such as arithmetic means (M), standard deviations (SD) and statistical significance (p) are reported to facilitate interpretation, as they reflect the original scale of the items. These results indicate statistically significant differences between male and female participants in most items, as assessed by the Mann–Whitney U test, except for items 5, 8, 25, 31, 33, 35, 42 and 45.

In this questionnaire, items are grouped into four factors (

Table 4. Scores by factors and sex for the GVAQ.

FACTORS	Sex	Mean	SD	p
Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction (FACTOR 1)	M 1	47.77	18.688	<0.001 *
	W 2	34.89	12.413
Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence (FACTOR 2)	M	23.11	8.584	<0.001 *
	W	18.93	7.309
Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue (FACTOR 3)	M	16.99	5.478	<0.001 *
	W	14.53	5.191
Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility (FACTOR 4)	M	13.82	4.161	<0.001 *
	W	15.47	4.327
Total GVAQ score	M	101.69	36.911
	W	83.82	29.24

¹ M: Man; ² W: Woman; * p < 0.05.

). Men score 101.69 on the GVAQ, women 83.82. The largest difference is in FACTOR 1, where men score 47.77 (SD = 18.688) and women 34.89 (SD = 12.413). Men score higher in all factors except FACTOR 4, where women score higher.

As shown in

Table 5. Scores by factors and age group for the GVAQ.

FACTORS	Age	Mean	SD	p
Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction (FACTOR 1)	≤25	38.97	15.918	0.325
	≥26	37.64	14.315
Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence (FACTOR 2)	≤25	20.33	7.943	0.271
	≥26	18.94	8.058
Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue (FACTOR 3)	≤25	15.40	5.387	0.102
	≥26	14.00	5.408
Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility (FACTOR 4)	≤25	14.93	4.325	0.567
	≥26	15.33	4.546
Total GVAQ score	≤25	89.63	33.573
	≥26	85.91	32.327

, it was also observed that, considering the variable “age”, although no statistically significant differences were found (p > 0.05) between the two age groups, differences do exist between the groups (≤25 years and ≥26). On one hand, the younger age group obtained a higher total score (M = 89.63; SD = 33.573) compared to the older group (M = 85.91; SD = 32.327). Additionally, it was noted that the younger group scored slightly higher on FACTORS 1, 2, and 3, while for FACTOR 4, similar to the previous table with “sex”, the older group obtained a higher mean score.

Additionally, the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to the “knowledge areas” variable (five categories). Significant differences were found across all factors except FACTOR 4 (

Table 6. Scores by factors and knowledge areas for the GVAQ.

FACTORS	Knowledge Areas	Mean	SD	p
Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction (FACTOR 1)	Arts and Humanities	35.79	10.163	0.001 *
	Sciences	37.65	11.794
	Health Sciences	36.90	17.547
	Social and Legal Sciences	39.38	14.000
	Engineering and Architecture	46.64	21.086
Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence (FACTOR 2)	Arts and Humanities	18.54	7.219	0.005 *
	Sciences	18.79	7.809
	Health Sciences	18.97	7.983
	Social and Legal Sciences	21.36	7.684
	Engineering and Architecture	22.33	8.749
Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue (FACTOR 3)	Arts and Humanities	13.14	4.361	0.013 *
	Sciences	15.42	5.297
	Health Sciences	14.69	5.734
	Social and Legal Sciences	15.72	5.298
	Engineering and Architecture	16.82	4.968
Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility (FACTOR 4)	Arts and Humanities	15.75	4.043	0.328
	Sciences	16.09	3.853
	Health Sciences	14.91	4.250
	Social and Legal Sciences	14.53	4.522
	Engineering and Architecture	15.10	4.459
Total GVAQ score	Arts and Humanities	83.22	25.786
	Sciences	87.95	28.753
	Health Sciences	85.53	35.514
	Social and Legal Sciences	90.99	31.504
	Engineering and Architecture	100.89	39.262

* p < 0.05.

). Engineering and Architecture scored highest overall (M = 100.89; SD = 39.262), followed by Social and Legal Sciences, Sciences, Health Sciences, and Arts and Humanities, which scored lowest (M = 83.22; SD = 25.786). Engineering and Architecture had the highest mean scores in FACTORS 1, 2 and 3, while Arts and Humanities had the lowest, except in FACTOR 4, where Sciences scored highest and Social and Legal Sciences lowest.

3.2. Correlation Analysis

The correlation analysis between the various factors of the GVAQ is shown in

Table 7. Correlations between the factors of the GVAQ.

	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3	FACTOR 4
FACTOR 1 1	-	0.509 **	0.446 **	−0.293 **
FACTOR 2 2		-	0.314 **	−0.166 **
FACTOR 3 3			-	−0.359 **
FACTOR 4 4				-

** p < 0.001; ¹ FACTOR 1 (Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction); ² FACTOR 2 (Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence); ³ FACTOR 3 (Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue); ⁴ FACTOR 4 (Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility).

. First, a Spearman correlation was performed, yielding a significant correlation between all of them.

The analysis reveals that FACTOR 1, “Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence” correlates positively with FACTOR 2, “Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence” (ρ = 0.509 **), and FACTOR 3, “Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue” (ρ = 0.446 **). FACTOR 2 correlates positively with FACTOR 3 (ρ = 0.314 **), and negatively with FACTOR 4 (ρ = −0.166 **). FACTOR 3 also correlates negatively with FACTOR 4 (ρ = −0.359 **), indicating that stronger sexist beliefs align with related attitudes and reduce support for women’s access to work and leadership.

Additionally, partial correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between GVAQ factors while controlling sociodemographic variables. These partial correlations correspond to Pearson’s correlation coefficients obtained through a regression-based procedure in SPSS.

As shown in

Table 8. Partial correlations between the factors of the GVAQ, controlling for sex and age.

	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3	FACTOR 4
FACTOR 1 1	-	0.521 **	0.446 **	−0.226 **
FACTOR 2 2		-	0.312 **	−0.087 *
FACTOR 3 3			-	−0.326 **
FACTOR 4 4				-

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001; ¹ FACTOR 1 (Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction); ² FACTOR 2 (Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence); ³ FACTOR 3 (Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue); ⁴ FACTOR 4 (Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility).

, the results controlling for “sex” and “age” variables are similar to those previously obtained, except that no statistically significant correlation is found between FACTOR 2 and 4.

The same procedure was also carried out but controlling for variables of “sex” and “areas of knowledge” (

Table 9. Partial correlations between the factors of the GVAQ, controlling for sex and areas of knowledge.

	FACTOR 1	FACTOR 2	FACTOR 3	FACTOR 4
FACTOR 1 1	-	0.514 **	0.439 **	−0.220 **
FACTOR 2 2		-	0.303 **	−0.080
FACTOR 3 3			-	−0.322 **
FACTOR 4 4				-

** p < 0.001; ¹ FACTOR 1 (Beliefs about psychosocial differences and justifications for violence as a reaction); ² FACTOR 2 (Beliefs about the biological inevitability of sexism and violence); ³ FACTOR 3 (Conceptualization of domestic violence as a private and inevitable issue); ⁴ FACTOR 4 (Assessment of women’s access to paid work outside the home and positions of power and responsibility).

), yielding almost identical results, except for the correlation between FACTORS 2 and 4, which was not statistically significant.

4. Discussion

This study, aligning with the approach of Ugarte-Gurrutxaga et al. (2025) and the original study by (Díaz-Aguado Jalón & Martínez Arias, 2001), sought to test the hypothesis concerning the existence of sex differences in the overcoming of sexist beliefs and the justification of violence. The observed sex differences suggest a gendered internalization of sexist norms within the university context, with men showing greater acceptance of beliefs that normalize inequality and justify violence. It should be noted that mean scores across most items were generally low within the 1–7 response scale, indicating an overall rejection of explicitly sexist beliefs among the study population. However, even low levels of agreement with such statements are relevant, as prior research suggests (Ugarte-Gurrutxaga et al., 2025; Freijomil-Vázquez et al., 2022) that minimal endorsement of sexist myths may still contribute to the normalization of Gender-Based Violence and victim-blaming attitudes. In this context, the observed sex differences concur with several prior studies (Freijomil-Vázquez et al., 2022; León & Aizpurúa, 2021; Ugarte-Gurrutxaga et al., 2025; Wang, 2019), although they contrast with findings from other research (Moreno & Rodríguez, 2022) that found no significant differences in their sample of minors and adolescents. Furthermore, the present research supports the premise that the presence of sexist beliefs is significantly correlated with a higher incidence of GBV (Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020).

Analysis of FACTOR 1 (sexist beliefs and justification of violence) reveals statistically significant differences, with men obtaining notably higher average scores. This result is consistent with findings reported in Cartagena, Colombia (Saldarriaga Genes et al., 2021). Men demonstrate a greater tendency to support myths and false beliefs about GBV, which constitutes a significant risk factor for perpetrating violence based on previous studies (Aliaga & Figueroa, 2019; León & Aizpurúa, 2021; Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020). Despite having low average scores in both sexes, some men in the present study tended to justify men’s violence against women as “normal” if the man felt offended by his wife. Adherence to such beliefs significantly increases the likelihood of victim-blaming (blaming victims and exonerating perpetrators) (León & Aizpurúa, 2021; Megías et al., 2018). The persistence of these attitudes stems from living within a patriarchal system, which “naturally” expects violent and dominant behaviour from men (Barreiro Maceira, 2018) and it aligns with findings from previous research (Diéguez Méndez et al., 2020; Maquibar et al., 2018; Wang, 2019).

Regarding FACTOR 2 (biological fatalism of sexism and violence), the mean scores indicate that neither sex fully rejected the idea that violence is part of human nature and thus inevitable. Similarly, the results show that neither sex offered an absolute rejection of the sexist belief that violence against women is due to biological differences and will therefore never cease. The persistence of these scores suggests a degree of naturalization of violence, which in the literature is identified as a risk factor for GBV (Barreiro Maceira, 2018) that potentially facilitates social tolerance and could hinder women from reporting abuse (Gracia et al., 2020). These findings are consistent with the premise that biological determinism can influence the conceptualization of women as inferior across various aspects of their lives (Gallardo-López et al., 2020).

In relation to the conceptualization of GBV as a private issue (FACTOR 3), while both sexes rejected the idea that violence within the home should remain a family matter, men were more likely to support the myth that GBV does not affect society or to believe that excessive attention is being paid to women victims. This aligns with the CIS Survey (CIS, 2023a), where over 40% of men surveyed considered that the promotion of women’s equality had advanced too far. In addition, women scored higher on average in the consideration of whether violence is equally condemnable when perpetrated by men or women. This is similar to the findings in the aforementioned study by Saldarriaga et al. (Saldarriaga Genes et al., 2021).

In the assessment of women’s independence in the labour and economic spheres (FACTOR 4), these results should be interpreted with caution due to their low internal consistency, likely influenced by the small number of items included in this dimension. A clear manifestation of underlying gender beliefs is observed in attitudes toward domestic roles. Specifically, men showed significantly greater disagreement than women regarding the need for an equal distribution of time dedicated to household chores. This trend aligns with evidence showing that women continue to spend significantly more time on domestic tasks (CIS, 2023b), a factor that perpetuates traditional roles and disadvantages them in attaining positions of responsibility. Ultimately, such findings underscore the persistence of conventional gender expectations within the private sphere, even amidst the widespread acceptance of women’s integration into the workforce. Furthermore, while both sexes value women’s integration into the labour market, men are less supportive of public funding measures designed to promote female representation in politics, reflecting a perception of legitimate male dominance. This is echoed by the CIS Survey (CIS, 2023a), where over 50% of men agreed that gender equality in the labour market relies more on women than on legislation. The persistent underrepresentation of women in high-ranking positions, both nationally (Instituto de las Mujeres, 2023) and internationally (UN Women, 2024), underscores the continued need for targeted public policies.

Thus, the study found a statistically significant correlation between all four factors measured by the GVAQ. Specifically, a negative correlation was found between FACTORS 1, 2, and 3 (justifying violence/sexism) and FACTOR 4 (Valuation of independence). This suggests that greater justification of violence and adherence to sexist beliefs correlates with a worsening evaluation of women’s economic and labour independence, which aligns with the previous results of Ugarte-Gurrutxaga et al. (2025). Also, prior studies have already shown a positive correlation between these justifications of violence and the occurrence of GBV (Aliaga & Figueroa, 2019; León & Aizpurúa, 2021; Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020). It has also been demonstrated how violence against women can escalate into more extreme situations, including femicide (Quispe Ilanzo et al., 2018; Velásquez Centeno et al., 2020).

In addition, statistically significant differences were observed across knowledge areas. The fields of Engineering and Architecture consistently registered the highest average scores in sexist beliefs and justification of violence (FACTORS 1, 2, and 3), while the Arts and Humanities field consistently recorded the lowest. The heightened evidence of sexism in Engineering and Architecture is linked to the masculinization of STEM areas (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) (Cobreros et al., 2024; Morales Inga & Morales Tristán, 2020). This phenomenon is global and tied to a binary and sexist social model that positions everything associated with the masculine as superior (in this case, STEM areas) and more socially recognized (Canclini Masserini & Fernández-Darraz, 2024; Marchionni et al., 2019). This patriarchal framework, which includes the intergenerational transmission of sexist beliefs and stereotypes (Hirata, 2023; Jaramillo-Bolivar & Canaval-Erazo, 2020; Lamas, 2022), significantly influences the choice of university degrees. However, the present study also concurs with what Morales Inga and Morales Tristán (2020) suggest: the process of this masculinization or feminization of certain knowledge areas implies that interventions can be made to change these outcomes.

Finally, although no statistically significant differences were found considering age, average scores also exhibited a trend toward being slightly higher in the younger age groups (≤25 years old), aligning with findings from previous studies (Sánchez-Jiménez & Muñoz-Fernández, 2021; Vila-Cortavitarte et al., 2022).

From a practical perspective, these findings suggest that universal prevention strategies may be insufficient. The concentration of sexist attitudes in masculinized knowledge areas highlights the need for discipline-specific educational interventions that integrate gender perspectives into curricula. At the policy level, universities should move beyond formal equality frameworks and adopt structural approaches that address the cultural normalization of sexism within academic environments.

Limitations

One limitation is the reliance on voluntary student participation, which may affect sample size and be influenced by sensitivity to social issues, particularly Gender-Based Violence. The study included only undergraduate and double degree students from Faculties that approved the research, limiting generalizability. The sample represents a specific region, and the quantitative methodology has inherent limitations, though a complementary qualitative study is underway. Additionally, the low internal consistency of FACTOR 4 and the absence of formal correction for multiple comparisons at the item level should be considered when interpreting the results.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study underscore the persistence of certain sexist attitudes and violence-justifying beliefs among specific groups of university students, particularly men and students enrolled in masculinized academic disciplines. The presence of these beliefs may hinder the early identification of Gender-Based Violence and contribute to its ongoing normalization and perpetuation. Significant sex-based differences were observed: women demonstrate greater rejection of violence, while men show higher acceptance of sexist beliefs, including biological determinism.

Although there is general acceptance of women’s participation in the public sphere, disagreement persists regarding the use of public funds to support women’s access to high-level political positions, highlighting enduring structural barriers. Positive correlations between the justification of violence and GBV occurrence, alongside the link between field masculinization (characterized by male dominance and the underrepresentation of women in these fields) and higher sexism scores, indicate that targeted interventions could modify these. These findings raise questions regarding the perceived adequacy of current approaches to GBV prevention and management in university settings.

Associations between age, areas of knowledge, and GVAQ scores suggest that the university context, including curricula and social interactions, both shapes and is shaped by students’ attitudes toward gender and violence. Given the observed persistence of sexist beliefs across different knowledge areas, particularly in more masculinized fields, and the consistent associations between sexist attitudes and justifications of violence, these findings highlight the potential role of higher education curricula in addressing such beliefs. We therefore recommend reviewing academic programmes to integrate cross-cutting content on gender perspectives and GBV legislation. Combined with institutional protocols and the training of academic and administrative staff, such measures would foster safer, more equitable university environments and prepare professionals committed to eradicating Gender-Based Violence.