Attitudes towards violence against women in the EU.
Date: 2015-11-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: European Union, domestic violence, sexual harassment, sexual violence, social problem, woman, women's rights

ATTITUDES 
TOWARDS VIOLENCE 
AGAINST WOMEN 
IN THE EU

Enrique Gracia & Marisol Lila
University of Valencia

Justice  
and Consumers

This report was financed by, and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for 
Justice and Consumers, Unit D2 “Equality between men and women”, in the framework of a contract managed 
by Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini (FGB) in partnership with Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS). 
The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 
this report. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible 
for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

FGB - Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini

IRS - Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale

Via Solferino 32
00185 Rome
Italy
Tel +39 064424 9625
Fax +39 0644249565
www.fondazionebrodolini.it

Via XX Settembre 24
20123 Milano
Italy
Tel. +39 2467 641
www.irs-online.it

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

European Commission - Directorate-General for Justice
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union, 2015

ISBN 978-92-79-53404-1
doi:10.2838/045438
DS-02-15-963-EN-N

© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

ATTITUDES 
TOWARDS VIOLENCE 
AGAINST WOMEN 
IN THE EU

Enrique Gracia & Marisol Lila
University of Valencia

“…violence against women and girls continues unabat-
ed  in  every  continent,  country  and  culture.  It  takes  a 
devastating toll on women’s lives, on their families, and 
on society as a whole. Most societies prohibit such vio-
lence -yet the reality is that too often, it is covered up 
or  tacitly  condoned…  Changing  this  requires  all  of  us 
-women and men- to work for enduring change in val-
ues and attitudes.”

Ban Ki-moon, 
Secretary-General of the United Nations
New York, 6 March 2007

Index

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH  

Background 

Research approach and procedure 

Questionnaire and instructions for experts 
Experts reports and feedback 

Key areas related to public attitudes towards violence against women in EU  
surveys and studies 

Abbreviations 

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL 
PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED 
SEVERITY 

Introduction 

Surveys and studies addressing public perceptions of violence against women  
as a social problem 

Surveys 
Studies 

Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem. Results of 
surveys and studies 

Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem 
Public definitions of violence against women 
Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women 
Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer and the 2014 FRA Survey 

Summary and highlights 

Highlights 

13

16

16

18

18
18

20

21

22

22

23

23
25

26

26
28
31
41

42

43

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: 
ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS 

44

Introduction 

44

Surveys and studies addressing public attributions, explanations and justifications   45

Surveys 
Studies 

Public attributions, explanations, and justifications of violence against women. 
Results of surveys and studies 

Individual factors 
Relational/situational factors 

Social/cultural factors 

Cultural and social norms 
Gender roles and stereotypes 
Socioeconomic explanations 
Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer 

Summary and highlights 

Highlights 

45
46

47

47
51

53

53
54
58
60

60

61

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER?  
VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIES 

Introduction 

Surveys and studies addressing victim-blaming attitudes  

Surveys 
Studies 

Victim-blaming attitudes. Results of surveys and studies 

Intimate partner violence/domestic violence 
Sexual violence 

Victim-blaming attitudes, results of the 2010 Eurobarometer 

Summary and highlights 

Highlights 

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND  
RESPONSES IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 

Introduction 

Surveys and studies addressing public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention 
and responses in cases of violence against women 

Surveys 
Studies 

62

62

63

63
64

65

65
72

76

78

78

79

79

80

80
81

Public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and responses in cases of violence 
82
against women. Results of surveys and studies 

Public knowledge of resources and services for women victims of violence 
Public attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against women 
Public responses in cases of violence against women 
Professionals’ knowledge and attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against 
women 

82
89
98

101

Summary and highlights 

Highlights 

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

102

102

104

EU surveys including information on attitudes towards violence against women  104

Conclusions 
Recommendations 

Methodological issues in surveys including information on attitudes towards 
violence against women  

Conclusions 
Recommendations 

104
105

105

105
106

Availability of studies published in academic journals addressing attitudes towards 
107
violence against women in the EU 

Conclusions 
Recommendations 

Public attitudes towards violence against women in EU surveys and studies 

Conclusions 
Recommendations 

Factors influencing attitudes towards violence against women in the EU: future 
directions for research 

Conclusions 
Recommendations 

107
107

108

108
109

109

109
110

REFERENCES 

APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Instructions to experts  

Appendix II. Survey questionnaires and study summaries selection 

Appendix III. Descriptive Analysis of surveys and studies 

Appendix IV. Surveys 

Appendix V. Studies  

Appendix VI. Survey questions 

111

118

119

121

125

135

139

145

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Countries with surveys addressing public perceptions of violence against women as  
a social problem  

Figure 2.2. Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem: Domestic violence  
(RO-Survey 1. General population) 

Figure 2.3. Public definitions of violence against women: Violence in intimate relationships  
(EE-Survey 2. General population) 

Figure 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (BG-Survey 5. General 
population) 

Figure 2.5. Public definitions of violence against women: Prostitution (EE-Survey 2. General population) 

Figure 2.6. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (EE-Survey 2. General 
population) 

Figure 2.7. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (PL-Survey 4. General 
population) 

24

27

28

29

30

30

31

Figure 2.8. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Domestic violence 
(PL-Survey 2a. General population and subsamples of perpetrators) 

32

Figure 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Domestic violence 
(PL-Survey 4. General population)  

33

Figure 2.10. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Intimate partner 
violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims) 

Figure 2.11. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Intimate partner 
violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims) 

34

34

Figure 2.12. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Violence against 
women (IT-Survey 1. Women general population)  

35

Figure 2.13. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Gender-based 
violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and adolescents-young people)  

Figure 2.14. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Rape  
(SE-Survey 2. General population) 

Figure 3.1. Countries with surveys addressing public attributions, explanations and justifications 

Figure 3.2. Individual factors: Alcohol as a circumstance explaining violence against women  
(PL-Survey 1a. General population)  

Figure 3.3. Individual factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young adults)  

Figure 3.4. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and 
adolescents-young people)  

Figure 3.5. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and 
adolescents-young people)  

Figure 3.6. Perpetrator characteristics: Sexual violence (CZ-Survey 3. General population)  

Figure 3.7. Relational factors: Intimate partner violence (NL-Survey 1. General population) 

Figure 3.8. Perpetrators circumstances: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 4. General population;  
victims and perpetrators subsamples)  

Figure 3.9. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 

Figure 3.10. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 

Figure 3.11. Social/cultural factors: Sexual violence (NL-Survey 1. General population)  

Figure 3.12. Cultural/social factors: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population) 

Figure 3.13. Social/cultural factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people) 

Figure 3.14. Poverty and education level: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population) 

36

41

45

47

48

50

50

51

52

52

53

54

56

57

58

58

Figure 3.15. Reasons to explain gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and 
adolescents-young people)  

Figure 4.1. Countries with surveys addressing victim-blaming attitudes 

Figure 4.2. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 2. General population)  

Figure 4.3. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population) 

Figure 4.4. Victim-blaming attitudes: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young people)  

Figure 4.5. Victim-blaming attitudes: Wife beating (EE-Survey 1. General population, men)  

Figure 4.6. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General population and 
perpetrators sub-sample) 

Figure 4.7. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (EE-Survey 2. General population)  

Figure 4.8. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (SE-Survey 1. Students)  

Figure 4.9. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (SE-Survey 2. General population)  

Figure 4.10. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (EE-Survey 6. Young people)  

Figure 4.11. Victim-blaming attitudes in Europe (Eurobarometer, 2010)  

Figure 5.1. Countries with surveys addressing public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and 
responses in cases of violence against women  

Figure 5.2. Public knowledge of resources and services: Violence against women (AT-Survey 2.  
General population)  

Figure 5.3. Public knowledge of resources and services: Gender-based violence (EE-Survey 2.  
General population)  

Figure 5.4. Public knowledge of resources and services: Gender based violence (EE-Survey 2.  
General population)  

Figure 5.5. Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?: Gender-based and domestic  
violence (EE-Survey 5. General population)  

Figure 5.6. Have you heard about the nationwide hotline 1492 for women victims?: Gender based  
and domestic violence (EE-Survey 5. General population)  

Figure 5.7. What kind of support services for victims of sexual violence have you heard of?: Sexual 
violence (EE-Survey 6. General population)  

Figure 5.8. Public knowledge of resources and services: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 8. General 
population)  

Figure 5.9. If a person from your circle of acquaintances shares with you she has been a victim of 
domestic violence, whom would you advise her to go to?: Domestic violence (BG-Survey 1. General 
population)  

59

63

65

66

67

69

70

72

73

74

75

77

80

83

84

85

86

87

88

88

89

Figure 5.10. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 1. General population)   91

Figure 5.11. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 3. Students/Teachers)  

Figure 5.12. Should witnesses intervene: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 4. General population)  

91

92

Figure 5.13. Public attitudes towards intervention: Gender based and domestic violence (EE-Survey 5. 
General population)  

92

Figure 5.14. If you know of or witness aggression or mistreatment of a woman by a man, what do  
you think you would do?: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General population and 
adolescents-young people)  

Figure 5.15. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (LT-Survey 1. Victims)  

Figure 5.16. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (LT-Survey 1. Victims)  

Figure 5.17. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General  
population)  

Figure 5.18. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General  
population)  

95

96

96

97

97

Figure 5.19. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General  
population)  

Figure 5.20. What did you do, how did you respond?: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 2. General 
population)  

Figure 5.21. What is the main reason why you did not do anything?: Domestic violence  
(EE-Survey 2. General population)  

98

99

99

Figure 5.22. Whom/where did you report it to?: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 8. General population)   100

Figure 5.23. Public responses in cases of violence against women: Domestic violence (PL-Survey 8. 
General population)  

Figure II.1. Survey questionnaires selected for inclusion in the review 

Figure II.2. Study summaries selected for inclusion in the review 

Figure III.1. Number of surveys selected and samples 

Figure III.2. Number of studies selected by sample composition 

100

122

123

126

133

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Country name abbreviations  

Table 2.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 

Table 2.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 

Table 2.3. “Domestic violence is a public interest issue”: disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. 
General population) 

Table 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 1.  
Women general population) 

Table 2.5. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Intimate partner 
violence (ES-Survey 2. General population) 

Table 2.6. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Dating violence  
(CY-Survey 3. Young people) 

Table 2.7. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Gender based  
violence (ES-Survey 3. Students) 

Table 2.8. “Mistreatment of a girl by a boy?” Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence 
against women: Dating violence (ES-Survey 4. Students) 

Table 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: Dating violence  
(SI-Survey 3. Professionals: High school advisors) 

Table 3.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 

Table 3.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 

Table 3.3. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated information  
(CY-Survey 3. Young people) 

Table 3.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated information  
(CY-Survey 3. Young people) 

Table 3.5. “If a woman has children, even if she is beaten she cannot leave the relationship”: 
Disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. General population)  

Table 3.6. “Women are the property of men”: Disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. General 
population) 

Table 3.7. “Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people”: Disaggregated information 
(RO-Survey 1. General population) 

Table 4.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 

21

25

26

27

29

32

37

38

39

40

46

46

49

54

55

57

59

64

Table 4.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 

Table 4.3. “Women are sometimes to blame for being beaten”: Disaggregated information  
(RO-Survey 1. General population) 

Table 4.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Gender-based violence (CY-Survey 3. 
Young people) 

Table 4.5. “It is OK for a boy….”: Gender-based violence (CY-Survey 3. Young people) 

Table 4.6. Wife beating attitudes by native language (EE-Survey 1. General population, men) 

Table 4.7. Victim-blaming attitudes: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 4. Young people) 

Table 4.8. “It is OK for a man….”: Domestic abuse (UK-Survey 4. Students) 

Table 4.9. “Women cause their victimisation or rape by their clothing”: Disaggregated information  
(EE-Survey 2. General population) 

Table 4.10. “Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped”: Disaggregated information  
(EE-Survey 6. Young people)  

Table 5.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence 

Table 5.2. Studies, samples and type of violence 

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

73

76

81

82

Table 5.3. Preferred sources of information: Intimate partner violence and sexual violence (DE-Survey 4)  84

Table 5.4. Awareness of Estonian Women’s Shelters Union and their hotline 1492: Disaggregated 
information (EE-Survey 2. General population)  

Table 5.5. Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?: Disaggregated information  
(EE-Survey 5. General population)  

Table 5.6. Recommendations to victims: IPV and Sexual violence (DE-Survey 4) 

Table 5.7. Recommendations in cases of domestic violence by level of education (DE-Survey 4) 

Table 5.8. Would you recommend your friend or colleague who has experienced violence to contact 
a women’s shelter for advice and assistance?: Disaggregated information (EE-Survey 5. General 
population)  

Table 5.9. Would you know where to go to file a complaint in a case of mistreatment? And  
specifically, where would you go? (ES-Survey 1. Women general population)  

85

87

90

90

93

94

Table 5.10. Public attitudes towards intervention: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 4. Adolescents)   95

Table II.1. Number of surveys and studies received by country 

Table II.2. Number of surveys and studies selected by country 

Table III.1. Type of violence addressed in surveys 

Table III.2. Methodological characteristics of surveys 

Table IV.1. Surveys selected by country: title, year (conducted/published), organisation, scope and 
sample 

121

124

127

129

135

Table V.1. Study summaries selected by country: Reference, sample, method and type of violence  139

Table V.2. Content of studies: selection of main results 

141

List of Boxes

Box 1.1. Experts’ views about the availability of surveys on attitudes towards violence against women 

19

Box 1.2. Experts’ views about the availability of studies on attitudes towards violence against women  20

Box 4.1. Victim-blaming attitudes examples 

Box I.1. Instructions to experts: Survey questionnaire 

Box I.2. Instructions to experts: Qualitative and quantitative studies 

Box III.1. Examples of the definition of violence using specific indicators  

Box III.2. Examples of legal definitions of violence 

Box III.3. Examples of confidential self-completion methodology used in surveys 

Box III.4. Does the survey provide information about who conducted the survey or whether the 
interviewers were specifically trained? (MT-Survey 1) 

71

119

120

130

131

131

132

Box VI.1. Survey items on public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem (Chapter 2)  145

Box VI.2. Survey items on public attributions, explanations and justifications (Chapter 3) 

Box VI.3. Survey items on victim-blaming attitudes (Chapter 4) 

151

155

Box VI.4. Survey items on public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and responses in cases  
of violence against women (Chapter 5) 

158

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Violence against women remains a major social, public health, and human rights 
problem in the EU. Violence against women is a complex phenomenon that needs 
to be understood within the wider social context and within the social and cultural 
norms that permeate it. Public attitudes and responses regarding violence against 
women reflect these norms and play an important role in shaping the social climate 
in which the violence occurs. Comprehending attitudes towards violence against wo-
men is key to better understanding its root causes and, therefore, developing more 
effective intervention measures. 

To achieve this, the report aimed to (1) review all surveys published in the last 5 
years in EU countries that included questions addressing attitudes towards violence 
against women, and (2) review quantitative and qualitative studies of high scientific 
quality on attitudes towards violence against women in EU countries published in 
academic journals in the last 5 years. This information was identified and provided 
by the European Network of Experts on Gender Equality (ENEGE). 

After  a  selection  process,  the  information  used  for  this  report  was  based  on  40 
surveys from 19 countries, reflecting the responses of around 85,000 European ci-
tizens. For this report, 16 quantitative and qualitative studies published in academic 
journals were also considered (see Chapter 1). The analysis of this material allowed 
us to identify four key areas related to public attitudes towards violence against 
women: (1) Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem; (2) 
Public understanding of the causes of violence against women; (3) Victim-blaming 
attitudes; and (4) Public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention, and responses 
in cases of violence against women. These areas corresponded to the four thematic 
chapters that describe the main results of this report (see Chapters 2 to 5).

Although  there  are  limitations  in  the  comparability  of  data  across  countries,  the 
picture  that  emerges  regarding  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  in  EU 
countries, where this information was available, can be summarised as follows: 

•	

Results of the available surveys and studies addressing the acceptability and 
perceived severity of different types of violence against women (mainly part-
ner violence) revealed that small but relevant percentages of respondents (in-
cluding  young  people,  adults,  and  also  victims)  tended  to  “accept”  –  in  some 
circumstances  –  some  violent  behaviours  against  women,  perceived  as  “not 
very serious” or considered “inevitable”, including insulting, hitting, controlling, 
or even forced sex. This suggests that attitudes of acceptability and tolerance 
are still prevalent. Particularly worrisome is that the acceptability of certain be-
haviours remained high in some circumstances (e.g. dating violence). Data for 
gender tended to show that these types of attitudes are more common among 
men and boys.

•	 Among the individual factors believed to be associated with violence against 
women,  alcohol  or  drug  use  was  one  of  the  most  commonly  mentioned  by 
survey respondents from the general population (and also professionals). Inte-
restingly, percentages among victims and perpetrators were much lower. Ha-

13

Executive Summary•	

•	

ving  experienced  violence  in  childhood  was  also  one  of  the  most  frequently 
mentioned causes of violence against women by respondents (including sexual 
violence).  For  sexual  violence  against  women,  respondents  tended  to  believe 
that offenders suffered from some forms of deviance (which was also seen as 
resistant to treatment).

Relational or situational factors considered by survey respondents as possible 
causes  of  violence  against  women  were  fights  and  quarrels  among  intimate 
partners, family problems, and sources of stress, like the loss of a job or finan-
cial problems. 

Social and cultural factors that were considered by respondents as an expla-
nation or justification of violence against women included: cultural and social 
norms,  gender  stereotypes,  and  socioeconomic  explanations.  Results  suggest 
that gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes are still prevalent in some sectors 
of the society. Where available, disaggregated information suggests that these 
types of attitudes are more common among males, the older, the less educated, 
and those living in rural areas.

•	 Victim-blaming attitudes were widespread in countries where this information 
was available. Some results of this review revealed alarming percentages of 
this type of attitudes. Where available, results regarding victim-blaming in ca-
ses  of  sexual  violence  or  rape  were  particularly  worrisome.  The  picture  that 
emerged  from  the  available  information  is  that  victim-blaming  attitudes  are 
more common among men, the older, the less educated, and minority groups. 
Victim-blaming attitudes were also highly prevalent in other socio-demographic 
groups and among women.

•	 Questions regarding public knowledge of resources for victims suggested that 
only some services were quite well-known to the public (e.g. women’s shelters), 
while  the  public  in  general  knew  little  about  other  services  or  resources  for 
victims. Where available, differences among specific socio-demographic groups 
emerged regarding the knowledge of resources and support services for victims 
(e.g. minority groups and the less educated had less knowledge). Also, socio-
demographic differences emerged regarding what to do or what to recommend 
to victims. The results suggested that the police was the main resource to which 
the public would turn if discovering a case of violence against women. 

•	

Finally, some results suggested that attitudes favouring non-intervention were 
still  prevalent.  Where  information  was  available,  a  significant  number  of  re-
spondents preferred not to get involved even if they were aware of a case of 
violence  against  women  (“not  my  business”,  or  “it  is  a  private  matter”  were 
among the reasons for not intervening).

The final goal of this review was not only to provide an overview of the available in-
formation on attitudes towards violence against women in the EU, but also to iden-
tify gaps in our knowledge in order to point to new directions to better understand 
public attitudes that contribute to perpetuating violence against women in the EU, 
and to respond to this major challenge in a more effective way. In this regard, the 
main conclusions and recommendations contained in this report can be summari-
sed as follows (see Chapter 6):

•	

Information regarding attitudes towards violence against women is still limited 
in European surveys, as most available surveys were not designed specifically to 

14

Executive Summary•	

•	

•	

•	

address these issues. There is a need to develop surveys and additional sources 
of data collection in order to specifically investigate attitudes towards violence 
against  women.  To  avoid  the  large  variations  between  countries  in  terms  of 
information availability and data collection, these surveys should provide com-
parable data across EU countries by being implemented at the EU-level. 

There was a large variation across surveys regarding their scope, the samples, 
type and definitions of violence against women. Most surveys addressed intima-
te partner violence against women, while only a few addressed other types of 
violence against women. Moreover, information on attitudes among minorities 
or other risk groups was very limited. Future data collection should establish a 
set of shared indicators and definitions of different types of violence against 
women, and address not only attitudes among the general population, but also 
target specific groups (e.g. professionals, victims, perpetrators, risk groups). 

To improve the comparability of information on relevant aspects regarding at-
titudes  towards  violence  against  women  across  the  EU  and  better  assess  its 
evolution over time, a more standardised and methodologically sound approach 
to the measurement of attitudes is needed in future EU-level surveys and stu-
dies. More accurate and comparable data at the EU-level would help to inform 
better-targeted education and intervention initiatives. 

There are very few studies addressing attitudes towards violence against wo-
men  in  EU  countries  published  in  academic  journals  of  high  scientific  quality 
in the last five years. This reveals that research on attitudes towards violence 
against women is an underdeveloped area. Clearly an EU-level framework for 
research  on  attitudes  to  violence  against  women  should  be  established  and 
promoted, identifying key research priorities. 

The worrisome prevalence of acceptance, victim-blaming, and non-intervention 
attitudes  in  countries  where  this  information  was  available  should  be  appro-
priately targeted and monitored across the EU. No reliable data, however, was 
available  in  the  surveys  analysed  on  the  impact  of  policies,  education,  and 
awareness-raising campaigns or other initiatives on attitudes towards violence 
against  women  among  the  general  public  or  other  specific  groups  (e.g.  men, 
risk groups, minorities). There is a need to monitor the effectiveness of policies, 
education, and prevention efforts to change public attitudes across the EU. Iden-
tifying and targeting sectors or specific groups in society that are more resistant 
to change should also be a priority.

•	 Only  a  few  surveys  provided  information  on  differences  in  attitudes  towards 
violence against women across different social groups. When this information 
was available, the attitudes found were not evenly distributed across different 
socio-economic  defined  groups.  Future  studies  and  surveys  should  provide  a 
more detailed analysis of socio-demographic and other factors influencing the-
se attitudes. This information would help us to understand variations in attitu-
des and prevalence both between and within EU countries, and to better target 
awareness-raising, public education, and intervention strategies.

•	

Factors explaining violence against women are multiple and can be identified 
at multiple levels, including individual, relational, group, community, and macro 
(country) levels. An appropriate understanding of variations both between and 
within countries, not only in attitudes but also in prevalence, will need a multi-
national and multilevel type of approach that will require a new generation of 
studies and an EU-level research effort.

15

Executive Summary1. BACKGROUND AND 
RESEARCH APPROACH 

Background

Violence against women is a widespread phenomenon with important consequen-
ces  for  the  physical,  psychological,  and  social  wellbeing  of  women.  It  is  a  major 
social and public health problem as well as a human rights violation that also has 
profound consequences for society as a whole (Campbell, 2002; Ellsberg, Jansen, 
Heise,  Watts,  &  Garcia-Moreno,  2008;  WHO,  2013).  Intimate  partner  violence  is 
considered the most common form of violence suffered by women (Devries et al., 
2013; Stöckl et al., 2013; WHO, 2013), mainly committed by their male partners 
(Hamby, 2014). Based on data from 81 countries, Devries et al. (2013) estimated 
that  the  global  prevalence  of  intimate  partner  violence  is  30%  (23.2%  in  high-
income regions). Also, according to Stöckl et al. (2013), the main risk of homicide for 
a woman is from an intimate partner, with the proportion of women killed by their 
partners being six times higher than the proportion of men killed by women. Stöckl 
et al. (2013) estimated that 38.6% of all female homicides are committed by their 
intimate partners (41.2% in Western countries).

The recent survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 
among the 28 European Union (EU) Member States estimated that 33% of women 
had experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the age of 15, and that 5% 
of women had been raped since the age of 15. This survey also showed the high 
prevalence of intimate partner violence against women, with an average of 22% 
of European women having been victims of physical and/or sexual violence by their 
partners since the age of 15, with prevalence across countries ranging from 13% to 
32% (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014).

Understanding  attitudes  toward  violence  against  women  is  of  paramount  impor-
tance  in  order  to  better  understand  its  root  causes  and,  therefore,  develop  more 
effective intervention measures. Clearly, EU prevention policies would benefit from 
data  monitoring  attitudes  toward  violence  against  women  as  well  as  the  factors 
that influence it. 

Violence  against  women  is  a  complex  phenomenon  that  needs  to  be  understood 
within the wider social context and within the social and cultural norms that per-
meate it (Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2014; Jewkes, 2002; Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 
2015; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). For example, in its “World report on violence and 
health” (2002), the World Health Organization included factors creating an accep-
table  climate  for  violence  and  those  that  reduce  inhibitions  against  violence  as 
larger societal factors that influence rates of violence. Research shows that these 
attitudes condoning violence against women are still widespread (Gracia & Herrero, 
2006a; Gracia & Tomás, 2014; Jewkes 2002; Jewkes et al., 2015; WHO, 2013). The 
importance of addressing public attitudes towards violence against women is illu-
strated by an increasing body of research showing the influence that these attitudes 

16

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACHmay have in aspects such as incidence and reporting rates, public and professional 
responses and the victims’ own responses (e.g. Carlson & Worden, 2005; Flood & 
Pease, 2009; Frye, 2007; Gracia, García, & Lila, 2008, 2011, 2014; Lila, Gracia, & 
García, 2013; West & Wandrei, 2002). If we take into account that violence against 
women remains not only a major social and public health problem, but is also a 
largely  unreported  crime  (Gracia,  2004),  the  importance  of  addressing  attitudes 
towards violence against women becomes even more apparent.

A better understanding of public attitudes toward violence against women and its 
correlates may add relevant knowledge to the social conditions that contribute to 
its prevalence, as well as the social sources of deterrence and control of this type 
of violence (Gracia, 2014). In this regard, attitudes towards violence against wo-
men  can  be  considered  not  only  a  central  issue  for  understanding  those  factors 
that contribute to its maintenance in our societies, but also as a main target for 
intervention and public education (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Flood & Pease, 2009; 
García-Moreno et al., 2015; Gracia, Rodriguez, & Lila, 2015; Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 
2015; West & Wandrei, 2002; WHO, 2002; Worden & Carlson, 2005).

A growing number of scholars and international bodies have recognised the impor-
tant role that public attitudes and responses regarding violence against women play 
in shaping the social climate in which the violence occurs, a social climate that can 
contribute either to perpetuating, or to reducing levels of violence against women 
in our societies (e.g. European Commission, 2010; Flood & Pease, 2009; Frye, 2007; 
Gracia, 2004; Gracia, García, & Lila 2009; WHO, 2002). As Webster at al. (2014) 
put it, “as a reflection of social norms, attitudes are also an important barometer 
of our progress in preventing and responding to violence against women” (p. 186). 
From this viewpoint, in order to achieve a significant reduction of the prevalence of 
violence  against  women,  social  and  cultural  attitudes  that  tolerate  or  justify  this 
violence need to be addressed by analysing its prevalence, monitoring its changes 
and understanding its determinants (Campbell & Manganello, 2006; Flood & Pease, 
2009; Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Gracia & Tomás, 2014; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015; 
Uthman,  Moradi,  &  Lawoko,  2009;  Waltermaurer,  2012;  West  &  Wandrei,  2002; 
Worden & Carlson, 2005). As summarised in the 2013 National Community Attitu-
des towards Violence Against Women Survey conducted in Australia by the Victorian 
Health Promotion Foundation:

There is growing international consensus that the causes of violence against 
women can be eliminated. Communities and governments can prevent vio-
lence against women before it occurs, and attitudes have an important role 
to play…Attitudes that condone or tolerate violence are recognized as play-
ing a central role in shaping the way individuals, organizations and commu-
nities respond to violence (VicHealth, 2010). Measuring community attitudes 
tells  us  how  well  we  are  progressing  towards  a  violence-free  society  for 
all women. It also reveals the extent of the work that lies ahead, where to 
focus our efforts, and the messages and approaches likely to be effective 
(VicHealth, 2014, p.1).

17

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACHResearch approach and procedure

Drawing from the above ideas, this research review aimed to address both attitudes 
towards violence against women as well as the factors that may influence them 
across all EU Member States. This research also aimed to be theoretically driven 
and conducted taking into account two main axes:

Approach to studying attitudes. Drawing from a social psychology framework, this 
review  takes  into  account  the  three  classical  components  of  attitudes:  cognitive, 
affective, and behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998, 2005, 2007; Maio, Olson, Ber-
nard, & Luke, 2003). Within this framework, this review addressed issues such as 
perceptions and knowledge; attributions (e.g. victim-blaming), justifications and ex-
plications; stereotypes and prejudices; intentions (whether or how to intervene) and 
responses. 

Approach to exploring potential factors influencing attitudes. This review also con-
sidered  factors  that  may  influence  attitudes.  To  do  so,  a  multifactorial  approach 
was  used  (e.g.  Flood  &  Pease,  2009;  Gracia,  2014;  Heise,  1998;  Taylor  &  Soren-
son, 2005; Uthman et al., 2009; Waltermaurer, 2012). According to this approach, 
knowledge about correlates and determinants of public attitudes toward violence 
against  women  must  take  into  account  a  number  of  factors  working  at  different 
level  of  analysis,  including  cultural/societal,  community,  organisational,  group,  si-
tuational or individual levels. This kind of approach can help to better understand 
variations in attitudes both between and within countries by exploring whether the-
se types of attitude are more common among certain socio-demographic defined 
groups and contexts (Gracia, 2014). 

Questionnaire and instructions for experts

In order to gather relevant information for this review, a specific tool was designed 
to be completed by the ENEGE expert network. The experts were asked to perform 
two tasks:

1. To thoroughly review all relevant surveys published in the last 5 years in their 
countries related to the aim of this study and provide the information requested in 
the questionnaire (the specific instructions to experts can be seen in Appendix I, Box 
I.1).

2.  To  identify  quantitative  and  qualitative  studies  of  high  scientific  quality  con-
ducted in their countries on attitudes towards violence against women published in 
relevant academic journals over the last 5 years (the specific instructions to experts 
can be seen in Appendix I, Box I.2).

Experts reports and feedback

It is important to note the great difficulty we encountered in finding specific infor-
mation  on  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  (both  surveys  and  studies) 
reported by a number of experts (see Boxes 1.1 and 1.2). In fact, experts from three 
countries (Ireland, Greece and Hungary) found no surveys that had been conducted 
in the last five years. In Ireland, the last survey conducted with some information 
about attitudes towards violence against women was published in 2008. In Gree-
ce, only two national large-scale epidemiological surveys had been conducted on 
violence against women, in 2003 and 2004. The Hungarian expert explicitly points 

18

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACHout that in their country “it is impossible to find comparable and reliable data on 
domestic violence and also on attitudes on this issue”. 

Box  1.1.  Experts’  views  about  the  availability  of  surveys  on  attitudes  towards 
violence against women

	Denmark expert: “…Sadly, we do lack information about the trends in atti-
tudes towards violence against women, as it would help to clarify the reasons 
for the reported high prevalence of gender-based violence in Denmark (and 
the other Nordic countries)”. 

	Estonia expert: “…only some (surveys) focus on attitudes towards violence. 
In some… the questions and the results do not (directly) reflect attitudes to-
wards violence against women”.

	France expert: “Very few surveys and publications are relevant for this re-
search review focusing on the past five years …since French surveys tend to 
focus on the description and classification of violent situations, attitudes to-
wards violence against women are barely explored. …the French approach to 
violence  against  women  tends  to  focus  on  the  description  and  typology  of 
violent events, disregarding attitudes towards violence”.

	Greece  expert:  “Despite  the  large  body  of  research  literature  on  intimate 
partner  violence  (IPV),  which  has  grown  over  the  last  two  decades,  Greece 
still has very little empirical data on a national scale... Furthermore, there are 
no  ad  hoc  attitudes  surveys  and  studies  regarding  violence  against  women 
that  could  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  independent  variables  as-
sociated with various attitudes. The only one available is not nationwide and 
regards  attitudes  on  gender  stereotypes  and  gender-based  violence  among 
young people”.

	Hungary expert: “…it is impossible to find comparable and reliable data on 

domestic violence and also on attitudes on this issue”.

	Italy expert: “…we have had considerable difficulty finding studies and sur-

veys on attitudes towards violence against women in Italy”.

In relation to the studies published in high quality academic journals (indexed in the 
Web of Science Journal Citation Reports), six experts (from Cyprus, Estonia, Italy, 
Luxemburg, Poland and Sweden) again reported that they had found no studies with 
samples addressing attitudes towards violence against women in their countries. 

19

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACHBox  1.2.  Experts’  views  about  the  availability  of  studies  on  attitudes  towards 
violence against women

	Denmark expert: “In the 1990’s, some minor qualitative studies were con-
ducted on attitudes, but none within the given timeframe of 5 years prior to 
the research review”. 

	Estonia expert: “I also checked the availability of scientific publications on 

VAW in the academic journals. I found no high quality publications”.

	France expert: “In France there are very few publications in academic jour-

nals relying on quantitative or qualitative studies on the topic”.

	Italy expert: “…concerning specific studies we haven’t found anything worth 
describing: we haven’t found any relevant study published in academic jour-
nals in the last 5 years”.

	Poland expert: “We did not find any studies in journals indexed in the Journal 

Citation Reports”.

The Sweden expert provided an excellent summary of the general lack of speciali-
sed information on attitudes towards violence against women: 

“…the result of my search for surveys addressing attitudes towards violence 
against women or any quantitative and qualitative studies addressing this 
issue in high quality academic journals is very meagre… this is an interesting 
result in itself, but it might also be seen as surprising and a mystery …Given 
that male violence against women is a top political priority with consider-
able resources being allocated to this area, quite a lot has also been written 
about it and there is a lot of data about violence against women, but not 
about attitudes towards violence against women. When attitudes are 
mentioned, they are mentioned as something that has to be changed, but 
not what these attitudes are”. 

Key  areas  related  to  public  attitudes  towards  violence  against 
women in EU surveys and studies

After a selection process (see Appendix II), 40 surveys in 19 countries were even-
tually included in this review, as they met the criteria established for inclusion. The 
data  analysed  for  this  report  reflects  the  responses  of  around  85,000  European 
citizens. There were wide variations across countries regarding the availability of 
surveys. In some countries, no surveys were available in the requested period, whe-
reas in others several were provided (see Appendix III and Appendix IV).

Very  few  studies  addressing  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  in  EU 
countries were published in academic journals of high scientific quality in the last 
five years. In the end, 16 studies in 8 countries met the inclusion criteria for this 
review (see Appendix III and Appendix V). 

20

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACHIn summary, this review was based on data from survey questionnaires and study 
summaries  provided  by  ENEGE  experts  from  all  EU  countries.  After  reviewing  all 
the information provided by these experts, four key areas or topics related to pu-
blic  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  were  identified  across  the  survey 
questionnaires. Accordingly, the following four chapters in this review correspond to 
these key areas:

1.  Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem: awareness, 

definitions, acceptability and perceived severity;

2.  Public  understanding  of  the  causes  of  violence  against  women:  attributions, 

explanations and justifications;

3.  Are women held responsible for the violence they suffer? Victim-blaming attitu-

des in EU surveys and studies;

4.  Public  knowledge,  attitudes  towards  intervention,  and  responses  in  cases  of 

violence against women.

Abbreviations

In this report, the countries are referred to by their official abbreviation:

Table 1.1. Country name abbreviations 

European Union (EU)

AT

BE

BG

CZ

CY

DK

DE

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Republic of Cyprus

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

IE

IT

LT

LU

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

SE

UK

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

The Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Sweden

United Kingdom

21

1. BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS 
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST 
WOMEN AS A SOCIAL 
PROBLEM: AWARENESS, 
DEFINITIONS, 
ACCEPTABILITY AND 
PERCEIVED SEVERITY

Introduction

Public  awareness  of  the  prevalence  of  domestic  violence  against  women  in  so-
ciety is a first step in mobilizing public responses to tackle this problem. As Klein, 
Campbell, Soler and Ghez (1997) put it, “public recognition of the pervasiveness of 
domestic abuse reflects the level of violence that people acknowledge in their own 
lives” (p. 21). For Klein et al. (1997), social and personal accountability for taking 
action against violence against women comes from believing that the problem is 
widespread and poses a sufficient threat to the fabric of the community as to af-
fect one’s own life. The perceived importance among the public of violence against 
women as a social problem, and the beliefs regarding how widespread the problem 
is, are important factors that shape the social environment in which the victims and 
perpetrators  are  embedded  and  influences  how  this  social  environment  responds 
(Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Flood & Pease, 2009; Gracia, 2014; WHO, 2002). Accor-
ding to Staub (2003), “when there is limited public discussion of an issue, a condi-
tion of pluralistic ignorance exists. If no one is concerned, the issue seems unimpor-
tant and action unnecessary...given inaction, individuals shift awareness away from 
these issues to lessen their feelings of danger, personal responsibility, and guilt” (p. 
491).

In  the  context  of  how  violence  against  women  is  perceived  as  a  social  problem, 
the way this violence is defined by the public is of particular importance. How this 
violence is defined will also influence what is or is not acceptable regarding the use 
of violence against women (Gracia, 2014). Violence against women in intimate re-
lationships can be accepted and tolerated or considered as intolerable depending on 
the circumstances. For example, if violence against women by their partners is defi-
ned as such only when it becomes extreme, severe or repeated, it is more likely that 
some violence towards women in intimate relationships (e.g. verbal, psychological, 
physical  violence without injuries) may be seen as acceptable or tolerated under 

22

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYsome circumstances (Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Loseke, 1989; Loseke & Gelles, 1993; 
Muehlenhard & Kimes, 1999). Loseke (1989) argued in this respect that victims of 
more extreme partner violence against women may be worthy of sympathy, whe-
reas other women do not deserve sympathy because some violence is “tolerable”. 
As Heise (2011) put it:

“The  acceptability  of  violence  appears  strongly  linked  to  both  the  nature 
of  the  perceived  transgression  and  the  severity  of  abuse.  Violence  that  is 
viewed as “without just cause” or is perceived as excessive is more likely to 
be condemned by women themselves and by others… it is important thus to 
understand the underlying beliefs that define the range of acceptable male 
and female behaviour” (p. 13).

Public perceptions of violence against women as social problem were a main topic 
that emerged after reviewing all the survey questionnaires and study summaries 
provided for this review. These surveys included items addressing three different but 
related issues: public awareness of violence against women as a social problem, 
public definitions, and public acceptability and perceived severity of different types 
of violence against women (by both partners and non-partners). This section is or-
ganised into these three areas.

Surveys  and  studies  addressing  public  perceptions  of  violence 
against women as a social problem

Surveys

Information on public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem 
was available in 26 surveys conducted in 14 countries; Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Re-
public, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, 
Sweden and United Kingdom (see Figure 2.1).

23

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYFigure 2.1. Countries with surveys addressing public perceptions of violence against 
women as a social problem 

COUNTRIES = 14 / SURVEYS = 26

Malta

Surveys in each country (BG = 2; CY = 3; CZ = 2; DK = 1; EE = 2; ES = 4; IT = 1; LT = 2; MT = 1; PL = 4; RO = 1; SE 
= 1; SI = 1; UK = 1)

The samples used and types of violence addressed in these surveys are described 
in Table 2.1 (see Appendix IV for further information).

24

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYTable 2.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence

Code

Sample 

BG-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

BG-Survey 5

General population (men & women)

CY-Survey 1

General population (women) 

CY-Survey 2

Young adults

n

-

2000

1107

1000

Type of Violence*

Domestic violence

Domestic & sexual violence

Domestic violence

Violent behaviours in interper-
sonal (partner) relationships

CY-Survey 3

Young people 

453

Gender-based violence

CZ-Survey 1

General population (women)

CZ-Survey 4

General population (women)

DK-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

EE-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

EE-Survey 4

General population (men & women)

ES-Survey 1

General population (women)

ES-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

ES-Survey 3

Adolescents and young people

ES-Survey 4

Students of secondary education and 
professionals

3000

1500

2780

1111

1500

7898

2580

2457

Domestic violence

Intimate partner violence

Dating violence

Gender-based violence 

Intimate partner violence

Violence against women

Gender-based violence

Gender-based Violence

14001

Gender-based violence

IT-Survey 1

General population (women)

21000

LT-Survey 1

LT-Survey 2

Victims

Victims

MT-Survey 1

General population (women)

PL-Survey 1a

General population (men & women)

PL-Survey 2a

General population (men & women)

89

515

1200

3000

1500

Violence against women 
(partner and non-partner)

Domestic violence

Violence against women

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

PL-Survey 3

Victims and professionals

545

Domestic violence

PL-Survey 4

General population (men & women)

RO-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

SE-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

SI-Survey 3

Professionals

UK-Survey 4

Students of primary and secondary 
education

* As defined in the title of the survey (see Appendix IV)

3000

1050

2626

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Rape

-

Dating violence

2395

Domestic abuse

The 26 surveys analysed used a wide variety of questions and formats to tap public 
perceptions of violence against women as a social problem (see Appendix VI, Box 
VI.1). These questions addressed three main related areas relevant to understan-
ding public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem: public awa-
reness of violence against women as a social problem, public definitions of violence 
against women, and public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against 
women (both by partners and non-partners).

Studies

Three studies with EU samples published in high quality academic journals in the 
last five years addressed issues related to public perceptions of violence against 
women as a social problem. Two of them, conducted in the Czech Republic, used 
university student samples to analyse the perception and definition of sexual ha-

25

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYrassment  (CZ-Study  2;  CZ-Study  3),  and  one  conducted  in  Portugal  used  a  large 
sample of young adults to analyse approval attitudes towards dating violence and 
its  socio-demographic  correlates  (PT-Study  1)  (see  Table  2.2;  see  Appendix  V  for 
further information).

Table 2.2. Studies, samples and type of violence

Code
CZ-Study 2

CZ-Study 3

Sample 
University students

University students

n
700

832

Type of Violence
Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment

PT-Study 1

Young people (aged 13 to 29)

4667

Intimate partner violence

Public perceptions of violence against women as a social problem. 
Results of surveys and studies

As mentioned above, the information available for this study can be divided into 
three relevant issues: public awareness of violence against women as a social pro-
blem, public definitions of violence against women, and public acceptability and per-
ceived severity of violence against women. Below, we analysed results of surveys 
and studies regarding these three issues.

Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem

Only four surveys addressed public awareness of how widespread is violence against 
women, and whether it is perceived as a social problem. 

For example, regarding partner violence against women, 55.8% of the young people 
surveyed from Cyprus believed that violence among couples was less pervasive in 
their country as compared to others (CY-Survey 2). Also, regarding perceptions of 
domestic violence, a survey among the general population conducted in Bulgaria 
(BG-Survey 1), asked “how do you treat domestic violence as a social phenomenon 
in the Bulgarian society?” Nearly half of respondents (49.2%) considered that this 
was a personal problem that happens sporadically; whereas the other half (50.8%) 
believed that this was a social problem (i.e. widespread and of concern for the whole 
society). In this survey, men tended to view domestic violence as a private matter 
that should not come out of the family, and the majority of women believed that 
violence was primarily a social problem (also blaming society for its passivity and 
indifference).

Also, with regard to domestic violence, a survey conducted in Romania (RO-Survey 
1) asked “Why do you think that Romania is among the EU countries with high rates 
of violence against women?” Only 23.2% of respondents agreed with the statement 
“domestic violence has always been present in Romania”. The same survey asked 
whether “domestic violence is an issue of public interest” and, interestingly, just over 
half of the population agreed with that statement. 42.7% of the general population 
did not consider domestic violence as an issue of public interest, which suggests 
that this is a problem that has not yet reached a prominent place among the public 
concerns (see Figure 2.2).

26

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY 
Figure 2.2. Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem: Do-
mestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population)

It is also interesting to note that in this Romanian survey, perceptions of domestic 
violence as a public interest issue vary across groups of the population with dif-
ferent socio-demographic characteristics. For example, this view is more common 
among women, young people and urban areas (with differences ranging between 
4% and 12%). Quite surprising are the particularly large differences in perceptions 
of  domestic  violence  as  a  public  interest  issue  between  different  education  and 
income groups (with differences of 37 and 17 percentage points for education and 
income respectively). For example, 62% of those with higher education agreed with 
the statement as compared to 25% among the less educated (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3. “Domestic violence is a public interest issue”: disaggregated information 
(RO-Survey 1. General population)

Agreement
%

Disagreement
%

DK/CA
%

Gender

Male

Female

Age

18-35

36-50

51-65

Over 65

Education

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Income type

Low income/no income

Medium income

High income

Area

Urban

Rural

Total

49.0

53.5

53.8

52.1

47.5

47.7

25.4

50.7

62.9

43.5

53.2

61.1

58.9

42.0

51.3

45.9

39.7

39.2

43.8

46.2

44.9

63.5

44.4

31.0

47.0

41.8

33.3

35.3

51.8

42.7

5.1

6.8

6.9

4.1

6.3

7.5

11.1

4.9

6.1

9.5

5.0

5.6

5.9

6.2

6.0

27

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYFinally, regarding sexual violence against women, only one survey addressed public 
awareness as a social problem of this type of violence. This survey was conducted 
in the Czech Republic (CZ-Survey 1) and asked respondents to estimate the extent 
of violent sexual criminality and rape. 72% of respondents stated that these crimes 
have become more frequent in recent years. The survey found that the perceived 
scope of the problem was much higher than numbers of violent sexual crimes re-
ported in the official statistics, as respondents usually overestimated the number of 
registered sexual crimes and rape.

Public definitions of violence against women

With  respect  to  how  violence  against  women  is  defined  by  surveys’  respondents, 
again only a small number of surveys and studies addressed this issue.

For example, this issue was indirectly addressed in a survey conducted in Estonia 
(EE-Survey 2), by asking respondents to assess the extent to which they agreed with 
the  following  statement:  “Violence  in  the  family/intimate  relationship  is  a  crime”. 
Only 5% of the general population disagreed with this statement (however, no refe-
rence to the victim’s gender was made in this question) (see Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Public definitions of violence against women: Violence in intimate rela-
tionships (EE-Survey 2. General population)

The  public  definition  of  violence  against  women  was  addressed  in  a  survey  con-
ducted in Cyprus (CY-Survey 1) with a sample of women from the general popu-
lation,  asking  whether  respondents  considered  a  wide  list  of  behaviours  as  acts 
of violence by their spouse/partner. As Table 2.4 shows, there was a high level of 
agreement around most of the behaviours. Only 6 behaviours in the list have a level 
of agreement below 80%. 

28

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYTable 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Intimate partner violence 
(CY-Survey 1. Women general population)

Behaviour

Punching/kicking

Knife cutting

Hot water burning

Cigarette burning

Hitting on body and face

Threatening to kill someone else

Threatening to kill me

Hair pulling

Threatening physical integrity

Threatening to injure children

Slapping

Object throwing

Forced sexual relations

Isolation in enclosed space

Threatening to hit me

Threatening to leave me

Preventing me from meeting my 
needs (sleep, medical care and 
medication)

%

97

97

97

96

96

96

95

95

95

95

94

94

93

93

92

88

87

Behaviour

Shaking

Swearing

Using of bad language

Banning me from contacting friends

Bullying by shouting

Preventing me from working

Pushing

Threatening self-harm

Insulting me in the presence of third persons

Banning me from talking to third persons

Financial deprivation and control

Controlling correspondence, mobile phone and 
purse

Neglecting emotional needs

Banning me from going out with friends

Threatening looks

Avoiding communication (not talking to me)

%

86

85

85

84

84

83

82

82

81

81

80

78

77

77

71

68

Three surveys specifically addressed public definitions of sexual violence. In a Bul-
garian survey (BG-Survey 5) with a general population sample, 80% of respondents 
defined sexual violence as a “physical act of rape or attempted rape”, and 65% con-
sidered trafficking in women for sexual exploitation as sexual violence (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (BG-Sur-
vey 5. General population)

An Estonian survey (EE-Survey 2), also with the general population, included some 
statements about prostitution. One of them referred to whether respondents con-
sidered prostitution as violence against women. 54% of respondents agreed (com-
pletely or partly) with that statement (41% either completely or partly disagreed) 
(see Figure 2.5).

29

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYFigure 2.5. Public definitions of violence against women: Prostitution (EE-Survey 2. 
General population)

In the same survey respondents were also asked “Do you think it is sexual violence 
when someone does the following…?” (the victims’ gender was not specified). As Fig-
ure 2.6 shows, there was almost complete agreement on four of the listed behav-
iours. Levels of disagreement were higher in other behaviours. For example, 16% 
did not consider unwelcomed sexual comments and overtures as sexual violence. 
Furthermore, 27% did not consider forbidding contraception to be sexual violence.

Figure 2.6. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (EE-Sur-
vey 2. General population)

Also, in a survey conducted in Poland (PL-Survey 4) on the general population, 18.3% 
of respondents considered that rape was something that cannot occur among part-
ners  or  spouses,  while  16.5%  of  respondents  agreed  that  a  wife  should  always 
agree with her husband regarding sexual behaviour (see Figure 2.7).

30

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYFigure 2.7. Public definitions of violence against women: Sexual violence (PL-Sur-
vey 4. General population)

Finally, two studies conducted in the Czech Republic with university students’ sam-
ples  addressed  the  definition  of  sexual  harassment.  The  first  study  (The  percep-
tion and definition of sexual harassment by Czech university students; CZ-Study 2) 
showed that despite the high occurrence of sexual harassment (67% of students 
had encountered some form of sexual harassment during their studies, 22% had 
encountered more serious forms, like unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion, 
and over 65% of students had experienced gender harassment), the students rarely 
discussed their experience in terms of sexual harassment. Only 2.8% of women and 
2.5% of men responded positively to a direct question about whether they had been 
sexually  harassed  by  a  teacher  or  another  faculty  employee.  Students  perceived 
sexual harassment as a remote problem that did not relate to them. The second 
study (Sexual harassment at universities: theoretical definition, methodological ap-
proach,  research  results;  CZ-Study  3),  also  showed  that  students  held  a  narrow 
definition  of  sexual  harassment,  as  78%  of  students  had  personally  experienced 
teacher behaviours that could be characterised as sexual harassment, but only 3% 
of them said explicitly that they had been sexually harassed. Sexual harassment 
was considered to be primarily a behaviour of sexual nature, such as sexual vio-
lence or extortion.

Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women

The acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women, mainly in inti-
mate partner relationships, was the issue regarding public perceptions of violence 
against women as a social problem that had the most information available in the 
surveys reviewed, and was also the issue with the greater variety of samples, in-
cluding adults from the general population, adolescents and young people, as well 
as victims, and perpetrators. This issue was, however, addressed only in one study. 

With  regard  to  partner  violence  against  women,  a  number  of  surveys  addressed 
how  serious  or  acceptable  different  incidents  or  behaviours  were  considered.  For 
example, in a survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 2) on a sample from the gene-
ral population, respondents were asked about the acceptability (inevitable, accepta-
ble in some circumstances, or totally unacceptable) of a list of behaviours that can 
occur between partners (no gender distinction was made regarding who was the 
partner at the receiving end). As shown in Table 2.5, between 60.5% and 98.6% of 
interviewees found the list of behaviours totally unacceptable. Interestingly, some 

31

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYbehaviours (telling the partner what to do, or controlling them) were considered as 
acceptable in some circumstances. Constant quarrelling was considered as inevita-
ble by 9.1% of respondents.

Table 2.5. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Intimate partner violence (ES-Survey 2. General population)

Inevitable 
%

Acceptable in 
some circum-
stances %

Totally 
Unacceptable 
%

Constant quarrelling

Insulting and despising the partner

Controlling the partner’s comings and goings

Preventing the partner from meeting family 
and friends

Verbal threats

Pushing and beating when angry

Refusing to allow the partner to work or study

Telling the partner what they can or cannot do

Denigrating the partner in front of the children 

Forced sexual relationships

9.1

0.6

2.3

0.6

1

0.3

0.6

1

1

0.2

29.5

2.4

18.9

3

5

0.6

3.8

13.1

5

1.5

60.5

96.4

77.6

95.8

93.5

98.6

94.7

84.7

93.1

97.2

In Poland, a set of surveys also addressed the acceptability of different types of 
violent behaviours by partners. For example, 9% of men from the general popu-
lation agreed that “insulting a wife/partner by a husband/partner during a quarrel 
is normal (acceptable)”. 6% of women also agreed with that statement (PL-Survey 
1a). In another survey, 15% of respondents agreed that if a husband only hits his 
wife occasionally, then it is not violence. This question was also put to a subsample 
of perpetrators (PL-Survey 2a) and, interestingly, the results were quite similar (see 
Figure 2.8). A similar question was asked in an Estonian survey (EE-Survey 4), where 
12% of men and 9% of women from the general population partly or completely 
agreed with the statement that “physical punishment of a spouse (cohabitant) is 
sometimes inevitable”.

Figure  2.8.  Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Domestic violence (PL-Survey 2a. General population and subsamples of perpetrators)

32

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYAnother Polish survey (PL-Survey 4) showed that for a sizable percentage of the 
population (24.4%), insulting a partner during a quarrel was considered a normal 
behaviour, and also surprisingly, that nearly 20% of the population considered that 
violence only occurs when there is physical damage (see Figure 2.9). 

Figure 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Domestic violence (PL-Survey 4. General population) 

With regard to the perceptions of victims of intimate partner violence against wom-
en, in a survey conducted in the Czech Republic (CZ-Survey 1), a subsample of wom-
en victims were asked whether they defined their experiences as intimate partner 
violence. Respondents were asked to state what particular forms of behaviour they 
had encountered from their intimate partner. 16 items were used including various 
forms of violent behaviour ranging from economic and psychological violence (such 
as  preventing  access  to  shared  money  and  limiting  contact  with  friends  or  rela-
tives) to a very severe physical or sexual assault using a weapon or threatening the 
victim with the use of guns or killing. Aside from physical, psychological and sexual 
violence, domestic violence included damaging or destroying property (particularly 
belongings cherished by the victim), as well as any harassment or pressure from 
the aggressor against the victim’s will. Surprisingly, only 55% of women who expe-
rienced at least one attack labelled the behaviour of their intimate partners (includ-
ing  physical,  psychological  aggression,  as  well  as  a  verbal  aggression  and  many 
other  forms  of  violent  behaviour)  as  domestic  violence/intimate  partner  violence. 
However, 39% of victims did not label the behaviour as partner violence, and 5% 
did not know. 

In another survey conducted in the same country (CZ-Survey 4), a subsample of fe-
male victims was asked about how serious the incident of partner violence they had 
suffered was. As can be seen in Figure 2.10, 26.3% of respondents saw the incident 
as “not very serious”, 43% as “somewhat serious”, and 24.3% as “very serious” (the 
rest of the respondents did not know or did not answer). 

33

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYFigure 2.10. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Intimate partner violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims)

In the same survey (CZ-Survey 4), some noteworthy results emerged, when victims 
were asked about whether or not they considered the incident of partner violence 
as a crime. Interestingly, only 17% of women victims considered the incident as a 
crime,  whereas  29.7%  considered  that  it  was  something  wrong  but  not  a  crime, 
and a substantial percentage of respondents (40.5%) regarded the incident as “just 
something that happens” (see Figure 2.11). These results suggest that in the Czech 
Republic,  attitudes  of  acceptability  of  partner  violence  are  still  widespread  even 
among women victims.

Figure 2.11. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Intimate partner violence (CZ-Survey 4. Women, subsample of victims)

A survey conducted in Italy (IT-Survey 1) with a sample of the general population 
also asked victims who had suffered violence at some point in their lives by either a 
partner, ex-partner or non-partner whether they considered the violence as a crime. 
Regarding  partner  violence  against  women,  35.4%  of  women  victims  considered 
the violence as a crime, however 44% considered that the episode of violence was 
something wrong but not a crime and 19.4% considered the violence as “only so-
mething that happened”. Interestingly, regarding violence by non-partners, women 
victims responded to the same questions in a similar way. These results suggest 

34

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYthat  in  Italy,  levels  of  acceptability  of  violence  by  partners  and  non-partners  are 
both high and similar (see Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Violence against women (IT-Survey 1. Women general population) 

Information about the acceptability of violence against women can also be drawn 
from  surveys  by  examining  whether  the  perceived  severity  was  a  reason  for  not 
leaving the relationship or for not reporting it to the authorities. For example, in a 
survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 1) 14.1% of women victims of partner vio-
lence did not report the violence because “I didn’t take it that seriously”. Two other 
Spanish surveys (ES-Survey 2 and 3) asked respondents whether one reason why 
women do not file a complaint against the perpetrators is that “They do not consider 
aggressions as something serious”: 7.1% of adolescents and young people, and 5% 
of the general population agreed with this statement. 

An indirect approach to tap public perceptions of the seriousness of violence against 
women is to ask about beliefs regarding false accusation. Of all the surveys anal-
ysed for this review, only one country included questions regarding false complaints. 
Two surveys conducted in Spain among the general population (ES-Survey 2), and 
among  adolescents  and  young  people  (ES-Survey  3),  asked  respondents  to  what 
extent they agreed with a set of questions addressing false complaints. As Figure 
2.13 shows, around 50% of respondents completely or partly agreed with the fol-
lowing statement “Some women file false complaints to obtain economic benefits 
and hurt their partners”. Interestingly, the results also showed that around 50% of 
respondents also agreed that “Some women may keep on tolerating violence for 
fear of being accused of filing a false complaint”. It is also surprising that over 90% 
of respondents agreed (completely or partly) that “Some women withdraw the com-
plaints filed, but this does not mean that the complaints are false”.

35

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYFigure 2.13. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Gender-based  violence  (ES-Survey  2  and  3.  General  population  and  adolescents-
young people) 

A survey in Lithuania (LT-Survey 1) indirectly assessed the acceptability of partner 
violence by asking victims why they did not leave the violent relationship: 60% of 
respondents selected as a possible response that “my intimate partner promised 
to change”. In another Lithuanian survey among elderly women victims of violence 
(LT-Survey 2), 68.4% of respondents did not want to talk about it or report the most 
serious incident of abuse because they “thought the incident was too trivial”. Also in 
Malta (MT-Survey 1), 21% of victims considered the experienced violence as normal 
or not serious. Finally, in Poland (PL-Survey 3), among the reasons for not report-
ing the violence to the police, 11% of the victims thought that “it is not important 
enough”. 

A  number  of  surveys  specifically  addressed  young  people’s  perceptions  of  part-
ner violence, including dating violence. For example, a survey conducted in Cyprus 
among young people (CY-Survey 3) asked whether a list of behaviours with the part-
ner were acceptable. As Table 2.6 shows, as compared to girls, boys clearly thought 
that some of those behaviours with the girlfriend were “always OK”. For example, 
between 15% and 17% of boys considered that it was always OK to “set limits on 
how his girlfriend dresses”, “set limits on where his girlfriend goes” or “push a girl 
into having sex if she has been flirting with him all night”. 8% of boys considered 
that it was “always OK” to “shout at his girlfriend”, “to push a girl into having sex 
if they have been dating” or even “to hit his girlfriend if she has been unfaithful”.

36

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYTable 2.6. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Dating violence (CY-Survey 3. Young people)

Statement/Explanation

Overall

Boys

Girls

Always OK
%

Always OK
%

Always OK
%

It is OK for a boy to shout at his girlfriend if she is con-
stantly nagging/arguing

It is OK for a boy to shout at his girlfriend if she is not 
treating him with respect

It is OK for a boy to set limits on how his girlfriend 
dresses 

It is OK for a boy to set limits on where his girlfriend goes

It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if she has 
been flirting with him all night

It is OK for a boy to spy on his partner’s mobile phone

It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if they 
have been dating

It is OK to threaten to leave a partner in order to achieve 
something you want

It is OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend if she has been un-
faithful

Threatening to hit a partner is OK as long as you don’t 
actually hit him/her

It is OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend if she is constantly 
nagging/arguing

It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if he has 
spent a lot of money on her

It is OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend if she is not treating 
him with respect

7

6

6

6

9

4

4 

2 

4 

3 

3 

4 

2 

8

8

15

10 

17 

8 

8 

2 

8 

2 

3 

2 

3 

6

4

1

4 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

With regard to the acceptability of partner violence among adolescents and young 
people, a survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 3) asked how acceptable (Inevitable, 
Acceptable in some circumstances, Totally unacceptable) a list of behaviours that 
can occur between partners were (no gender distinction was made regarding the 
partner at the receiving end). As shown in Table 2.7, between 54.5% and 98.1% of 
young respondents (60.5% and 98.6% of respondents over 18) found the propo-
sed  list  of  behaviours  totally  unacceptable.  Some  behaviours  (telling  the  partner 
what to do, or to control them), however, were considered as acceptable in some 
circumstances. Interestingly, constant quarrelling was considered as inevitable by 
9.8% of respondents.

37

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYTable 2.7. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Gender based violence (ES-Survey 3. Students)

Inevitable 
%

Acceptable in 
some circum-
stances %

Totally 
unacceptable 
%

Don’t know 
%

Constant quarrelling

Insulting and despising the partner

Controlling the partner’s comings 
and goings

Preventing the partner from meeting 
family and friends

Verbal threats

Pushing and beating when angry

Not allowing the partner to work or 
study

Telling the partner what they can or 
cannot do

Denigrating the partner in front of 
the children 

Forced sexual relationships

9.8

0.7

3

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.8

1.1

1.1

0.4

35

3.3

23.2

2.9

4.2

1

2.7

12.7

3.7

1.4

54.5

95.3

73.1

95.7

94.9

98.1

95.8

85.3

94.1

97.1

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.7

Perceptions of the severity of violence against women in dating relationships were 
also  addressed  in  another  survey  conducted  in  Spain  with  a  sample  of  students 
(ES-Survey 4). Respondents were asked whether a list of 15 behaviours, which in-
cluded physical, sexual, psychological (control), and psychological (emotional) vio-
lence  could  be  considered  “mistreatment  of  a  girl  by  a  boy”  (see  Table  2.8).  It  is 
noteworthy that some behaviours, such as “Breaking something of hers”, “Telling 
her whom she can or cannot talk to, or where she can go”, “Controlling everything 
she does”, “Recording her with a mobile phone or video camera”, “Taking pictures 
of her when she does not know” or “Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves 
him” were considered as “a bit” mistreatment by a percentage of students ranging 
from 25% to 9.40%. It was also quite surprising to see the percentage of students 
(between 8% and 10%) that saw some behaviours as “not at all” mistreatment (e.g. 
“Making her feel scared”, “Insulting her”, “Telling her whom she can or cannot talk 
to, or where to go”, “Trying to stop her seeing her friends”, “Controlling everything 
she does”, “Recording her with a mobile phone or video camera”, “Taking pictures 
of her when she does not know”, or ‘Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves 
him”).  6.3%  even  thought  that  beating  a  girl  is  “not  at  all”  mistreatment.  These 
results  suggest  that  in  Spain,  acceptance  of  violence  against  women  in  intimate 
relationships among young people is to some extent still quite prevalent.

38

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYTable 2.8. “Mistreatment of a girl by a boy?” Public acceptability and perceived se-
verity of violence against women: Dating violence (ES-Survey 4. Students)

Not at 
all %

A bit
%

Quite
%

A lot
%

Telling her that she is not worth anything

Contradicting her

Making her feel scared

Insulting her

Breaking something of hers

Telling her whom she can or cannot talk to, where 
to go

Trying to stop her seeing her friends

Controlling everything she does

Insisting on having a sexual relationship when 
she does not want to

Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves him

Beating her

Forcing her to do things she does not want to 
through threats 

Recording her with a mobile phone or video cam-
era, or take pictures of her when she does not 
know

Sending her internet or text messages, scaring, 
offending or threatening her

Disseminating messages, insults or images of her 
without her permission

9.0

53.4

8.9

8.6

15.3

9.4

9.2

9.5

6.6

9.9

6.3

6.5

8.0

6.4

6.7

15.5

36.8

9.5

6.0

25.3

12.6

9.8

21.2

8.6

9.4

1.6

2.7

34.9

6.4

30.2

28.8

27.3

32.4

31.7

38.9

27.8

17.0

5.6

40.7

3.5

51.5

56.6

32.2

45.6

49.3

30.4

57.0

63.7

86.6

19.2

71.6

14.0

35.1

42.9

3.2

4.2

19.0

71.4

21.8

67.3

Another study on dating violence conducted in Portugal on a large sample of young 
people aged 13 to 29 (4667 respondents; Violence in juvenile dating relationships 
self-reported  prevalence  and  attitudes  in  a  Portuguese  sample;  PT-Study  1)  sho-
wed  that  support  for  violence  was  higher  among  males,  participants  with  lower 
educational and social status and those who had never been involved in a dating 
relationship. The best predictors of violence were educational status and attitudes 
toward the partner.

How young people perceived the severity of different behaviours between dating 
partners was approached in Slovenia by asking high school advisors how male and 
female pupils classified behaviours which included psychological and physical vio-
lence (SI-Survey 3). These behaviours were classified into 5 groups (Not violence, 
Mild violence, Violence, Strong violence, Very strong violence). From the school advi-
sors’ point of view, there were some differences between boys and girls regarding 
how serious the different types of violence were (see Table 2.9).

39

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYTable 2.9. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Dating violence (SI-Survey 3. Professionals: High school advisors)

Not violence

- Being jealous of friends

FEMALE pupils

Mild violence

-  If a girlfriend/boyfriend has to continuously report what she/he is doing, where 

she/he is going when they are not together 

-  Blaming a girlfriend/boyfriend for their own problems
-  Persuading a girlfriend/boyfriend to do things they don’t want to by saying “if 

you loved me, you’d do this”

-  Making decisions for a girlfriend/boyfriend, such as what she/he will wear, 

where she/he will go

-  Telling a girlfriend/boyfriend that they are too fat and telling her/him to go on 

a diet

- Insisting that a girlfriend/boyfriend arrive at a date exactly on time
-  Checking calls and text messages or reading the e-mails of the girlfriend/boy-

friend without her/his permission

- Insulting, humiliating or offending in public 
- Restricting or prohibiting gatherings with friends
- Frequently getting angry or furious with a girlfriend/boyfriend
- Stalking
-  Apologizing for violence frequently by saying “I’m sorry, I’ll never do this again”
- Forced kissing or sexual intercourse
- Touching in a sexual way if a girlfriend/boyfriend does not want to
- Calling a girlfriend/boyfriend stupid

Violence

Strong violence - Restricting or forbidding contact with family 

Very strong 
violence

- Breaking or throwing things around during an argument 
- Beating, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, choking, twisting hands
- Forcing to use alcohol or drugs
-  Threatening a girlfriend/boyfriend to harm their boyfriend/girlfriend or family, if 

she/he leaves them

Classification 
of violence

Not violence

MALE pupils

- Being jealous of friends
-  Making decisions for a girlfriend/boyfriend, such as what she/he will wear, 

where she/he will go

- Calling a girlfriend/boyfriend stupid 
- Insisting that a girlfriend/boyfriend arrive at a date exactly on time

Mild violence

-  If a girlfriend/boyfriend has to continuously report what she/he is doing, where 

she/he is going when they are not together 

- Blaming a girlfriend/boyfriend for their own problems
-  Telling a girlfriend/boyfriend that they are too fat and telling her/him to go on 

a diet

Violence

- Insulting, humiliating or offending in public 
- Restricting or prohibiting gatherings with friends
- Frequently getting angry or furious with a girlfriend/boyfriend
- Stalking
- Breaking or throwing things around during an argument
- Forcing to use alcohol or drugs
-  Apologizing for violence frequently by saying “I’m sorry, I’ll never do this again”
-  Persuading a girlfriend/boyfriend to do things they don’t want to by saying “if 

you loved me, you’d do this”

-  Checking calls and text messages or reading the e-mails of the girlfriend/boy-

friend without her/his permission

Strong violence /

Very strong 
violence

- Beating, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, choking, twisting hands 
-  Threatening a girlfriend/boyfriend to harm their boyfriend/girlfriend or family, if 

she/he leaves them

- Forced kissing or sexual intercourse
- Touching in a sexual way if a girlfriend/boyfriend does not want to
- Restricting or forbidding contact with the family

40

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYThe acceptability of cases of dating violence can also be analysed by examining 
whether the perceived severity is a reason for not leaving the relationship or for 
not reporting it to the authorities. For example, in a survey conducted in Denmark 
addressing dating violence (DK-Survey 2), 24% of young people interviewed agreed 
that one reason for not reporting the violence was that it was “not serious enou-
gh”. In another Spanish survey among adolescents (ES-Survey 4), 26.4% of female 
respondents would not leave the relationship with a boyfriend after an incident of 
dating violence; instead, they would “Ask him not to do it again and give him a se-
cond chance”. In another survey conducted in Slovenia (SI-Survey 3), 10% of school 
teachers and advisors thought that in a situation of dating violence, young people 
“Generally don’t define events as violence”, and 6% that the partners would consider 
these situations as mistakes and apologise. 

Finally, some surveys specifically addressed the acceptability or perceived severity 
of violence against women in certain situations that may be considered as extenua-
ting circumstances. For example, in a UK survey of students (UK-Survey 4), 6.3% 
of boys considered that it is OK for a man to hit his wife/partner if he is drunk (only 
1.5% of girls agreed with this statement). Regarding rape, a survey conducted in 
Sweden among the general population (SE-Survey 2) asked respondents whether 
they believed that it was an extenuating circumstance if the perpetrator was under 
the influence of alcohol or drugs. 11% of men believed that this was the case to 
some extent. It is also surprising that some women (8%) agreed to some extent with 
this statement. On the other hand, the same survey asked if having a steady rela-
tionship with the woman or having had sex before with a woman were also exte-
nuating circumstance. Noticeably, 16% and 14% of men agreed respectively with 
these statements, while the percentages were halved for women (see Figure 2.14).

Figure 2.14. Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women: 
Rape (SE-Survey 2. General population)

Results of the 2010 Eurobarometer and the 2014 FRA Survey

Two European-level surveys allowed us to compare some of the information provi-
ded by the surveys analysed for this review regarding the public perception of vio-
lence against women as a social problem. For example, regarding public awareness 
of this social problem, in the 2010 Eurobarometer an average of 78% of Europeans 
recognised that domestic violence was either a fairly or very common problem. This 
survey also showed that this view varied widely across countries with percentages 
ranging from 91% (Italy) to 50% (Czech Republic). Regarding the same question, 

41

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY 
the 2014 FRA survey on violence against women in the EU produced similar per-
centages with a women-only sample. The average for the EU was the same as the 
Eurobarometer, and the variation across countries was also similar (i.e. from 93% in 
Portugal to 54% in the Czech Republic). In the surveys analysed in this review, little 
information was available on public awareness of how widespread violence against 
women is. However, what information was available suggested the importance of 
taking socio-demographic information into account to better understand not only 
variations across countries but also variations within country across different socio-
demographic groups, as the results of Romania showed.

Regarding the acceptability of violence against women, the 2010 Eurobarometer 
showed that in the European Union an average of 84% considered that domestic 
violence  was  unacceptable  and  should  always  be  punishable  by  law.  Again  there 
was  a  substantial  variation  across  countries  (i.e.  from  93%  in  Greece  to  66%  in 
Latvia). Interestingly, 12% of respondents believed that domestic violence against 
women was unacceptable but should not always be punishable by law, ranging from 
a low of 5% in Greece to a high of a 32% in Finland. On the other hand, the issue 
of  the  acceptability  of  violence  was  not  addressed  with  more  specific  questions, 
for example, including a range of behaviours that could be considered more or less 
acceptable in different circumstances. The surveys analysed for this report, however, 
provided numerous examples of this approach and how it provides a more refined 
and  wider  view  of  these  important  attitudes.  This  illustrates  that  when  a  wider 
range of questions tapping similar issues (i.e. the acceptability of violence against 
women) are used, a different picture can emerge as compared to the question used 
in  the  Eurobarometer.  For  example,  in  the  2010  Eurobarometer,  87%  of  respon-
dents in Italy considered that domestic violence against women was unacceptable 
and should always be punishable by law, and 7% as unacceptable but should not 
always be punishable by law. However in an Italian survey, when victims were asked 
about particular episodes, only 35.4% of women victims considered the violence as 
a crime, 44% considered that the episode of violence was something wrong but not 
a crime, 19.4% considered the violence as “only something that happened”, which 
somehow conflicts with the 2010 Eurobarometer. Unfortunately, this type of que-
stion was only asked in a few countries, so we cannot have a wider picture. Different 
questions regarding the same issue, with different samples and considering diffe-
rent behaviours and circumstances would probably give us a quite different picture 
of the levels of acceptability across and within countries.

Summary and highlights

Public  perceptions  of  violence  against  women  as  a  social  problem  was  the  first 
topic regarding attitudes towards violence against women that emerged from the 
analysis of the surveys provided for this review. Information on public perception of 
violence against women as a social problem was available in 26 surveys conducted 
in  14  countries  and  in  3  studies  conducted  in  2  countries.  The  analysis  of  these 
surveys and studies allowed us to identify three different but related issues regar-
ding the public perception of violence against women as a social problem, around 
which this section was organised: public awareness of violence against women as a 
social problem, public definitions, and public acceptability, and perceived severity of 
different types of violence against women. Below, we summarise the main findings 
in this section of the report. 

42

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITYHighlights

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Only a small number of surveys addressed public awareness of how wide-
spread is violence against women in the respondents’ countries, and there is 
limited information for comparisons across countries. When information was 
available, the results suggested that in some countries violence against wo-
men has not yet reached a prominent place among public concerns.

The little information available on public awareness of how widespread vio-
lence  against  women  is  suggested  the  importance  of  taking  socio-demo-
graphic  information  into  account  to  better  understand  not  only  variations 
across  countries  but  also  variations  within  countries  across  different  socio-
demographic groups (e.g. greater awareness among the higher education and 
income groups).

Information was mostly available for public acceptability and perceived seve-
rity  of  different  types  of  violence  against  women.  Results  of  the  available 
surveys  and  studies  addressing  the  acceptability  and  perceived  severity  of 
different types of violence against women (mainly partner violence) suggest 
that the acceptability of certain behaviours remains high in some circumstan-
ces (e.g. dating violence).

Small but relevant percentages of respondents from different countries (in-
cluding young people, adults, and also victims) tended to “accept”, perceived 
as  “not  very  serious”  or  considered  “inevitable”  some  violent  behaviours 
against women in some circumstances, including insulting, hitting, controlling, 
or even forced sex. This suggests that in different countries among some sec-
tors of society attitudes of acceptability and tolerance are still prevalent.

5.  When available, disaggregated data for gender tended to show clearly that 

these types of attitudes are more common among men and boys.

6.  When compared to information available in the 2010 Eurobarometer and the 
2014 FRA survey, the results suggest that when a wider range of questions 
tapping similar issues (i.e. the acceptability of violence against women) are 
used,  with  different  samples  and  considering  different  behaviours  and  cir-
cumstances, a quite different picture of the levels of acceptability across and 
within countries would probably emerge.

7. 

Only three studies published in academic journals were identified addressing 
public  perceptions  of  violence  against  women  as  a  social  problem.  Two  of 
them used university student samples to analyse the perception and defini-
tion of sexual harassment; another used a large sample of young adults to 
analyse approval of dating violence and its socio-demographic correlates.

43

2. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM: AWARENESS, DEFINITIONS, ACCEPTABILITY AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING 
OF THE CAUSES OF 
VIOLENCE AGAINST 
WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, 
EXPLANATIONS AND 
JUSTIFICATIONS

Introduction

The collective understanding of the nature or causes of a social phenomenon is of 
particular importance, as it may influence perceptions, cognitions and behaviour to-
wards those affected or involved in the phenomenon - in our case, violence against 
women by partners and non-partners. The public understanding or explanation of 
violence against women can, for example, determine attributions (e.g. fault or re-
sponsibility),  attitudes  (e.g.  sympathy,  derogation,  and  disdain),  or  behaviour  (e.g. 
helping,  prevention  and  passivity)  towards  victims  and  perpetrators  of  violence. 
How violence against women is understood, explained or justified can also influence 
perceptions  and  attitudes  towards  social  and  institutional  responses  to  violence 
against women, such as the role of professionals, the law or other public policies 
and initiatives such as public awareness campaigns.

Public attributions, explanations and justifications were identified as one of the four 
main topics regarding attitudes towards violence against women by both partners 
and non-partners that emerged from the survey questionnaires and study summa-
ries analysed for this review. In this section, we analyse those surveys that included 
items addressing public understanding of violence against women, and two studies 
addressing this topic. After analysing the surveys, three sets of explanatory factors 
emerged, around which this section is organised: individual, relational/situational, 
and socio-cultural factors.

Interestingly, these factors correspond to an ecological model of understanding vio-
lence against women as a multiple determined phenomenon (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; 
Heise, 1998, 2011). This ecological framework to understand violence against wo-
men was described by Lori Heise (2011) in the following terms:

44

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS“The ecological model posits that there is no single factor that “causes” 
partner violence; rather, the likelihood that a specific man will become 
abusive or that one community will have a higher rate of violence than 
another, is a function of many factors that interact at different levels of 
the “social ecology”. The social ecology includes the life histories, trau-
matic scars, and personality factors that men and women bring to their 
relationships, as well as the context and situational factors that impinge 
on their day-to-day lives. The ecology also includes messages and norms 
that friends, family members and social institutions reinforce as appro-
priate behaviour for men and women, including the acceptability of vio-
lence within different contexts. These norms and expectations are in turn 
shaped by structural factors — such as religious institutions and ideol-
ogy, and the distribution of economic power between men and women 
—  that  work  to  define  beliefs  and  norms  about  violence  and  structure 
women’s options for escaping violent relationships” (Heise, 2011, p. vi).

Surveys and studies addressing public attributions, explanations 
and justifications 

Surveys

After  analysing  all  the  survey  questionnaires  provided  for  this  review,  we  found 
that information on public attributions, explanations and justifications of violence 
against  women  was  available  in  17  surveys  conducted  in  11  countries;  Cyprus, 
Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Malta, Netherland, Poland, Romania, 
Spain, and Sweden (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Countries with surveys addressing public attributions, explanations and 
justifications

COUNTRIES = 17 / SURVEYS = 11 

Surveys in each country (CY = 2; CZ = 1; DE = 1; EE = 1; ES = 2; LT = 2; MT = 1; NL = 1; PL = 4; RO = 1; SI = 1)

Malta

45

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSThe samples used and types of violence addressed in these surveys are described 
in Table 3.1 (see Appendix IV for further information).

Table 3.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence

Code

Sample 

CY-Survey 2

Young adults

CY-Survey 3

Young people 

CZ-Survey 3

General population (men & women)

DE-Survey 4

General population (women) + Pro-
fessionals

n

1000

453

978

Type of Violence*

Violent behaviour in interper-
sonal (partner) relationships

Gender-based violence

Sexual violence

1138

Violence against women

EE-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

1111

Gender-based violence and hu-
man trafficking

ES-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

2580

Gender-based violence

ES-Survey 3

Adolescents and young people

2457

Gender-based violence

LT-Survey 1

Victims

LT-Survey 2

Victims

89

Domestic violence

515

Violence against women

MT-Survey 1

General population (women)

1200

Domestic violence

NL-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

2155

Intimate partner violence / 
Sexual violence

PL-Survey 1a General population (men & women)

3000

Domestic violence

PL-Survey 2b

Professionals

PL-Survey 3

Victims and professionals

119

545

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

PL-Survey 4

General population (men & women)

3000

Domestic violence

RO-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

1050

Domestic violence

SI-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

1886

Intimate partner violence

* As defined in the title of the survey (see Appendix IV)

In the surveys analysed, questions regarding public attributions, explanations and 
justifications of violence are presented in different formats, and tend to include a 
different range of factors that are considered as possible causes of violence against 
women (see Appendix VI, Box VI.2).

Studies

Two of the selected studies with EU samples published in high quality journals in the 
last five years addressed issues related to public attributions, explanations and justifi-
cations of violence against women. One qualitative study was conducted in the United 
Kingdom on a sample of young people (UK-Study 2), analysing gender stereotypes 
and their relation with interpersonal violence in heterosexual relationships. The se-
cond was conducted in Slovenia (SI-Study 3), and reviewed criminal files to determine 
perpetrators characteristics (see Table 3.2; see Appendix V for further information).

Table 3.2. Studies, samples and type of violence

Code

Sample 

UK-Study 2

Young people (aged 15 to 18)

SI-Study 3

Closed criminal cases

n

77

30

Type of Violence

Gender-based violence

Intimate partner violence

46

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSPublic  attributions,  explanations,  and  justifications  of  violence 
against women. Results of surveys and studies

The questions regarding public attributions, explanations and justifications of vio-
lence against women in surveys and studies included different types of factors that 
can be considered as possible causes of violence. As mentioned above, these fac-
tors can be organised in different explanatory levels: individual (e.g. alcohol abuse, 
anger, violence in childhood), relational/situational (e.g. marital problems, job loss, 
stress), and social/cultural (e.g. poverty, gender roles and behaviours). We analysed 
the results of the surveys according to these sets of factors as follows. 

Individual factors

One factor that repeatedly came up in cases of violence against women was al-
cohol. For example, in a number of surveys conducted in Poland, alcohol was the 
most frequently mentioned circumstance accompanying the occurrence of violence 
against women. Between 28% and 60% of the general public considered this to be 
the case, with variations depending on the type of violence and whether the respon-
dents were male or female (see Figure 3.2, PL-Survey 1a). In a different survey, a 
particularly high number of Polish professionals (96%) also considered that alcohol 
was a circumstance that accompanied the occurrence of violence (PL-Survey 2b). 
In contrast, it is interesting to note that in another Polish survey, only 28.8% of a 
subsample  of  victims  considered  alcohol  as  a  main  factor  involved  in  domestic 
violence cases. Somewhat surprisingly, alcohol was considered as a main factor by 
only 17.8% of a subsample of perpetrators (PL-Survey 4).

Figure 3.2. Individual factors: Alcohol as a circumstance explaining violence against 
women (PL-Survey 1a. General population) 

47

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSIn a survey conducted in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2) among young adults (18-25 years 
old),  four  individual  factors  were  included  as  possible  causes  of  violence  against 
women (see Figure 3.3). 69.4 % of respondents agreed (i.e. completely agree, agree, 
or somewhat agree) in that “those who experience violence by their own parents 
become  perpetrators  in  their  adult  relationships”.  In  the  above-mentioned  Polish 
survey (PL-Survey 2b), 92% of professionals also considered that experiencing vio-
lence in childhood was a circumstance explaining domestic violence against women. 
In the Cyprus survey, respondents also agreed in that perpetrators are violent in all 
relationships (69%), and that loss of control is to blame for violence in interperso-
nal relationships (63.9%). Only 4.9% of respondents considered that “violence is an 
outburst of anger”.

Figure 3.3. Individual factors: Interpersonal violence (CY-Survey 2. Young adults) 

In another survey in Cyprus (CY-Survey 3) among young people (15-18 years old), a 
wide variety of individual factors were considered as possible explanations of why 
some men are violent toward women. The highest overall mean scores (1 = Never, 
4 = Always) were obtained for factors such as jealousy, lack of anger control, drug 
use, control of women, or sexual urges (see Table 3.3). The importance of these fac-
tors was somewhat different for girls than for boys. For example, for girls, the most 
important reason why men are violent toward women was jealousy, while boys saw 
the most important reason as alcohol or drug use. Both boys and girls agreed that 
the three main reasons why men are violent towards women are that they cannot 
control their anger, and that they want to control women. 

48

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSTable 3.3. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated infor-
mation (CY-Survey 3. Young people)

Statement/Explanation

Overall

M (S.D.)

Boys

Girls

M (S.D.)

M (S.D.)

…they are jealous

2.71 (0.82)

2.56 (0.87)

2.80 (0.77)

…they cannot control their anger

2.68 (0.80)

2.60 (0.91)

2.73 (0.73)

…alcohol or drug use

2.64 (0.78)

2.63 (0.83)

2.65 (0.75)

…they want to control women

2.63 (0.85)

2.51 (0.84)

2.71 (0.85)

…they can’t control their sexual urges

2.51 (0.77)

2.43 (0.75)

2.56 (0.78)

…they are physically stronger than women

2.48 (1.02)

2.38 (1.11)

2.55 (0.96)

…they misunderstand women

2.34 (0.73)

2.29 (0.74)

2.38 (0.73)

…they have mental problems

2.30 (0.81)

2.29 (0.84)

2.31 (0.79)

…they were abused as children

2.28 (0.80)

2.25 (0.85)

2.30 (0.76)

…they are naturally aggressive

2.24 (0.84)

2.25 (0.84)

2.23 (0.85)

…they can’t take no for an answer

2.23 (0.88)

2.21 (0.91)

2.24 (0.87)

…they are under stress

2.17 (0.72)

2.17 (0.77)

2.17 (0.69)

Jealousy also appears to be an important factor explaining intimate partner mur-
ders in a study conducted in Slovenia (Intimate partner homicides in Slovenia and 
their gender-specific differences; SI-Study 3). In this study, 30 closed criminal files 
were  reviewed  in  order  to  identify  the  characteristics  of  perpetrators.  In  67%  of 
cases (16 out of 24) of intimate partner murders and attempted murders of wo-
men, the court concluded that the explanation for the perpetrator’s behaviour was 
connected to “arrogance and jealousy”.

In a focus group conducted in Estonia as part of a survey of a general population 
sample (EE-Survey 2), participants were asked to describe a typical perpetrator of 
domestic violence (the gender of the perpetrator and the victim was not specified in 
the question). This provided some information about factors that were considered 
by  respondents  as  possible  causes  of  domestic  violence  against  women.  Among 
possible individual factors, interviewees mentioned that a perpetrator might be dis-
satisfied with his/her life, work, career opportunities or sexual life, as well as that he/
she may have (mental) health problems (e.g. depression), tendency to aggression, 
and been exposed to abuse in childhood. He/she was described as having a domina-
tive personality and could even be an intelligent and educated person. 

Two surveys conducted in Spain among the general population (ES-Survey 2) and 
among adolescents and young people (ES-Survey 3) also addressed a number of 
individual factors that can be considered as possible explanations of partner violen-
ce against women. As Figure 3.4 shows, a large percentage of respondents (ranging 
from 79% to 95%), thought that alcohol, drugs, mental disorders and having been 
victims of abuse are reasons for the violence women suffer from their partners or 
ex-partners (response options were: “yes”, “no” and “don’t know”). 

49

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSFigure 3.4. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General 
population and adolescents-young people) 

Interestingly, when the same survey asked about whether “Perpetrators could be 
mentally  ill”  using  a  different  format  of  response  (i.e.  “Do  you  agree  complete-
ly,  partly  agree,  partly  disagree  or  completely  disagree  with  the  following  state-
ments?”),  the  results  were  quite  different.  Instead  of  over  80%  answering  “yes” 
to the question of whether “psychological or mental disorders” were a reason for 
violence (options “yes”, “no” or “don’t know”), with a Likert-type scale percentages 
were substantially lower: 37.6% among the general population and 39.8% among 
adolescents and young people completely or partly agreed with the statement “Per-
petrators could be mentally ill”. This is a good example of how different response 
options can provide different results (see Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. Individual factors: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. General 
population and adolescents-young people) 

Finally, with specific reference to sexual violence, a general population survey con-
ducted  in  the  Czech  Republic  (CZ-Survey  3),  showed  a  high  level  of  agreement 
among respondents regarding the individual characteristics of perpetrators of vio-
lent sexual crimes (see Figure 3.6). For example, around 80% of respondents agreed 
that the majority of perpetrators of violent sexual crimes have some form of sexual 

50

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSdeviance,  that  they  had  committed  this  type  of  crime  in  the  past,  and  that  they 
would do it again. Furthermore, 61% think that sexual deviance is incurable. As in 
other forms of violence, 46% of respondents also believed that the majority of per-
petrators of violent sexual crimes had suffered from abuse as a child. 

Figure 3.6. Perpetrator characteristics: Sexual violence (CZ-Survey 3. General popu-
lation) 

Relational/situational factors

Relational and situational factors can frequently be used as possible attributions, 
explanations or justifications of cases of violence against women. A common rela-
tional factor mentioned in a substantial number of surveys reviewed in this report 
was how women behave in their relationships, which was often used to explain or 
justify violence against them. Provocative behaviour, lack of patience or obedien-
ce,  constant  nagging  or  arguing  and  unfaithfulness  were  just  some  examples  of 
women’s behaviour that some respondents saw as a cause or a reason that could 
explain or justify violence against women. In fact, the large number of examples 
we found in this review revealed the importance and prevalence of victim-blaming 
attitudes among EU citizens and, consequently, this important issue is analysed in a 
section of its own in this report (see Chapter 5, Are women held responsible for the 
violence they suffer? Victim-blaming attitudes in EU surveys and studies).

Regarding other relational or situational factors considered as possible causes of 
violence against women, fights and quarrels between intimate partners, family pro-
blems and other sources of stress, like the loss of a job or financial problems, appe-
ar in the surveys reviewed as relational/situational factors that can be considered 
by respondents as possible explanations or triggers of incidents of violence against 
women. For example, in a survey conducted in Spain (ES-Survey 2) among the ge-
neral population, 80% of respondents believed that conflicts and problems in the 
relationship following separation or divorce were among the reasons for gender-
based violence. A similar percentage (79%) was obtained in another Spanish survey 

51

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSwith  a  representative  sample  of  adolescents  and  young  people  (ES-Survey  3).  In 
another survey conducted in the Netherlands (NL-Survey 1), 17% of men and 8% 
of women (interestingly, less than half of men) believed that both partners are to 
blame in incidents of domestic violence (see Figure 3.7). Interestingly, 88% of Polish 
professionals agreed that marital problems are among the factors that accompany 
the occurrence of violence.

Figure 3.7. Relational factors: Intimate partner violence (NL-Survey 1. General pop-
ulation)

However, in another Polish survey with subsamples of victims and perpetrators (PL-
Survey 4), only 3.5% of victims and 9.8% of perpetrators (again, fewer women than 
men) considered marital problems as a factor explaining domestic violence. In the 
same survey, small percentages of victims and perpetrators considered other situ-
ational stressors as explaining circumstances of domestic violence (see Figure 3.8).

Figure  3.8.  Perpetrators  circumstances:  Domestic  violence  (PL-Survey  4.  General 
population; victims and perpetrators subsamples) 

52

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSSocial/cultural factors

The surveys and studies reviewed included a range of possible social and cultural 
factors that can be considered by respondents as an explanation or justification of 
violence against women. These factors can be divided into three categories: cultural 
and social norms, gender stereotypes, and socioeconomic explanations.

Cultural and social norms

In Spain two surveys among the general population and young people (ES-Surveys 
2 and 3), addressed a number of cultural beliefs as possible factors used to explain 
violence against women. For example, regarding cultural factors, 35% of respon-
dents from the general population and 39% of adolescents and young people consi-
dered that religious beliefs and practices were reasons for the violence that women 
suffer from partners or ex-partners. In another question in the same surveys, a sub-
stantial percentage of respondents (43.2% general population and 37.8% adole-
scents and young people) partly or completely agreed with the following statement 
“There are more perpetrators among immigrants”. 

Regarding  the  norm  of  the  privacy  of  intimate  relationships  and  the  family,  only 
35%  of  respondents  in  a  survey  conducted  in  Malta  (MT-Survey  1)  agreed  with 
the  statement  “If  a  man  mistreats  his  wife,  others  outside  of  the  family  should 
intervene”, and 73% agreed that “Family problems should only be discussed with 
people in the family”. Interestingly, the 48% disagreed with the statement that “A 
woman should be able to choose her own friends even if her husband disapproves”. 
Similarly, in a survey conducted in Slovenia (SI-Survey 1), 21.2% of women who had 
been victims of violence by their partner or ex-partners mentioned as a reason for 
not reporting it that they considered it a family matter. A survey in Germany (DE-
Survey 4) also found that 27.5% of respondents agreed that a reason why victims 
do not use women’s shelters and counselling services after they have experienced 
violence was “It is a private matter”.

In a Cyprus survey (CY-Survey 2) regarding the “privacy” norm, a high percentage of 
respondents (68.1%) agreed in that “Relationship issues only concern the couple” 
(see Figure 3.9).

Figure  3.9.  Social/cultural  factors:  Intimate  partner  violence  (CY-Survey  2.  Young 
people)

53

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSGender roles and stereotypes

In a survey conducted among young adults in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2) regarding men’s 
stereotypes, a substantial percentage of respondents (46.5%) agreed in that “Men 
have the right to control their partners” (see Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10. Social/cultural factors: Intimate partner violence (CY-Survey 2. Young 
people)

Another  survey  conducted  in  Cyprus  among  young  people  (CY-Survey  3)  asked  a 
set of questions addressing social norms and cultural stereotypes regarding men’s 
behaviour with women that may explain why men are violent. As Table 3.4 shows, 
the higher overall mean score (1 = Never, 4 = Always) was obtained for the state-
ment that men “consider themselves superior to women”. Although this score was 
the most important among this set of factors for both boys and girls, scores were 
higher for girls. 

Table 3.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Disaggregated infor-
mation (CY-Survey 3. Young people)

Statement/Explanation

Overall

M (S.D.)

Boys

Girls

M (S.D.)

M (S.D.)

…they consider themselves superior to women

2.64 (0.86)

2.55 (0.90)

2.70 (0.83)

…no one stops them

2.20 (0.90)

2.16 (0.95)

 2.23 (0.86)

…society expects them to be

1.57 (0.77)

1.55 (0.71)

1.59 (0.81)

…it makes them attractive to women 

1.56 (0.74)

1.83 (0.83)

1.40 (0.62)

… women like it

… it is necessary

1.56 (0.80)

1.82 (0.93)

1.40 (0.66)

1.36 (0.68)

1.57 (0.82)

1.24 (0.54)

A  study  conducted  among  young  people  in  the  United  Kingdom  also  addressed 
men’s behaviour with women and male role stereotypes (Becoming a “proper man”: 
young  people’s  attitudes  about  interpersonal  violence  and  perceptions  of  gender; 
UK-Study  2).  Focus  groups  were  held  with  77  young  people  (43  female  and  34 
male) aged between 15 and 18. There was agreement that violence was something 
that men did and was a normal aspect of young, adolescent and adult masculinity. 
All of the groups explained that they believed that men are “violent”, “aggressive” 
and “angry”. The study concluded that the young people who participated continue 
to be strongly influenced by a sexual division of labour based on ideological/theore-
tical understandings of the place that women and men occupy.

54

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSRegarding cultural stereotypes about men’s and women’s roles as possible factors 
explaining partner violence, in the Spanish surveys mentioned above (ES-Surveys 2 
and 3), 44.4% (general population) and 48.1% (adolescents and young people) of 
respondents partly or completely agreed that “Changes in responsibilities assumed 
now by women and men within the relationship” was a reason for partner violence. 
Also tapping beliefs about women’s role in the family, these surveys showed that a 
large percentage of respondents (89% general population and 88.4% adolescents 
and young people), either agreed or completely agreed with the statement “Victims 
hold  on  because  of  their  children”.  Likewise  a  sizable  percentage  of  respondents 
(32% for the general population and 40.4% of adolescents and young people) belie-
ved that “their daughters and sons” was a reason for women not report the violence. 

A  similar  question  was  put  to  victims  of  partner  violence  in  a  Polish  survey  (PL-
Survey 3), who mentioned as a reason for not reporting the violence to the police 
that they did not want to put their children under stress (19% of respondents). In 
Lithuania (LT-Survey 2), 56% of women victims also mentioned that they did not 
leave the violent relationship “because of the children”. Lastly, in a survey conducted 
among  the  general  population  in  Romania  (RO-Survey  1),  15.8%  of  respondents 
agreed with the following statement: “If a woman has children, even if she is beaten 
she  cannot  leave  the  relationship”  (5.1%  answered  “don’t  know”).  Disaggregated 
information showed that this belief was more commonly held by men, the older, the 
less educated and those living in rural areas (See Table 3.5).

Table 3.5. “If a woman has children, even if she is beaten she cannot leave the re-
lationship”: Disaggregated information (RO-Survey 1. General population) 

Agree

Disagree

DK/CA

Gender

Male

Female

Age

18-35

36-50

51-65

Over 65

Education

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Area

Urban

Rural

Total

17.5

14.2

14.9

12.9

15.7

28.0

20.6

18.0

9.6

14.1

17.9

15.8

78.0

80.1

80.6

81.4

80.3

63.6

70.6

78.0

84.3

80.9

76.8

79.0

4.5

5.7

4.5

5.7

4.0

8.4

8.7

3.9

6.1

5.0

5.3

5.1

A survey conducted in Malta (MT-Survey 1) also addressing cultural stereotypes as 
possible explanations of violence against women, with a sample of women from the 
general population, asked about men and women’s role in relationships and the fa-
mily. Although most respondents disagree with statements such as “It is important 

55

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSfor a man to show his wife/partner who is the boss” (92%), a small but noticeable 
percentage (11%) of respondents agreed that “It’s a wife’s obligation to have sex 
with her husband even if she doesn’t feel like it”, and 13% agreed that “A good wife 
obeys her husband even if she disagrees”.

Again tapping cultural stereotypes regarding male and female behaviour, a survey 
conducted in the Netherlands (NL-Survey 1, see Figure 3.11) showed that over a 
third of men and women tended to perceive to some extent that men often for-
ce themselves upon women (women 39%, men 37%). Only 6% of women agreed 
that slapping a woman’s buttocks while passing is a compliment, whereas 11% of 
men agreed with the same statement. Regarding sexual behaviour, percentages of 
women agreeing with the statement that a woman means no when saying no to 
a sexual overture were higher (89%) than those of men (82%), which leaves a no-
teworthy percentage of men disagreeing with that statement, suggesting that these 
sexist attitudes are still prevalent in some sectors of society. Furthermore, a sizable 
percentage of respondents (20% of women, and 28% of men) agreed that “A man 
in a steady or marital relationship is entitled to have sex with his partner”.

Figure 3.11. Social/cultural factors: Sexual violence (NL-Survey 1. General population) 

Addressing similar topics, in a Polish survey of the general population (PL-Survey 
4) 16.5% of respondents agreed that “Regarding to sexual behaviour, a wife should 
always agree with her husband”. A survey conducted in Romania among the general 
population (RO-Survey 1) also showed that some stereotyped and sexist views of 
the role of men and women in intimate relationships, such as “Women are the pro-
perty of men” (7.3%) or “A man that does not beat his wife does not really love her” 
(6.4%), are still present among some small sectors of the population (see Figure 
3.12). 8.1% even agreed that men have some kind of divine right to beat women.

56

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSFigure 3.12. Cultural/social factors: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General population)

Disaggregated information available for this survey showed that among those who 
agree with a statement such as “Women are the property of men”, these attitudes 
tend  to  be  more  common  among  males,  the  older,  the  less  educated,  and  those 
living in rural areas. It is also worth noting some important geographical variations 
among those agreeing with this type of statement, with some areas having three 
times higher the proportion of respondents agreeing than others (see Table 3.6).

Table 3.6. “Women are the property of men”: Disaggregated information (RO-Sur-
vey 1. General population)

Agree %

Disagree %

DK/CA %

Gender

Male

Female

Age

18-35

36-50

51-65

Over 65

Education

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Area

Urban

Rural

Historical region

Moldova, Bucovina

Muntenia, Oltenia, Dobrogea

Banat, Crisana, Maramures

Transilvania

Total

9.1

5.7

6.5

7.9

5.8

12.1

17.5

6.6

4.8

5.2

10.0

7.8

6.6

13.4

4.3

7.3

88.2

93.0

91.6

90.5

91.9

85.0

80.2

91.5

93.3

92.8

88.1

92.2

92.6

83.1

89.9

90.7

2.8

1.3

2.0

1.6

2.2

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.9

2.1

1.9

-

0.8

3.5

5.8

2.0

57

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSSocioeconomic explanations

In a survey conducted among young adults in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2), in relation to 
socioeconomic factors, a sizable percentage of respondents (57%) agreed that “vio-
lence in relationships is more common among young people of low socio-economic 
status” (see Figure 3.13).

Figure  3.13.  Social/cultural  factors:  Interpersonal  violence  (CY-Survey  2.  Young 
people)

A Romanian survey (RO-Survey 1) also specifically addressed poverty and education 
as possible factors explaining domestic violence. The results of this survey showed 
that for a sizable percentage of respondents (15.3%), “Domestic violence (between 
partners) only happens in poor households”, and that a smaller percentage (8.5%) 
agreed that “Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people” (see Figu-
re 3.14). It is also interesting to note that for both questions a substantial percenta-
ge (over 6%) of respondents did not know what their position was. 

Figure 3.14. Poverty and education level: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 1. General 
population)

Interestingly, these views were notably more common for males and among groups 
with higher levels of education and income (see Table 3.7).

58

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSTable 3.7. “Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people”: Disaggre-
gated information (RO-Survey 1. General population)

Agree %

Disagree %

DK/CA %

Gender

Male

Female

Education

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Income 

Low income/no income

Medium income

High income

Total

17.3

13.5

8.7

15.2

18.2

14.2

14.5

17.8

15.3

77.2

78.8

82.5

79.7

72.8

76.7

79.8

72.2

78.0

5.5

7.7

8.7

5.1

8.9

9.1

5.7

10.0

6.7

In Spain, two surveys among the general population and young people (ES-Surveys 
2 and 3), also specifically addressed socio-economic factors as possible reasons ex-
plaining partner violence against women. As Figure 3.15 shows, a large percentage of 
respondents believed that unemployment, poverty, and low education levels were rea-
sons to explain violence against women by partners or ex-partners. The same surveys 
addressed the role of economic factors as barriers preventing women from escaping 
violence. For example, 20.2% of the general population and 40.5% of adolescents 
and young people believed that a reason why women do not file a complaint against 
the perpetrators is because “They are economically dependent on the perpetrator”. A 
substantial percentage of respondents (67% and 54.5% respectively) also partly or 
completely agreed with the following statement: “Women victims of partner violence 
consent because they are economically dependent”. In Lithuania (LT-Survey 1), 40% 
of women victims also mentioned that they did not leave the violent relationship “Be-
cause I do not have the financial possibility to leave this household”.

Figure 3.15. Reasons to explain gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 3. Gen-
eral population and adolescents-young people) 

59

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSResults of the 2010 Eurobarometer

To compare the information provided by the surveys analysed for this review, we 
explored  whether  recent  European-level  surveys  also  provided  some  information 
regarding public attributions, explanations, or justifications of violence against wo-
men. The 2010 Eurobarometer survey included a set of 12 questions as possible 
causes of domestic violence against women.

To some extent, the Eurobarometer results were quite similar to those found in this 
review regarding individual factors such as alcohol and substance abuse as causes 
of violence. In the Eurobarometer, an average of 95% of respondents considered 
alcoholism as a cause of domestic violence, and 92% considered drug addiction as 
a cause. In both cases this view was widely shared among EU citizens, with country-
specific percentages of agreement ranging between 80% and 100%. Another indi-
vidual factor like “Having oneself been a victim of some form of domestic violence” 
was considered in the 2010 Eurobarometer as a cause of domestic violence by 69% 
of respondents, which was also widely considered as an individual factor by respon-
dents in the surveys available for this review. Three social/cultural factors were also 
widely shared among EU countries as causes of domestic violence: poverty or social 
exclusion (77%), unemployment (75%), and “The way women are viewed by men” 
(65%). In the same way, these or similar factors were also considered as possible 
causes of violence against women among respondents in the surveys reviewed. 

Other factors perceived as causes of violence in the 2010 Eurobarometer were also 
mentioned in the surveys reviewed for this section: “A genetic predisposition to vio-
lence” (62%), “Religious beliefs” (60%), “A low level of education” (58%), “The way 
power is shared between the sexes” (58%), “The provocative behaviour of women” 
(52%), and “The media” (44%).

It is interesting to note that one of the factors perceived as a cause of violence (“The 
provocative behaviour of women”), tapping “victim-blaming attitudes”, which did not 
receive much attention in the 2010 Eurobarometer, emerged as a major topic in the 
surveys reviewed in this report, deserving in fact a whole section analysing “victim-
blaming  attitudes”  (see  Chapter  5:  “Are  women  held  responsible  for  the  violence 
they suffer? Victim-blaming attitudes in EU surveys and studies”).

Summary and highlights

Public attributions, explanations, and justifications were identified as one of the five 
main topics regarding attitudes towards violence against women, by both partners 
and non-partners, emerging from the surveys analysed for this review. This section 
analysed  the  information  available  on  this  topic  in  17  surveys  conducted  in  11 
countries  and  two  studies.  Three  sets  of  explanatory  factors  emerged,  reflecting 
how the public understands violence against women: individual, relational/situatio-
nal, and social/cultural. Below, we summarise the main findings in this section of 
the report. 

60

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONSHighlights

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Questions  addressing  public  attributions,  explanations  and  justifications  of 
violence refer mainly to partner violence against women, sexual violence and 
rape.

Questions regarding public attributions, explanations and justifications of vio-
lence  included  a  wide  range  of  factors  that  can  be  considered  as  possible 
causes of violence against women. These factors corresponded to an ecologi-
cal model of understanding of violence against women and can, accordingly, 
be organised into different explanatory levels: individual, relational/situatio-
nal, social/cultural.

Among the individual factors believed to be associated with violence against 
women, alcohol or drug use was one of the most commonly mentioned by 
survey respondents from the general population (and also professionals). In-
terestingly, percentages among victims and perpetrators were much lower.

Having experienced violence in childhood was also one of the most frequently 
mentioned  causes  of  violence  against  women  by  respondents  (including 
sexual violence).

For sexual violence against women, respondents tended to believe that offen-
ders suffered from some form of deviance (which was also seen as resistant 
to treatment).

Relational  or  situational  factors  considered  as  possible  causes  of  violence 
against women were fights and quarrels among intimate partners, family pro-
blems and sources of stress, like the loss of a job or financial problems. 

Possible social and cultural factors that were considered by respondents as an 
explanation or justification of violence against women included: cultural and 
social  norms,  gender  stereotypes,  and  socioeconomic  explanations.  Results 
suggest  that  gender  stereotypes  and  sexist  attitudes  are  still  prevalent  in 
some sectors of the society. Where available, disaggregated information sug-
gests that these types of attitudes are more common among males, the older, 
the less educated, and those living in rural areas.

8.  When the factors identified in the surveys available for this review illustrating 
the public understanding of violence against women are compared to those 
provided by the 2010 Eurobarometer, similar results emerged regarding indi-
vidual factors such as alcohol, violence in childhood, and social/cultural fac-
tors like low income or gender stereotypes.

9. 

Only five studies published in academic journals were identified as addressing 
public attributions, explanations and justifications of violence against women. 
One of them examined gender stereotypes and their relation to interpersonal 
violence in heterosexual relationships in a sample of young people. Another 
reviewed  criminal  files  to  determine  perpetrators’  characteristics.  The  other 
three  examined  victim-blaming  attitudes,  which  are  analysed  in  Chapter  5 
(“Are  women  held  responsible  for  the  violence  they  suffer?  Victim-blaming 
attitudes in EU surveys and studies”).

61

3. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: ATTRIBUTIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS4. ARE WOMEN HELD 
RESPONSIBLE FOR 
THE VIOLENCE THEY 
SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING 
ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS 
AND STUDIES

Introduction

As pointed out in the previous chapter, a common factor mentioned in a substantial 
number of surveys as an explanation or justification of violence against women is 
the way women behave. Given the numerous examples and the importance of this 
issue, victim-blaming attitudes will be specifically addressed in the present chapter. 

Victim-blaming attitudes are among the social and cultural factors that influence 
rates of violence against women, by creating a climate of tolerance and accepta-
bility of this type of violence (Gracia, 2004; Gracia & Herrero, 2006; West & Wan-
drei,  2002;  WHO,  2002).  For  example,  victim-blaming  attitudes  regarding  violen-
ce against women may influence the public, professionals, victims or perpetrators. 
Victim-blaming attitudes have been linked to the perceived severity and personal 
involvement among those surrounding the victim, to victims’ disclosure of their vic-
timisation and their chances of receiving help or to perpetrators’ justifications and 
the perceived social cost of their actions (Barnett, 2001; Browning, 2002; Capezza, 
& Arriaga, 2008; Finn, & Stalans, 1995; Gracia et al., 2008, 2009, 2011; Saunders & 
Size, 1986; Valor-Segura, Expósito, & Moya, 2011; West & Wandrei, 2002; Whatley, 
2005; Worden & Carlson, 2005).

The importance of addressing victim-blaming attitudes has been described as follows:

“Public attitudes that place the responsibility for violence on the victims’ 
shoulders often conceal a lack of sympathy or insensitivity towards vic-
tims  that  creates  a  psychological  distance  between  victims  and  their 
observers. When the cause of the violence is attributed to the victims, 
incidents are more likely to be trivialized and seen as understandable or 
deserved, and hence as less unjust and more admissible. Such attitudes 
serve to excuse and partly absolve the perpetrators of violence and to 
the  notion  in  the  public’s  mind  that  sometimes  women  are  justifiably 
the  victims  of  intimate  partner  violence.  Implicit  in  victim-blaming  at-
titudes is the idea that, under certain circumstances (e.g. when a woman 
behaves provocatively), violence is justified and therefore legitimate, as 

62

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESlong as no red line is crossed. Also, those who blame victims for their own 
misfortunes are less willing to  help them… people’s perception of who 
is  responsible  for  the  violence  is  extremely  important.  If  people  blame 
the woman who is the victim of the violence, they are likely to place the 
responsibility for solving the problem – at least partly – on her shoulders 
as well” (Gracia, 2014, pp. 380-381).

Victim-blaming attitudes regarding violence against women emerged as one of the 
main topics addressed in the surveys and studies analysed for this review. In this 
section, we analyse in detail the information provided by those surveys that inclu-
ded  items  addressing  these  attitudes.  We  will  also  examine  how  victim-blaming 
attitudes  regarding  violence  against  women  among  EU  citizens  are  addressed  in 
papers published in academic journals in the last 5 years.

Surveys and studies addressing victim-blaming attitudes 

Surveys

After analysing all the surveys provided for this review, information on victim-bla-
ming attitudes regarding violence against women was available only in 18 surveys 
conducted in 11 countries; Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, 
Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom (see Figure 4.1). 

Figure 4.1. Countries with surveys addressing victim-blaming attitudes

COUNTRIES = 11 / SURVEYS = 18 

Malta

Surveys in each country (CY = 3; DK = 1; EE = 3; ES = 2; LU = 1; MT = 1; PL = 2; RO = 1; SE = 2; SI = 1; UK = 1)

63

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESThe samples used and types of violence addressed in these surveys are described 
in Table 4.1 (see Appendix IV for further information).

Table 4.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence

Code

Sample 

CY-Survey 1

General population (Women) 

CY-Survey 2

Young adults

CY-Survey 3

Young people 

DK-Survey 2

Young people 

EE-Survey 1

General population (men)

EE-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

EE-Survey 6

General population (men & women)

ES-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

ES-Survey 4

Students of secondary education 
and professionals

LU-Survey 1

Victims & Perpetrators

MT-Survey 1

General population (Women)

PL-Survey 2a General population (men & women)

PL-Survey 4

General population (men & women)

RO-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

n

1107

1000

453

2780

2056

1111

1076

2580

Type of Violence*

Domestic violence

Violent behaviour in interper-
sonal (partner) relationships

Gender-based violence

Dating violence

Wife beating

Gender-based violence and hu-
man trafficking

Sexual violence

Gender-based violence

14001

Gender-based violence

182

1200

1500

3000

1050

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

SE-Survey 1

Students

-

Sexual violence

SE-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

2626

Rape

SI-Survey 3

Professionals

UK-Survey 4

Students of primary and secondary 
education

* As defined in the title of the survey (see Appendix IV)

-

Dating violence

2395

Domestic abuse

A  wide  variety  of  questions  tapping  victim-blaming  attitudes  regarding  violence 
against women were used in the 18 surveys analysed, and are presented in different 
formats (see Appendix VI, Box VI.3). In this section, we found the only case in which 
a survey used a previously designed self-reporting instrument. In one of the surveys 
(EE-Survey  1),  a  shortened  and  modified  Inventory  of  Beliefs  about  Wife  Beating 
(Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz, 1987) was used to examine respondents’ attitu-
des towards partner violence against women. Nevertheless, the modified version of 
this questionnaire was not used as a scale, including only item-by-item information.

Studies

In relation to studies published in academic journals in the last five years, only four 
address victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner violence against women among 
EU samples. One of them, conducted in the Czech Republic, used a university stu-
dent sample (CZ-Study 2). The other three were conducted in Spain. One of them 
was based on a representative sample of the general population (ES-Study 1); one 
based on a sample of adult male intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators (ES-
Study 3); and the last was based on a community sample (ES-Study 4) (see Table 
4.2; see Appendix V for further information).

64

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESTable 4.2. Studies, samples and type of violence

Code
CZ-Study 2

ES-Study 1

ES-Study 3

ES-Study 4

Sample 

University students

n
700

Type of violence

Sexual harassment

General population 

1006 Intimate partner violence

Male partner violence offenders

Community sample

423

485

Intimate partner violence

Intimate partner violence

Victim-blaming attitudes. Results of surveys and studies

Intimate partner violence/domestic violence

A number of surveys and studies examined in this review addressed victim-blaming 
attitudes  in  cases  of  intimate  partner  violence  against  women.  The  responses  to 
items in these surveys tapping these attitudes suggest that they have a high pre-
valence  in  the  countries  where  this  information  was  available.  For  example,  in  a 
survey of the general population conducted in Estonia (EE-Survey 2), 54% of the 
respondents completely or partly agreed with the following statement: “Victims of 
domestic violence are often partly to blame for what happened” (see Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. Victim-blaming attitudes: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 2. General pop-
ulation) 

In another general population survey conducted in Romania (RO-Survey 1), 30.9% 
of respondents agreed with the statement “Women are sometimes to blame for be-
ing beaten” (see Figure 4.3). Disaggregated information for this survey also showed 
that men were more in agreement with this statement than women (see Table 4.3). 
Although there was no significant pattern regarding age, it is interesting to note dif-
ferences according to level of education, with a difference of 9 percentage points 
between higher and lower educational levels, as well as income (a difference of 14 
percentage  units).  Comparatively,  results  showed  that  low  education  and  low  in-
come groups were those which held this view more strongly (although percentages 
for high education and income groups can also be considered as high). The results 
also showed differences between urban and rural areas.

65

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESFigure  4.3.  Victim-blaming  attitudes:  Domestic  violence  (RO-Survey  1.  General 
population)

Table 4.3. “Women are sometimes to blame for being beaten”: Disaggregated infor-
mation (RO-Survey 1. General population)

Agree

Disagree

DK/CA

Gender

Male

Female

Age

18-35

36-50

51-65

Over 65

Education

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Income 

Low income/no income

Medium income

High income

Occupation

Active person

Inactive person

Area

Urban

Rural

Historical region

Moldova, Bucovina

Muntenia, Oltenia, Dobrogea

Banat, Crisana, Maramures

Transilvania

Type of household

Single person

Family with several members, no kids

Family with children

Total

66

34.1%

27.9%

32.5%

28.4%

33.2%

27.1%

37.3%

31.0%

28.1%

35.3%

30.4%

21.1%

30.5%

31.5%

27.7%

34.8%

28.3%

27.4%

59.2%

22.1%

28.0%

26.3%

34.8%

30.9%

62.0%

68.3%

64.3%

66.6%

62.8%

70.1%

60.3%

65.4%

67.1%

62.1%

65.3%

73.3%

65.4%

65.0%

67.3%

62.7%

67.8%

70.6%

36.6%

69.7%

64.5%

70.8%

61.1%

65.2%

3.9%

3.9%

3.2%

5.0%

4.0%

2.8%

2.4%

3.6%

4.8%

2.6%

4.3%

5.6%

4.1%

3.6%

5.0%

2.6%

3.9%

1.9%

4.2%

8.2%

7.5%

2.9%

4.1%

3.9%

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESIn relation to this, a study conducted in Spain on a representative sample of the 
general  population  (Correlates  of  victim-blaming  attitudes  regarding  partner  vio-
lence against women among the Spanish general population; ES-Study 1) showed 
that  attitudes  towards  intimate  partner  violence  against  women  such  as  victim-
blaming did not affect all socio-demographic groups equally, and were more preva-
lent among respondents who were older, less educated and who saw themselves 
as being at the bottom of the social scale. It is also worth noting that no significant 
gender  differences  were  found  in  victim-blaming  attitudes.  Furthermore,  victim-
blaming attitudes were more common among those who reported knowing more 
victims in their close circle of relationships (i.e. family and friends), perceived IPV 
against women as more frequent, and tended to perceive that IPV against woman 
was more acceptable. 

A survey with a sample of young people conducted in Cyprus (CY-Survey 2) also 
showed a high level of agreement with statements such as “If the partner changes, 
the  violence  will  stop”  (47.4%)  or  “Women’s  behaviour  and  clothing  can  provoke 
violence in a relationship” (47.9%) (see Figure 4.4).

Figure  4.4.  Victim-blaming  attitudes:  Interpersonal  violence  (CY-Survey  2.  Young 
people) 

In the same country, in a survey conducted with young people (CY-Survey 3), boys 
consistently showed a higher level of agreement with explanations of male violence 
towards women such as “women provoke them”, “women are not patient enough 
with them” or “women are not sensitive/tender enough with them” (see Table 4.4). 

Table 4.4. “Some men are violent toward women because….”: Gender-based vio-
lence (CY-Survey 3. Young people)

Overall
M (SD)

Boys
M (SD)

Girls
M (SD)

…women provoke them 

2.35 (0.72)

2.44 (0.78)

2.29 (0.68)

…women are not patient enough with them

2.08 (0.74)

2.23 (0.77)

1.99 (0.69)

…women are not sensitive/tender enough with them 

1.91 (0.72)

2.10 (0.78)

1.79 (0.66)

Min. = 1 (never OK); max. = 4 (always OK)

67

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESIn this survey, a higher percentage of boys than girls selected “always OK” in re-
sponse to statements such as “It is OK for a boy to push a girl into having sex if she 
has been flirting with him all night” (17% vs. 3%), or “It is OK for a boy to hit his 
girlfriend if she has been unfaithful” (8% vs. 1%) (see Table 4.5).

Table 4.5. “It is OK for a boy….”: Gender-based violence (CY-Survey 3. Young people)

Overall
Always OK %

Boys
Always OK %

Girls
Always OK %

…to shout at his girlfriend if she is constantly 
nagging/arguing

…to shout at his girlfriend if she is not treating 
him with respect

…to push a girl into having sex if she has been 
flirting with him all night

…to hit his girlfriend if she has been unfaithful

…to hit his girlfriend if she is constantly nag-
ging/arguing

…to hit his girlfriend if she is not treating him 
with respect

7 

6 

9 

4 

3 

2 

8 

8 

17 

8 

3 

3 

6 

4 

3 

1 

2 

1 

In another survey conducted in Denmark (DK-Survey 2), also addressing dating vio-
lence, it is interesting to note that one reason for not reporting an incident of this 
type  of  violence  given  by  9%  of  respondents  was  that  the  victim  was  “afraid  of 
being seen as guilty”. Moreover, in a survey of school teachers and advisors in Slo-
venia (SI-Survey 3), respondents considered that 7.3% victims of dating violence 
“accept the blame themselves”.

One of the surveys conducted in Estonia with men from the general population (EE-
Survey 1) showed a high percentage of respondents (41.9%) who strongly agreed 
or agreed with the following statement: “Wives could avoid being beaten by their 
husbands if they knew when to stop talking”. Percentages of agreement with other 
statements regarding victim-blaming attitudes were also high. It is also worth no-
ting that a high percentage of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with these 
statements, suggesting ambiguous or weak attitudes against victim-blaming (see 
Figure 4.5). 

68

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESFigure 4.5. Victim-blaming attitudes: Wife beating (EE-Survey 1. General popula-
tion, men) 

Disaggregated  data  available  for  this  survey  showed  significant  differences  be-
tween those speaking Estonian and those speaking Russian or another native lan-
guage (see Table 4.6).

Table 4.6. Wife beating attitudes by native language (EE-Survey 1. General popula-
tion, men)

% of those who strongly agree or agree with the state-
ments

Native language

Estonian

Russian or other

Wives could avoid being beating by their husbands if 
they knew when to stop talking 

Battered wives are responsible for their abuse because 
they intended it to happen

Wives try to get beaten by their husbands to get sympa-
thy from others

When a husband beats his wife, it is caused by her be-
haviour in the weeks before the beating

A sexually unfaithful wife deserves to be beaten

Note: All the differences are statistically significant

36.7

11.5

12.9

12.1

11.2

59.5

30.5

20.1

16.5

14.5

Only one survey provided information from victims regarding their own attitudes 
towards victim-blaming. A survey conducted in Malta (MT-Survey 1) addressing the 
reasons  why  domestic  violence  victims  did  not  report  their  experience,  8%  were 
afraid of being blamed.

A survey conducted in Spain among adolescents and young people (ES-Survey 4) 
also asked a set of questions tapping victim-blaming attitudes. As Table 4.7 shows, 
only a small percentage of respondents agreed (partly or completely) with these 
statements. 

69

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESTable  4.7.  Victim-blaming  attitudes:  Gender-based  violence  (ES-Survey  4.  Young 
people)

If a women is mistreated by her partner 
and does not leave him, that means that 
she does not dislike the situation

When a women is beaten by her husband, 
she must have done something to pro-
voke him

It is justified for a man to beat his wife or 
girlfriend if she decides to leave him 

Completely 
disagree %

Partly dis-
agree %

Partly 
agree %

Completely 
agree %

76.80

15.10

5.10

3.10

76.20

19.70

2.90

1.20

93.80

3.90

1.40

0.90

Only one survey (PL-Survey 2a) provided, in addition to general sample information, 
information about a sub-sample of perpetrators of both physical and psychological 
violence. Interestingly, there appear to be no large differences between perpetrators 
and general population samples (although no disaggregated data by gender was 
available). It is particularly noteworthy that “betrayal” was considered as a justifi-
cation of physical violence against women by 22% of the general population (see 
Figure 4.6).

Figure  4.6.  Victim-blaming  attitudes:  Domestic  violence  (PL-Survey  2a.  General 
population and perpetrators sub-sample)

Another study conducted in Spain on male intimate partner perpetrators partly ad-
dresses  this  issue  (The  Intimate  Partner  Violence  Responsibility  Attribution  Scale 
(IPVRAS); ES-Study 3). The main aim of this study was to develop and test a tool 
designed to assess IPVAW offenders’ responsibility attributions, including responsi-
bility attribution to the victim. The results of this study showed a large proportion of 
perpetrators blamed the victim for their conviction. Moreover, responsibility attribu-
tion to the victim was linked to hostile sexism and victim blaming attitudes.

The  results  of  another  Spanish  study  conducted  on  a  community  sample  (Victim 
blaming  and  exoneration  of  the  perpetrator  in  domestic  violence:  the  role  of  be-

70

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism; ES-Study 4), showed that sexist beliefs 
contributed to blaming victims of domestic violence and exonerating perpetrators. 
This study also showed that male participants blamed the victim and exonerated 
the perpetrator more than female participants. Males were also found to have more 
traditional ideologies.

Box 4.1 shows other examples of victim-blaming attitudes results, such as those 
provided  by  a  survey  conducted  in  Denmark  on  a  sample  of  young  people  (DK-
Survey 2), and one from Poland with a general population sample (PL-Survey 4). 
Box 4.1 also shows further information available on the views of victims in relation 
to attitudes that blame them for their own victimisation (see CY-Survey 1 and LU-
Survey 1). 

Box 4.1. Victim-blaming attitudes examples

	Among the respondents who reported abuse, 98.9% reported that they might be 

responsible for their own abuse (CY-Survey 1, Victims). 

	It is OK for a man to beat his partner in case of infidelity (DK-Survey 2, Young 

people). 92.5% of girls and 90.4% of boys disagree with this statement.

	If women suffer violence it is because they allow it (ES-Survey 2). 34.6% of re-

spondents partly or completely agree with this statement.

	According to you, what triggered the violence? (LU-Survey 1, Victims). A possible 

answer was: “your own behaviour?” 8% responded “yes”.

	Do you agree that a perpetrator would stop being violent if he found a partner 
who  did  not  provoke  him?  (PL-Survey  4,  General  population).  23.8%  of  the  re-
spondents agree with this statement.

Finally, a survey conducted among young people in the UK (UK-Survey 4) asked re-
spondents whether it was OK for a man to hit his partner in different circumstances. 
As Table 4.8 shows, although the percentages are small, boys tended to agree with 
the statements more than girls.

Table 4.8. “It is OK for a man….”: Domestic abuse (UK-Survey 4. Students)

…to hit his wife/partner if she cheats on him with another man

…to hit his wife/partner if he thinks she deserves it

… to hit his wife/partner if she really embarrasses him

Overall
Always 
OK %

Boys
Always 
OK %

Girls
Always 
OK %

5.8 

4.7 

2.7 

6.8 

6.8 

4.3 

4.6 

2.3 

0.8

71

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESSexual violence

Sexual harassment was the focus of a study conducted in the Czech Republic (The 
perception  and  definition  of  sexual  harassment  by  Czech  university  students;  CZ-
Study 2) with a sample of university students. The participants had a tendency to 
see victims of harassment as having provoked such behaviour or being unable to 
defend themselves. Women, younger students, girls from rural areas, and weak and 
naive women were seen as victims of sexual harassment. Responsibility for sexual 
harassment was thus transferred to the victims of harassment.

Rape and sexual violence are forms of violence against women that received a spe-
cial attention in a number of surveys, and are the main focus of some of them. The 
high percentage of victim-blaming attitudes in such serious types of violence was 
particularly worrisome. For example, in Estonia (EE-Survey 2), 47% of the general 
population completely or partly agreed with the statement that “Women cause their 
victimisation or rape by their clothing” (see Figure 4.7). 

Figure 4.7. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (EE-Survey 2. General population) 

The disaggregated information for this survey (see Table 4.9) provided some 
surprising results, as both men and women showed a very high percentage 
of agreement (completely or partly agree) with this statement (48% of men 
and  46%  of  women).  As  Table  4.9  shows,  the  percentage  of  respondents 
sharing this view is higher in the oldest age groups and among ethnic minori-
ties. There are also differences according to level of education (although the 
percentage of those who completely or partly agreed reached 35% even for 
those in the higher education bracket, which is clearly a high percentage). 

72

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESTable 4.9. “Women cause their victimisation or rape by their clothing”: Disaggre-
gated information (EE-Survey 2. General population)

Characteristics

Completely 
agree

Partly 
agree

Partly dis-
agree

Completely 
disagree

Don’t 
know

Gender

Males

Females

Age groups

15 – 24

25 – 34 

35 – 49 

50 – 64 

65 – 74 

75+

Ethnicity

Estonians

Other nations

Education

Primary education

Secondary education

Higher education

15

9

6

3

9

16

23

19

8

19

13

14

5

33

37

26

22

35

41

44

48

35

35

43

35

30

26

27

28

34

30

27

18

17

25

31

21

27

33

24

23

33

41

25

15

11

8

28

12

17

22

31

3

3

7

-

1

2

3

8

3

2

6

2

1

It was also worrisome to find results such as those obtained in a survey conducted 
in Sweden on rape (SE-Survey 1; see Figure 4.8). In this survey 30% of boys, but also 
15% of girls, did agree to some extent with the statement that “It is usually only 
women who dress provocatively who are raped”. 

Figure 4.8. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (SE-Survey 1. Students) 

73

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESAlcohol consumption by victims is included in some surveys as a possible justifica-
tion of rape. For example, in the same Swedish survey (SE-Survey 1; see Figure 4.8), 
13% of boys and 8% of girls agreed with the following statement: “If a woman is 
raped  when  she  is  drunk,  then  she  is  at  least  partly  responsible  for  not  being  in 
control”. Interestingly, this percentage is even higher for a Swedish general popula-
tion sample (SE-Survey 2; see Figure 4.9), with 23% of men and 18% of women 
agreeing  that  “The  women  herself  is  responsible  for  being  raped  if  she  is  under 
the influence of alcohol/drugs”. The same survey also showed high percentages of 
agreement (in some cases over 25%) with a number of statements that included 
different circumstances or behaviours justifying rape: “she does not physically re-
sist or scream” (25% men; 18% women), “she voluntarily follows a man home, for 
example  after  a  party/restaurant”  (26%  men;  25%  women),  “she  has  flirted  and 
petted with the man before the rape” (26% men; 22% women) or “she dresses and 
act provocatively” (26% men; 19% women).

Figure 4.9. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (SE-Survey 2. General population) 

Alcohol consumption by a victim of rape is also considered in an Estonian survey as 
a potential circumstance that makes the woman responsible for her own victimisa-
tion (EE-Survey 6, see Figure 4.10). In this survey, with a sample of young people, 
39% of respondents completely or partly agreed with the following statement: “A 
victim of rape who has used alcohol before it takes place is partly responsible for 
what happened”. 

74

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESFigure 4.10. Victim-blaming attitudes: Rape (EE-Survey 6. Young people) 

Looking  at  the  disaggregated  information  provided  in  relation  to  the  statement 
“Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped”, Table 4.10 shows percent-
ages are twice as high among boys as among of girls. Percentages were also higher 
for minorities, the less educated and lower income groups. 

75

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESTable 4.10. “Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped”: Disaggregated 
information (EE-Survey 6. Young people) 

Completely/partly 
agree (%)

Don’t know 
(%)

Completely/partly 
disagree (%)

Gender

Men

Women

Age groups

15 – 24 

25 – 34 

35 – 49

50 – 64

65 – 74 

Ethnicity

Estonians

Minorities 

Education

Primary education or lower

Secondary education

Secondary special education or 
vocational education

Higher education 

Personal monthly income (EUR)

Up to 300

301 – 400

401 – 500

501 – 650

651 – 800

801 – 1000

More than 1000

No income

19

8

15

13

9

18

13

11

19

13

18

17

8

15

13

18

13

11

18

9

17

25

14

16

19

19

17

30

20

17

32

16

22

17

17

23

15

19

23

16

16

37

57

77

69

69

72

72

57

69

64

55

66

61

74

68

64

66

68

66

66

75

46

Victim-blaming attitudes, results of the 2010 Eurobarometer

In order to compare the information provided by the surveys analysed for this re-
view,  we  also  explored  whether  recent  European-level  surveys  included  some  in-
formation  regarding  victim-blaming  attitudes.  The  2010  Eurobarometer  survey 
actually included a question tapping victim-blaming attitudes, asking whether the 
provocative behaviour of women was a cause of domestic violence. As Figure 4.11 
shows, percentages of those respondents agreeing with this statement ranged from 
33%  to  86%  across  countries,  with  an  EU  average  of  52%.  These  percentages 
are surprisingly high and suggest that there is a widespread prevalence of victim-
blaming attitudes among European citizens. Percentages were particularly high in 
countries such as Lithuania (86%), Estonia (84%), Cyprus (80%) and Latvia (79%). 
However, it is also surprising that some of the highest percentages were found in 
highly developed EU countries (both in economic and in gender equality terms) such 
as Sweden (59%), United Kingdom (63%), Denmark (71%), and Finland (74%). In 

76

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESany case, even the lowest percentage found in this survey (33% in Spain) can be 
considered a high prevalence of victim-blaming attitudes. As Gracia (2014) noted in 
a paper regarding victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans, what is also puzzling 
is that, despite of years of public awareness and education efforts, victim-blaming 
attitudes appear to be quite resistant to change over the years. For example, mem-
bers of the EU were asked the same question regarding provocative behaviour in 
1999 and, interestingly, except for three countries where percentages had fallen, 
victim-blaming attitudes remained the same or even increased in a decade. That 
such a high percentage of citizens continued to agree with this causal explanation 
of domestic violence is certainly worrisome, as these attitudes may contribute to a 
social climate of tolerance and legitimation of violence against women.

Figure 4.11. Victim-blaming attitudes in Europe (Eurobarometer, 2010) 

77

4. ARE WOMEN HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLENCE THEY SUFFER? VICTIM-BLAMING ATTITUDES IN EU SURVEYS AND STUDIESSummary and highlights

Victim-blaming  attitudes  are  one  of  the  main  topics  regarding  attitudes  towards 
violence against women that emerged from the analysis of the surveys and studies 
provided for this review. Information on victim-blaming attitudes was available in 
18 surveys conducted in 11 countries and in four studies. Despite the limited num-
ber of surveys and countries addressing these attitudes, in those cases where infor-
mation regarding these attitudes was available, some remarkable and worrisome 
results emerged, clearly indicating a high prevalence of victim-blaming attitudes in 
those countries with available data. Below, we summarise the main findings in this 
section of the report. 

Highlights

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Analysis of these surveys showed a wide variety of questions addressing the-
se attitudes.

Questions addressing victim-blaming attitudes mainly regarded physical inti-
mate partner violence against women, sexual violence and rape.

Regardless of the type of questions asked, the results of the surveys analysed 
in  this  review  suggest  that  victim-blaming  attitudes  were  widespread  in 
countries where this information was available.

This view is reinforced if we include the information available on these attitu-
des in the 2010 Eurobarometer, suggesting that victim-blaming attitudes are 
also widespread among EU citizens.

Some of the results of this review reveal alarming percentages of this type of 
attitude, and some of the results on victim-blaming in cases of sexual violen-
ce or rape are particularly worrisome.

In the surveys where disaggregated data was provided, mainly age, gender, 
education, and income were available.

The  picture  that  emerges  from  the  available  disaggregated  information  is 
that victim-blaming attitudes are more common among men, the older, the 
less  educated,  and  minority  groups.  Nevertheless,  it  is  also  to  some  extent 
surprising  that  victim-blaming  attitudes  are  also  highly  prevalent  in  other 
socio-demographic groups and among women.

8.  We  found  few  studies  on  victim-blaming  attitudes  among  EU  samples  (4) 

published in academic journals during the last 5 years. 

78

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, 
ATTITUDES TOWARDS 
INTERVENTION, AND 
RESPONSES IN CASES 
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST 
WOMEN

Introduction

Public awareness and knowledge about violence against women has significantly 
increased in recent years. But does this awareness and knowledge translate into a 
sense of personal responsibility and involvement in known cases of violence against 
women? (Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Gracia et al., 2009; Klein et al., 1997) Are those 
who are aware of instances of violence against women prepared to get personally 
involved?  This  issue  is  particularly  important,  as  violence  against  women  still  re-
mains a largely unreported crime, and at the same time a significant percentage 
of the public are aware or know of cases of violence against women in their circle 
of family or friends, at work or in their community (European Commission, 2010; 
Gracia, 2004; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). 

Public  responses  and  attitudes  towards  intervention  in  cases  of  violence  against 
women play an important role in shaping the social environment in which the vic-
tims are embedded, which in turn can contribute to either the perpetuation or the 
reduction of levels of violence against women in our societies (Gracia & Herrero, 
2006). If those who know about the violence choose to be silent and passive, this 
can contribute to creating a climate of social tolerance that reduces inhibitions for 
perpetrators and makes it more difficult for women to make domestic violence visi-
ble, choosing not to report or abandon the relationship (Biden, 1993; Gracia, 2004; 
Jenkins, 1996; Lackney & Williams, 1995). On the other hand, a responsive social 
environment to known incidents of violence may act as an inhibiting force for perpe-
trators, as well as reducing inhibitions towards reporting both for witnesses and vic-
tims (Fagan, 1993; Gelles, 1983; Gracia et al., 2009; Kelly, 1996; Klein et al., 1997). 
As Klein et al. (1997) argued, a social environment (including neighbours, friends, 
co-workers or acquaintances) that does not implicitly approve or tolerate violence 
against women by remaining silent can be important in order to encourage people 
to challenge violence against women. From this viewpoint, responses to cases of 
violence against women should not be restricted only to institutional initiatives. The 
public has also an active role to play. In the words of Kelly (1996):

79

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN“…nor is it solely the responses of agencies within communities that ex-
press  regard  and  affect  women’s  dignity  and  safety  but  also  those  of 
individuals within women’s kinship and friendship networks, their neigh-
bourhoods and workplaces” (p. 67).

This section of the review will analyse those surveys and studies addressing public 
knowledge of resources and services for women victims of violence, their attitudes 
towards intervention and their responses to known cases of violence against wo-
men.

Surveys  and  studies  addressing  public  knowledge,  attitudes 
towards intervention and responses in cases of violence against 
women

Surveys

Information on public knowledge, responses and attitudes towards intervention in 
cases  of  violence  against  women  was  available  in  21  surveys  conducted  in  11 
countries (see Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1. Countries with surveys addressing public knowledge, attitudes towards 
intervention and responses in cases of violence against women 

COUNTRIES = 11 / SURVEYS = 21

Surveys in each country (AT = 1; BE = 1; BG = 1; CY = 1; DE = 1; EE = 6; ES = 4; LT = 1; PL = 3; RO = 1; SI = 1)

80

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENThe samples used and types of violence addressed in these surveys are described 
in Table 5.1 (see Appendix IV for further information).

Table 5.1. Surveys, samples and type of violence

Code

Sample 

AT-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

BE-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

n

1245

2073

Type of violence*

Violence against women

Emotional, physical and 
sexual abuse

BG-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

-

Domestic violence

CY-Survey 1

General population (women) 

DE-Survey 4

General population (women) + Profes-
sionals

1107

1138

Domestic violence

violence against women

EE-Survey 1

General population (men)

2056 Wife beating

EE-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

EE-Survey 3

General population (men & women) + 
Students + Professionals 

EE-Survey 4

General population (men & women)

EE-Survey 5

General population (men & women)

EE-Survey 6

General population (men & women)

ES-Survey 1

General population (women)

ES-Survey 2

General population (men & women)

ES-Survey 3

Adolescents and young people

ES-Survey 4

Students of secondary education and 
professionals

1111

8055

1500

1001

1076

7898

2580

2457

Gender-based violence 

Domestic violence

Intimate partner violence

Gender-based and domestic 
violence

Sexual violence

Violence against women

Gender-based violence

Gender-based violence

14001

Gender-based violence

LT-Survey 1

Victims

89

Domestic violence

PL-Survey 2a

General population (men & women)

PL-Survey 4

General population (men & women)

PL-Survey 8

General population (men & women)

RO-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

SI-Survey 1

General population (men & women)

* As defined in the title of the survey (see Appendix IV)

1500

3000

1000

1050

1886

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Domestic violence

Intimate Partner violence

A wide variety of questions tapping public knowledge of resources and services for 
women victims of violence, public attitudes towards intervention or involvement in 
cases of violence against women and public responses to known cases of violence 
against women were used in the surveys analysed (see Appendix VI, Box VI.4).

Studies

In relation to studies published in academic journals in the last five years addressing 
issues related to this section’s topic, eight papers were identified by the countries’ 
experts (see Table 5.2; see Appendix V for further information).

81

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENTable 5.2. Studies, samples and type of violence

Code

Sample 

CZ-Study 1

Female victims 

n

Type of violence

701

Intimate partner violence

DK-Study 1 Women victims and general practitioners

13/13

Intimate partner violence

EL-Study 1

General Practitioners and residents

25/15

Intimate partner violence

EL-Study 2

Public prosecutors and facilitators of media-
tion

15/3

Intimate partner violence

EL-Study 3

Social workers at the hospital

10

Intimate partner violence

ES-Study 2

Police officers

378

Intimate partner violence

FI-Study 1

Professionals in specialist health care

30

Domestic violence

SI-Study 1

Social workers

106

Family violence

Public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and responses in 
cases of violence against women. Results of surveys and studies

Based on information from survey questionnaires and study summaries, this sec-
tion was divided into four parts: 1) public knowledge of resources and services for 
women victims of violence; 2) public attitudes towards intervention or involvement 
in cases of violence against women; 3) public responses to known cases of violence 
against women; and 4) professional knowledge and attitudes towards intervention 
in cases of violence against women.

Public knowledge of resources and services for women victims of violence

A number of surveys asked respondents specifically about their knowledge of ser-
vices available for victims of violence against women. For example, a survey con-
ducted in Austria among the general population (AT-Survey 2) asked whether re-
spondents  knew  a  number  of  counselling  and  support  facilities.  The  most  widely 
known resource was women’s shelters (85% knew this resource), followed by the 
“White Ring” (54%), a non-governmental institution that supports crime victims re-
gardless its type. Other resources such as hotlines or counselling services were less 
known to the public (see Figure 5.2).

82

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFigure 5.2. Public knowledge of resources and services: Violence against women 
(AT-Survey 2. General population) 

A Belgian survey (BE-Survey 1) addressed public knowledge with a single item. The 
information provided allowed us to compare knowledge of services helping violence 
victims both among victims (43% knew these services) and non-victims (services 
known by 28.7%). The percentage of non-victims with knowledge of these services 
may  appear  low,  but  the  real  surprise  is  the  relatively  low  percentage  of  victims 
knowing these services. 

Similarly, another survey conducted in Cyprus (CY-Survey 1) of women from the ge-
neral population asked whether respondents were familiar with the services availa-
ble for victims of domestic violence such as shelters, the hotline, legal aid, counsel-
ling and support, and programs for perpetrators. One third of the women said that 
they were little or not informed about the services available for victims of domestic 
violence. Only 57% of the women of the sample were aware of the existence of the 
hotline for victims of domestic abuse, while only 50% knew about the shelter and 
the support provided by the Association for the Prevention and Handling of Family 
Violence. 

In a survey conducted in Germany among women from the general population (DE-
Survey 4), respondents were asked about which were the most important sources 
of information on counselling services or other services to advise women victims 
of violence. Although counselling services were considered the most important, it 
is also interesting to note that the internet was considered as a preferred source 
of information by 45% of respondents (especially for those with higher education) 
(see Table 5.3).

83

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENTable 5.3. Preferred sources of information: Intimate partner violence and sexual 
violence (DE-Survey 4)

Counselling services

Internet

Related persons

Offices

Print media (newspaper/journal)

66.1%

43.6%

32.1%

26.4%

4.6%

In an Estonian survey on gender-based violence among the general population (EE-
Survey 2), respondents were asked two questions about the awareness of services 
for  victims  of  violence.  The  first  question  asked  them  to  indicate  “Which  of  the 
following victim types do you know of services for?” The most well-known services 
were those for victims of domestic violence (70%), followed by victims of sexual 
violence and for children witnessing domestic violence, although these last two did 
not reach 50% of respondents. Other support services (e.g. for victims of forced pro-
stitution or for perpetrators) were known only by a small percentage of respondents 
(see Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3. Public knowledge of resources and services: Gender-based violence (EE-
Survey 2. General population) 

The other question in the same survey about knowledge of services for victims of vi-
olence was “Which of the following organisations or programs have you heard of?”. 
Again, the services that were most well-known among respondents were women’s 
shelters  and  their  hotline  (65%),  and  a  helpline  for  victims  of  prostitution  (40%) 
(see Figure 5.4).

84

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFigure 5.4. Public knowledge of resources and services: Gender based violence (EE-
Survey 2. General population) 

Interestingly, there were differences among specific socio-demographic groups re-
garding the best-known support services for victims (the Estonian Women’s Shelters 
Union and their hotline). As Table 5.4 shows, this service was particularly less known 
for those with lower education and among minorities.

Table 5.4. Awareness of Estonian Women’s Shelters Union and their hotline 1492: 
Disaggregated information (EE-Survey 2. General population) 

Gender

Male

Female

Age

15-24

25-34

35-59

60-64

65-74

75+

Education

Primary

Secondary

Higher education

Ethnicity

Estonians

Other nations (minorities)

%

61

68

57

69

71

63

62

60

57

63

74

76

39

85

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENAnother survey conducted in Estonia on gender based and domestic violence among 
the general population (EE-Survey 5) asked participants specifically about shelters 
for women victims (“Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?”). 27% of 
respondents had heard about this service and knew what kind of help they provided. 
Another 42%, however, did not know exactly what they were for. Another interesting 
result from this survey is that 22% not only did not know, but they also did not care. 
9% wanted to know more about this service (see Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5. Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?: Gender-based and 
domestic violence (EE-Survey 5. General population) 

This survey provided disaggregated information, which once again illustrated im-
portant differences among different socio-demographic defined groups. For exam-
ple, men from minority groups had a higher percentage of “I know nothing about 
shelters, nor do I care” (53%) than Estonian men in general (23%). Among women, 
only 8% of Estonian women did not know and did not care, compared to 24% of 
women from minority groups. There were also large differences according to level 
of education (see Table 5.5).

86

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENTable 5.5. Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?: Disaggregated infor-
mation (EE-Survey 5. General population) 

I’ve heard that 
shelters ex-
ist and I know 
what kind of 
help they pro-
vide. %

I’ve heard that 
the shelters exist 
but I don’t know 
exactly what kind 
of help they pro-
vide. %

I have not heard 
about women’s 
shelters, but 
I would like 
to know more 
about them. %

I have heard 
nothing about 
women’s shel-
ters, nor do I 
care. %

Gender + Ethnicity

Estonian men

Minority men

Estonian women

Minority women

Education

Lower than secondary 

Secondary or vocational 

Higher 

25

11

39

21

17

27

38

47

23

48

38

38

43

43

6

13

5

17

7

9

9

23

53

8

24

37

21

10

This Estonian survey also asked specifically about knowledge of a hotline for wo-
men victims (“Have you heard about the nationwide hotline 1492 for women vic-
tims?”). Only 8% of respondents had heard about this service and knew what kind 
of help they provide. Another 22%, however, did not know exactly what they were 
for. Interestingly, a large percentage of respondents (41%) not only did not know, 
but also did not care. 30% wanted to know more about this service (see Figure 5.6).

Figure 5.6. Have you heard about the nationwide hotline 1492 for women victims?: 
Gender based and domestic violence (EE-Survey 5. General population) 

87

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENEstonia provides one more survey specifically tapping public knowledge about sup-
port services for victims of sexual violence (EE-Survey 6). Figure 5.7 provides infor-
mation on the kind of support services for victims of sexual violence that respon-
dents  knew  most  about,  of  which  women’s  shelters  was  the  best-known  service, 
followed by victims support services.

Figure 5.7. What kind of support services for victims of sexual violence have you 
heard of?: Sexual violence (EE-Survey 6. General population) 

Lastly, a survey conducted in Poland among the general population (PL-Survey 8) 
asked  whether  respondents  were  aware  of  institutions  providing  services  for  the 
victims of domestic violence. It is interesting to note that 36% did not know about 
any institution, and that only 31% mentioned the police. Awareness of other institu-
tions otherwise below 30%, which suggests little knowledge of resources that could 
help victims (see Figure 5.8).

Figure  5.8.  Public  knowledge  of  resources  and  services:  Domestic  violence  (PL-
Survey 8. General population) 

88

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENPublic attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against women

Most information available in the surveys reviewed for this section addressed public 
attitudes  towards  intervention  in  cases  of  violence  against  women,  that  is,  what 
people responded regarding their advice to victims, their willingness and their inten-
tions to act should they hear or know of a case of violence against women (mostly 
partner violence against women). One study also addressed this topic.

For example, a Bulgarian survey among the general population (BG-Survey 1) asked 
what advice respondents would give if they became aware that a person of their 
circle of acquaintances has been a victim of domestic violence. Although most re-
spondents suggested the police (66.5%), it is interesting to note that a large percen-
tage would recommend turning to relatives and friends. Victims were also advised 
to contact social services or healthcare (see Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9. If a person from your circle of acquaintances shares with you she has 
been a victim of domestic violence, whom would you advise her to go to?: Domestic 
violence (BG-Survey 1. General population) 

In  a  survey  conducted  in  Germany  of  women  from  the  general  population  (DE-
Survey 4), respondents were asked what kind of services they would recommend to 
women victims of partner violence (i.e. “Assuming that a friend of yours has been 
abused  by  her  partner  or  husband.  What  do  you  recommend:  where  should  she 
go?”), and also to victims of sexual violence (i.e. “Assuming that a friend of yours is/
was raped, groped or sexually abused now or in the past. What do you recommend: 
where should she go?”). The results showed that women recommended the police 
in both cases, followed by doctors. Women’s shelters and counselling services were 
mentioned as often as doctors, in cases of domestic violence by partners (see Table 
5.6).

89

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENTable 5.6. Recommendations to victims: IPV and Sexual violence (DE-Survey 4)

Recommendation after 
domestic violence by 
partners (%)

Recommendation after 
sexual violence (%)

Police

Doctor

Women’s shelter

Counselling service for families or women

Related persons: friend, colleague, sister, 
mother

Lawyer

Therapist

Local equal opportunities officers

63.4

35.9

34.8

34.6

28.5

18.7

8.3

7%

74.1

44.7

19.3

27.1

22.9

19.8

20.7

8.3

Disaggregated data by level of education suggests that the police were more stron-
gly recommended by those with higher education, as was the case for other services 
(see Table 5.7).

Table 5.7. Recommendations in cases of domestic violence by level of education 
(DE-Survey 4)

Primary 
education (%)

Secondary 
education (%)

Higher 
education (%)

Police

Counselling service for women

Women’s shelter

Lawyer

Therapist

57.3

30

33.4

18.8

5.6

66.5

35.3

35

15.3

7.6

66.4

40.8

36.7

28.4

13.7

In Estonia, several surveys addressed public attitudes towards intervention in cases 
of violence against women. For example, one of these surveys (EE-Survey 1) asked 
indirectly whether a situation of domestic violence required external intervention to 
stop it (i.e. “A victim of domestic violence is not able to stop the violent relationship 
by herself”). Although 71% of respondents agreed or completely agreed with this 
statement, a sizable percentage of respondents (22%) completely or partly disa-
greed, suggesting that they believed that victims can escape from domestic violen-
ce by themselves (see Figure 5.10). 

90

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFigure 5.10. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 1. 
General population) 

In  another  Estonian  survey  (EE-Survey  3),  adult  participants  were  asked  whether 
they  should  intervene  if  a  husband  is  beating  his  wife  in  the  neighbour’s  family. 
A  substantial  percentage  of  respondents  (79%)  partly  or  completely  agreed  that 
they should intervene, which still leaves a sizable percentage believing that they 
certainly or partly should not (18%), and 5% that did not know (see Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.11. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 3. 
Students/Teachers) 

A similar question was asked in another Estonian survey (EE-Survey 4), where par-
ticipants  were  asked:  “What  do  you  think  of  the  following  statement?  Witnesses 
or  over-hearers  should  intervene  to  stop  a  violent  quarrel  in  the  family”.  Results 
regarding agreement and disagreement were quite similar to those of the previous 
question (see Figure 5.12).

91

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFigure 5.12. Should witnesses intervene: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 4. General 
population) 

In another Estonian survey (EE-Survey 5) the issue of public attitudes toward inter-
vention in cases of violence against women was addressed by asking participants 
whether they would suggest their friend seek help in a women’s shelter. 45% of 
respondents would definitely recommend this, and 32% considered this as a possi-
bility (i.e. “maybe”), 17% did not know, and 6% would not recommend it (see Figure 
5.13).

Figure 5.13. Public attitudes towards intervention: Gender based and domestic vio-
lence (EE-Survey 5. General population) 

Disaggregated information for this question revealed some interesting differences 
across socio-demographic groups (see Table 5.8). For example, among those who 
would definitely recommend women’s shelters are Estonian women (60%), which 

92

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENcontrasts with the comparatively lower percentage of women from minority groups 
who would recommend this service (48%), and an even lower percentage among 
men  (with  only  22%  of  men  from  minority  groups  recommending  this  service). 
Those  in  the  higher  education  groups  (50%)  would  also  recommend  this  service 
more than those with a lower level of education (34%).

Table  5.8.  Would  you  recommend  your  friend  or  colleague  who  has  experienced 
violence  to  contact  a  women’s  shelter  for  advice  and  assistance?:  Disaggregated 
information (EE-Survey 5. General population) 

Yes, definitely 
%

Maybe %

No %

Don’t know 
%

Gender + Ethnicity

Estonian men

Minority men

Estonian women

Minority women

Education

Less than secondary edu-
cation

Secondary or vocational 
education

Higher education

36

22

60

48

34

46

50

40

33

28

27

33

31

35

3

18

3

6

9

6

4

21

27

9

19

24

17

11

A survey in Spain among the general population asked respondents whether 
they would know where to go to report and file a complaint (ES-Survey 1). 
Those who answered “yes” were also asked: “And specifically, where would 
you go?” (see Table 5.9). 82% of respondents stated that they would know 
where  to  go  to  report  a  case,  and  among  these  most  respondents  men-
tioned the police (62.1%, and 19%), followed by the phone helpline for vic-
tims (31.6%), and the courts (7%). The same question was asked in another 
survey (ES-Survey 2) of the general population (88.3% mentioned that they 
knew  where  to  go),  who  again  mentioned  the  police  as  the  main  place  to 
report  a  known  case,  followed  by  the  phone  help-line  for  victims,  and  the 
courts.

93

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENTable 5.9. Would you know where to go to file a complaint in a case of mistreatment? 
And specifically, where would you go? (ES-Survey 1. Women general population) 

Share of respondents (%)

YES

NO

Don’t know

Don’t answer

TOTAL

Police

Specifically, where would you go?

Spanish military police (Guardia civil)

Courts

Women’s associations

Centres for women’s support

Victims’ support helpline (016)

Regional helplines for victims’ support 

Other

Local council

Social Services

112

Don’t answer

TOTAL

82.6

13.8

1.6

1.9

100.0

62.1

19.0

7.0

5.2

7.0

31.6

2.1

2.5

1.6

2.0

1.8

1.1

100.0

The same Spanish survey asked about what respondents thought they would do if 
they knew of a case of violence against women. The largest percentage of respon-
dents thought that they would call the police (62.8%), a sizable percentage believed 
that they would confront the aggressor (18.24%), and others would call somebody 
else who could help the victim (10.9%). A small percentage did not know what they 
would do (4.9%), and 2.3% said that they would do nothing. This question was also 
asked in another survey (ES-Survey 3) of Spanish adolescents and young people. 
The percentages were similar, although it appears to suggest that they preferred a 
closer involvement with the aggressor (see Figure 5.14).

94

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFigure 5.14. If you know of or witness aggression or mistreatment of a woman by 
a man, what do you think you would do?: Gender-based violence (ES-Survey 2 and 
3. General population and adolescents-young people) 

Another  survey  (ES-Survey  4)  conducted  in  Spain  among  adolescents  addressing 
dating violence asked two questions that differentiated between whether the per-
son you know is the victim or the aggressor. The questions were: “What would you 
do if you became aware that a girl friend of yours has been or is being mistreated 
by the boy she is with?”, and “What would you do if you became aware that a boy 
friend of yours has mistreated or is mistreating the girl he is with?”. In both cases, 
the  preferred  response  was  to  confront  the  aggressor,  and  the  second  preferred 
response  was  to  tell  somebody,  although  some  differences  can  be  observed  de-
pending on whether the aggressor is a friend. For example, when the aggressor is 
a friend, 22.9% would tell somebody, as compared to 31% when the victim is the 
friend. Also, when the aggressor is a friend 11.1% would do nothing, as compared 
to 6.8% when the victim is the friend (see Table 5.10).

Table 5.10. Public attitudes towards intervention: Gender-based violence (ES-Sur-
vey 4. Adolescents) 

What would you do if you became aware that a girl friend of yours has been or is being 
mistreated by the boy she is with? %

Nothing

I would end my relationship with him

I would tell somebody who could punish him

I would confront him

6,8

16.1

31.1

46

What would you do if you became aware that a boy friend of yours has mistreated or is 
mistreating the girl he is with? %

Nothing

I would end my relationship with him

I would tell somebody who could punish him

I would confront him

11.1

19.5

22.9

46.5

95

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENIn a Lithuanian survey (LT-Survey 1), victims of domestic violence were also asked: 
“In  the  case  of  domestic  violence  in  the  neighbourhood,  would  you  call  the  poli-
ce?” Although about 50% of respondents said that they would call the police and 
only 2.2% said that they would not call, it is to some extent surprising that 48.3% 
answered that they did not know (see Figure 5.15).

Figure 5.15. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (LT-Survey 1. 
Victims) 

In  the  same  survey  victims  were  also  asked:  “What  would  you  do  in  the  case  of 
violence against you?” As Figure 5.16 shows, the main choice was to seek support 
from relatives (46%), and contacting the police was the main choice only for 23% 
of respondents. Contacting doctors was also favoured by 21% of respondents (10% 
did not know or did not answer).

Figure 5.16. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (LT-Survey 1. 
Victims) 

A study conducted in the Czech Republic (Reporting to the police as a response to 
intimate partner violence; CZ-Study 1) examined the circumstances that made in-
timate partner violence incidents more likely to be reported to the police, and the 

96

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENvictims’ reasons for not reporting. Distrust of the police was an important factor for 
not reporting to the police (29% of women).

A Polish survey among the general population (PL-Survey 2a) also asked about the 
reasons why a witness of domestic violence should act. As can be seen in Figure 
5.17 there was broad agreement among respondents.

Figure  5.17.  Public  attitudes  towards  intervention:  Domestic  violence  (PL-Survey 
2a. General population) 

The same survey also asked about the reasons why witnesses of domestic violence 
should not act. For example, 25% of respondents agreed that a witness should not 
intervene because “it is hard to know who is right”. Also a substantial percentage of 
respondents thought that people should not intervene because “it involves trouble” 
(21%), or “puts the victim in a worse position” (17%), or “because it is a private mat-
ter” (13%) (see Figure 5.18). In a similar way, in a different Polish survey (PL-Survey 
4), also among the general population, 17.8% of all respondents agreed that is not 
worth it or effective to support or help victims of domestic violence because they 
would return to the perpetrators.

Figure  5.18.  Public  attitudes  towards  intervention:  Domestic  violence  (PL-Survey 
2a. General population) 

97

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFinally, a survey conducted in Romania (RO-Survey 1) also asked about public opin-
ions regarding who should intervene when somebody is beating their partner. Most 
respondents thought that it should be the police, followed by relatives, friends and 
neighbours (see Figure 5.19).

Figure 5.19. Public attitudes towards intervention: Domestic violence (RO-Survey 
1. General population) 

Public responses in cases of violence against women

Finally,  only  a  few  surveys  addressed  actual  public  responses  to  known  cases  of 
violence  against  women  and  the  reasons  for  not  responding,  as  not  responding 
(passivity, inhibition, etc.) is also a form of response in itself.

For  example,  in  an  Estonian  survey  on  gender-based  violence  (EE-Survey  2),  re-
spondents were asked “Have you ever overheard, seen or suspected any case of 
domestic violence?” and those who answered affirmatively (53%) were in turn asked 
“Did you respond to it in any way or do something?”. 62% mentioned that they re-
sponded to the situation, 36% did not respond, 2% chose the option “don’t know”. 
Those who responded to the situation were asked “What did you do, how did you 
respond? Please indicate all appropriate options”. As Figure 5.20 shows, only 16% 
of those who were aware of cases of domestic violence called the police, and the 
majority tried to solve the situation by themselves.

98

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFigure 5.20. What did you do, how did you respond?: Domestic violence (EE-Survey 
2. General population) 

With  regard  to  the  reasons  why  respondents  did  not  do  anything  in  response  to 
known cases of domestic violence, 30% did not know what to do and 21% were 
afraid. It is, however, remarkable that 26% of respondents considered that the vio-
lence was a “private matter” (see Figure 5.21).

Figure 5.21. What is the main reason why you did not do anything?: Domestic vio-
lence (EE-Survey 2. General population) 

99

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENAlso regarding domestic violence, a survey in Poland among the general population 
(PL-Survey 8) asked whether a known incident of violence was reported, and if so 
to  whom.  An  average  of  42%  of  respondents  did  report  the  incident  of  violence. 
Of those, 60% reported it to the police, followed by social assistance centres (see 
Figure 5.22).

Figure  5.22.  Whom/where  did  you  report  it  to?:  Domestic  violence  (PL-Survey  8. 
General population) 

As for the reasons why respondents did not report the incident, again it is interesting 
to note that 21% thought that these problems should be solved at home, that re-
porting does not change anything (20%), or that “it is not my business” (12%). This 
suggests not only that a large percentage of people who become aware of cases of 
domestic violence prefer not to get involved, but also that this lack of involvement 
is justified as being a private matter or something useless (see Figure 5.23).

Figure 5.23. Public responses in cases of violence against women: Domestic vio-
lence (PL-Survey 8. General population) 

100

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFinally, a survey conducted in Slovenia (SL-Survey 1) among women from the gen-
eral  population  asked  about  respondents’  responses  or  intentions  to  respond  to 
known  cases  of  violence  against  women.  More  than  half  of  the  women  did  not 
inform anyone about cases of violence they were aware of. Most women did not 
tell anyone or report the violence, as they took care of the problem by themselves. 
Among those who did seek help, most informed the police (36.2%), social services 
(31.3%), health center or a lawyer. In some cases, women decided to seek help from 
non-governmental  organisations  (15.3%  of  respondents).  Priests  were  visited  by 
17.2% of women.

Professionals’  knowledge  and  attitudes  towards  intervention  in  cases  of 
violence against women

Seven studies addressed professionals’ knowledge and attitudes towards interven-
tion in cases of intimate partner violence against women. 

Four  studies  examined  these  attitudes  among  health  care  professionals.  A  study 
conducted  in  Denmark  (Barriers  among  Danish  women  and  general  practitioners 
to  raising  the  issue  of  intimate  partner  violence  in  general  practice:  a  qualitative 
study; DK-Study 1) showed that although Danish women wanted general practitio-
ners to ask about violence (in a respectful and non-judgmental manner), general 
practitioners were resistant towards such an inquiry and would benefit from training 
regarding how to respond to women who have been exposed to intimate partner 
violence. A second study was conducted in Finland (Making sense of domestic vio-
lence intervention in professional health care; FI-Study 1), which showed that health 
professionals tended to focus on fixing the injuries and consequences of domestic 
violence, avoiding the issue of violence as the cause of the symptoms and injuries. 
A third study conducted in Greece (Managing intimate partner violence at the so-
cial services department of a Greek University hospital; EL-Study 3) revealed that 
despite partner violence being very common among patients, lack of training was 
one of the main barriers to the effective management of intimate partner violence 
(early detection, adequate assessment and timely intervention), contributing to the 
low perceived self-efficacy of professionals in this area. A fourth study also con-
ducted in Greece (Measuring the effectiveness of an intensive IPV training program 
offered to Greek general practitioners and residents of general practice; EL-Study 1) 
aimed to measure changes in actual intimate partner violence knowledge, percei-
ved knowledge, perceived preparedness and detection ability of practicing general 
practitioners (GPs) and general practice residents, following an intensive intimate 
partner  violence  training  program.  The  training  program  met  high  acceptance  by 
both groups of participants and high practicality in clinical practice.

The other three studies addressing professionals’ knowledge and attitudes were con-
ducted with samples of police officers, prosecutors and social workers, respectively.

One  study  conducted  in  Spain  (Police  attitudes  towards  policing  partner  violence 
against Women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles?; ES-Study 2) 
showed that police officers who expressed a general preference for unconditional 
law enforcement (i.e. regardless of the victim’s willingness to press charges against 
the offender) scored higher in other-oriented empathy, were less sexist, tended to 
perceive the same incidents of partner violence as more serious and felt more per-
sonally responsible than the group of police officers who expressed a preference for 
a conditional law enforcement approach (i.e. depending on the willingness of the 
victim to press charges against the offender). 

101

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENAnother  study  conducted  in  Greece  (Prosecutors  and  use  of  restorative  justice  in 
courts: Greek case; EL-Study 2) examined the experiences of prosecutors in Athens, 
as they implement a restorative justice (i.e. mediation) model in cases of intimate 
partner violence. The findings indicated that these professionals did not view me-
diation as an option or possibility, instead relying on strict law enforcement without 
taking into account the victim’s immediate needs, the absence of direct and simul-
taneous work with victim services, or monitoring the batterer’s compliance with the 
mediation requirements. 

Finally,  a  study  conducted  in  Slovenia  (Does  social  workers’  personal  experience 
with violence in the family affect their professional responses, and how?; SI-Study 
1)  examined  if  and  how  social  workers’  personal  experience  with  violence  in  the 
family influenced their professional responses. Social workers who had personally 
experienced violence from their parents and intimate partners were most reluctant 
to suggest shelter for battered women and children, parent counselling, or reporting 
the issue to the police.

Summary and highlights

Public knowledge and responses to cases of violence against women was one of the 
four main topics regarding attitudes towards violence against women that emerged 
from the analysis of the survey questionnaires and study summaries provided for 
this review. Information on these issues was available in 21 surveys conducted in 
11 countries and in 8 studies. After analysing this information, the results were or-
ganised into three areas: public knowledge of resources and services for women vic-
tims of violence, public attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against 
women, and public responses to known cases of violence against women. Below, we 
summarise the main findings in this section of the report. 

Highlights

1. 

2. 

Information  about  public  knowledge,  attitudes  toward  intervention,  and  re-
sponses to known cases of violence against women was, in general, one of the 
topics with more information available across the surveys provided for this 
review.

Questions regarding public knowledge of resources for victims suggested that 
only some services were quite well-known to the public (e.g. women’s shel-
ters), while the public in general knew little about other services or resources 
for victims.

3.  When  disaggregated  information  was  available,  differences  among  specific 
socio-demographic  groups  emerged  regarding  the  knowledge  of  resources 
and support services for victims (e.g. minority groups and the less educated 
had  less  knowledge).  Also,  when  disaggregated  information  was  available, 
socio-demographic differences emerged regarding what to do or what to re-
commend to victims.

102

5. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES TOWARDS INTERVENTION, AND RESPONSES  IN CASES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN4.  Most information available in the surveys reviewed for this section addressed 
public attitudes towards intervention in cases of violence against women (i.e. 
what people responded regarding their willingness, intentions and behaviour 
should they hear or know of a case of violence against women). Information 
was mostly available regarding partner violence against women.

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

The results suggest that the police are the main resource to which the public 
would turn if discovering a case of violence against women. Some survey re-
sults suggest that attitudes favouring non-intervention are still prevalent.

Some survey results suggest that the way questions are framed can provide 
a different view and results on public attitudes towards intervention in cases 
of domestic violence (e.g. why people should react if they know of a case vs. 
why people should not react).

Only a few surveys addressed actual public responses to known cases of vio-
lence against women, and the reasons for not responding. Some survey re-
sults suggest that attitudes favouring non-intervention are still prevalent. In 
those countries where information was available, a significant number of re-
spondents preferred not to get involved even if they were aware of a case of 
violence against women (“not my business”, or “it is a private matter” were 
among the reasons for not intervening).

Eight studies published in high quality journals in the last five years addressed 
victims’ responses and professional attitudes towards intervention in cases of 
violence against women. In general, most of these studies stressed the impor-
tance of training for more effective management of partner violence against 
women cases.

103

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6. CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

In the final section of this report we summarise the main findings of this review 
and their implications, with the aim of forming some recommendations for future 
research directions. The highlights and recommendations drawn from the findings 
of this research review aim to identify gaps in our knowledge while also pointing 
to  new  research  directions  in  order  to  gain  a  better  understanding  of  the  public 
attitudes that contribute to perpetuating violence against women in the EU and its 
determinants. Increasing our knowledge base on public attitudes towards violence 
against women will clearly contribute to better-informed intervention and preven-
tion efforts aiming to respond to this major challenge in a more effective way.

EU  surveys  including  information  on  attitudes  towards  violence 
against women

Conclusions

In the last five years a relatively limited number of surveys conducted among the EU 
Member States included questions addressing attitudes towards violence against 
women. Forty surveys in 19 countries were finally considered for this review, as they 
met the criteria established for inclusion. Despite this limited number of surveys, 
the strength of this review resides in the fact that, by putting all the available infor-
mation together, the data analysed for this report reflects the responses of around 
85,000 European citizens.

In general, although addressing relevant issues regarding violence against women 
(e.g. prevalence), many surveys were not specifically designed to address attitudes 
towards violence against women, which explains the difficulties experienced by ex-
perts in identifying relevant material for this review. Those surveys included in the 
review  did  contain  at  least  some  of  the  information  regarding  attitudes  towards 
violence  against women requested in the questionnaire for experts. Most of the-
se  surveys  addressed  intimate  partner  violence  against  women  (by  partners  and 
ex-partners, and also including dating violence among young people). Only a few 
surveys addressed other types of violence against women (e.g. sexual harassment 
and  rape).  Intimate  partner  violence  against  women  was  defined  in  a  variety  of 
ways, such as domestic violence, family violence, partner violence, or gender-based 
violence. There was also a wide variation in how the surveys defined this type of 
violence. Some surveys did refer to violence in generic terms (e.g. domestic violen-
ce), while others provided more objective defined or behaviour-oriented questions.

104

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSAlthough most surveys used samples from the general population (including those 
targeting only women or young people), a small number of them also addressed 
specific populations such as professionals (e.g. law enforcement, school) or victims, 
and almost none targeted perpetrators specifically. Moreover, most surveys did not 
incorporate  relevant  information  on  minorities  or  other  risk  groups  (women  with 
disabilities, elderly women, women in prostitution, or homeless women). Therefore, 
relevant information regarding attitudes towards violence among these groups was 
almost non-existing in the surveys analysed for this review.

Recommendations

Clearly there is a need to develop surveys and other sources of data collection (e.g. 
administrative  sources,  demonstration  projects,  media  analysis)  that  specifically 
address attitudes towards violence against women. To avoid the large variations in 
information availability and data collection between countries, these surveys should 
provide comparable data across the EU by being implemented at an EU-level, based 
on common content criteria and standardised methodologies.

For better and more reliable data collection on attitudes towards violence against 
women across the EU, comparable definitions of the different types of violence are 
needed. Future surveys and studies would benefit from the availability of a set of 
shared indicators and definitions of different types of violence against women.

Future data collection regarding attitudes towards violence against women needs 
to address not only attitudes among the general population, but also to target spe-
cific groups such as perpetrators, as well as groups that are more vulnerable or at 
risk. More accurate and comparable data on these risk groups would help to inform 
better-targeted education and intervention initiatives.

Methodological issues in surveys including information on attitudes 
towards violence against women 

Conclusions

This review identified a large variety of questions tapping a wide range of attitu-
des towards violence against women. Although this wealth of information provides 
potentially important comparative information for future developments in the mea-
surement of attitudes, there are also some drawbacks and limitations that need to 
be taken into account. 

A main issue that emerged when analysing the information available on attitudes 
towards violence against women in the surveys provided for this review was that 
the same attitudinal topics are typically addressed with a variety of questions and 
formats, different samples, and with different definitions of violence. Different que-
stions addressing the same issues in different countries clearly limit the possibility 
of comparing the information on relevant aspects regarding attitudes towards vio-
lence against women across countries (and its evolution over time). 

Furthermore, it is important to note that when the same issues are framed with 
different questions, the responses can provide quite different images. For example, 
according to the 2010 Eurobarometer, 87% of Italian respondents think that dome-

105

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSstic violence against women is unacceptable and should always be punishable by 
law; however, it is to some extent surprising that in a survey in the same country 
included in this review, when a similar question is framed in a different way and 
addressed to other parts of the population by asking victims about particular episo-
des of partner violence, only 35.4% of women victims considered the violence as a 
crime, 44% considered that the episode of violence was something wrong but not a 
crime, and 19.4% considered the violence as “only something that happened”.

With only one exception, no questions addressing attitudes towards violence against 
women used in the surveys included in this review were based on selected instru-
ments with adequate reliability and validity, or tested cross-culturally. These types 
of  measurement  instrument  are  clearly  more  adequate  to  provide  better  quality 
and  more  comparable  data  on  attitudes  towards  violence  across  countries  (see 
Nybergh, Taft, & Krant, 2013; Waltermaurer, 2005). On the other hand, another is-
sue concerning self-reported attitudes towards violence against women in surveys 
and other types of studies is its sensitive nature. As Gracia et al. (2015) have noted, 
although this type of measurement tends to be more reliable and accurate for the 
general population, when addressing other samples, such as perpetrators of violen-
ce against women, response distortion can become an issue (see also Ruiz-Perez 
et al., 2007). 

Finally,  regarding  other  methodological  issues  such  as  types  of  survey  and  que-
stionnaire administration methods, responses rates, confidentiality, interviewer trai-
ning, etc., there were wide variations across the surveys analysed for this review 
(and in many cases information on these issues was not available). In any case, the 
same caveats made in the 2014 FRA survey report regarding the study and compa-
rability of the available information on the prevalence of violence against women 
can be applied to the study of attitudes towards this violence at the European-level: 

“The results of existing national surveys are, however, not fully comparable 
for  the  following  reasons:  surveys  focus  on  different  groups  (for  example, 
with the youngest and oldest age groups differing); different sample sizes 
and  sampling  approaches  are  used  (ranging  from  population  databases 
through to random route sampling); different survey modes are used (face-
to-face  interviews,  telephone  interviews,  postal  questionnaires;  with  and 
without interviewers); and – most importantly, which puts a limit on direct 
comparability  –  different  interview  questions  are  asked  covering  different 
subjects.” (FRA, 2014, p. 15)

Recommendations

Advances in measurement instruments are needed to adequately assess attitudes 
towards violence against women, as they are important research and intervention 
tools, not only for helping to improve our understanding of its prevalence among 
different samples, but also to evaluate outcomes or monitor changes after public 
education and prevention efforts.

The use of instruments with adequate reliability and validity, tested cross-culturally, 
can contribute to a more standardised approach to the measurement and compa-
rison  of  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  across  EU  countries.  Also,  as 
self-reports of attitudes towards violence among specific groups (e.g. perpetrators), 

106

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSmethodological alternatives and new strategies should be considered (e.g. indirect 
or implicit measures, social media, Big Data).

To avoid the large variations in survey methodologies that make it difficult to get 
accurate, comparable data across the EU, more standardised approaches to data 
collection should be promoted. Moreover, the design of future large scale surveys 
and  studies  on  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  should  also  take  into 
account a substantial body of literature on methodological issues and good practi-
ces in conducting surveys and research on violence against women (e.g. Ellsberg & 
Heise, 2002; Ellsberg & Heise, 2005; Jansen et al., 2004; Kelmendi, 2013; Nybergh 
et al., 2013; Ruiz-Perez et al., 2007; Schwartz, 2000; Walby, 2001; Walby & Myhill, 
2001; Waltermaurer, 2005).

Availability of studies published in academic journals addressing 
attitudes towards violence against women in the EU

Conclusions

This  review  clearly  showed  that  there  are  very  few  studies  addressing  attitudes 
towards violence against women in EU countries published in academic journals of 
high scientific quality in the last five years. The small number of studies relevant 
for this research review (only 16 studies met the inclusion criteria), provided a clear 
indication of the “state” of the research in the EU on this important issue. 

Research on attitudes towards violence against women has traditionally been an 
underdeveloped area, but this appears to be more evident in regions such as Eu-
rope.  As  Waltermaurer  (2012)  noted  in  a  recent  review  of  the  literature:  “There 
are many gaps to our knowledge internationally about the justification of intimate 
partner violence particularly in Europe and the Western Hemisphere” (p. 173). This 
was also the view of the ENEGE experts who expressed the difficulty in finding rele-
vant research published in academic journals on attitudes towards violence against 
women.

The few studies included in this review did not allow us to identify main research 
topics in the study of attitudes towards violence against women. Study samples in-
cluded the general population, young people, perpetrators, and professionals; while 
the topics addressed ranged from public views and attitudes (definitions of violence, 
victim-blaming  attitudes,  attitudes  towards  reporting  to  the  police),  attitudes  of 
professionals (health, social workers, or law enforcement), or perpetrators’ attitu-
des. Therefore, we did not identify any main research domains or priorities with a 
substantial body of research.

Recommendations

An EU-level framework for research on attitudes among violence against women 
should be established, identifying main research priorities.

Recommended research priorities could include (although should not be limited to): 
the measurement of attitudes, prevalence (including variations between and within 
countries), multiple-level determinants of attitudes, the link between attitudes and 
prevalence of violence against women, new strategies to change attitudes and its 
effectiveness, and the development of comparable monitoring systems.

107

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThis research effort should address not only attitudes among the general popula-
tion, but also attitudes among specific samples (e.g. young people, victims, perpe-
trators, and professionals).

Public  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  in  EU  surveys 
and studies

Conclusions

After reviewing all the information provided by ENEGE experts, four key areas rela-
ted to public attitudes towards violence against women were identified.

The  first  area  concerned  the  public  perceptions  of  violence  against  women  as  a 
social problem, which included three different but related issues: public awareness 
of violence against women as a social problem, public definitions, and public ac-
ceptability  and  perceived  severity  of  different  types  of  violence  against  women. 
The second area referred to public attributions, explanations, and justifications of 
violence against women. Three sets of explanatory factors were identified as possi-
ble causes of violence against women for the public: individual, relational/situatio-
nal, and socio-cultural factors. As victim-blaming attitudes was a common factor 
mentioned in a substantial number of surveys as an explanation or justification of 
violence against women, this review specifically addressed these attitudes as a key 
area for this review. Finally, the fourth area identified included public and professio-
nals’ knowledge, attitudes towards intervention, and responses to known cases of 
violence against women. 

The information analysed addressing these four areas referred mainly to partner 
violence against women (mainly physical violence), sexual violence, and rape. Very 
little information regarding other types of violence was available.

Taking into account the limitations in comparability of results across EU countries 
mentioned above, the available information in the surveys provided a preliminary 
“picture” of public attitudes towards violence against women in these four areas. 
According to this picture (which must be taken with caution), and where informa-
tion was available: violence against women has not yet reached a prominent place 
among  the  public  concerns;  attitudes  of  acceptability  and  tolerance  are  still  pre-
valent;  gender  stereotypes  and  sexist  attitudes  are  still  quite  prevalent  in  some 
sectors of the society; victim-blaming attitudes are still widespread; the public in 
general has still little knowledge about other services or resources for victims; the 
police were the main resource to which the public would turn in cases of violence 
against  women;  and  personal  attitudes  favouring  non-intervention  before  known 
cases of violence against women were quite prevalent.

The analysis of the information available in the surveys included in this review re-
vealed some worrisome results. For example, the acceptability of certain behaviours 
remained high in some circumstances (e.g. dating violence). A small but relevant 
percentage of respondents from different countries (including young people, adults, 
and also victims) tended to “accept” – in some circumstances – some violent be-
haviours against women, perceived as “not very serious” or considered “inevitable”, 
including insulting, hitting, controlling, or even forced sex. Victim-blaming attitudes 
were not only widespread, but also particularly worrying in cases of sexual violen-

108

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSce or rape. Some results also suggested that a significant number of respondents 
preferred not to get involved even if they were aware of cases of violence against 
women (“not my business”, or “it is a private matter” were among the reasons for 
not intervening).

Although  topics such  as victims’ reasons for  not reporting have  been extensively 
addressed in the 2014 FRA survey, however, victims’ views and attitudes were also 
included in this review as they related to other attitudes such as their acceptability 
or perceived severity of the violence or to victim-blaming attitudes.

Despite  the  efforts  made  in  past  surveys  on  a  European  level  (i.e.  2010  Euroba-
rometer on domestic violence) to address extensively public knowledge of special 
laws for violence against women, campaigns of education and awareness, or the 
role of the EU in combating this violence, no reliable data was available in the sur-
veys analysed on their impact, or for whom (e.g. men, risk groups, etc.) these initiati-
ves and education efforts were more or less successful in changing public attitudes.

Recommendations

The four key areas related to public attitudes towards violence against women iden-
tified in this review could guide the development of a set of indicators tapping at-
titudes towards violence in order to facilitate data comparability in future surveys 
and studies at the EU level.

Future surveys and studies at European level should include different types of vio-
lence against women, including a harmonised set of definitions, and target different 
types of populations, professionals, and risk groups.

The worrisome prevalence of some acceptability, tolerant, victim-blaming, and non-
involvement attitudes regarding violence against women should be appropriately 
targeted and monitored in future surveys and studies.

Future surveys and studies should also monitor the effectiveness of public aware-
ness-raising and education campaigns, and the passing of new laws and policies, 
on public attitude change across EU-countries, so lessons can be learnt and shared 
from this assessment. Identifying and targeting those sectors or specific groups in 
society more resistant to change should also be a priority. It is important not only 
to invest in public education and awareness-raising initiatives targeting attitudes 
towards violence against women, but also to ensure that these efforts are well in-
formed, adequately targeted, and better designed to effectively monitor and assess 
their impact on public attitudes and their effects on curbing prevalence figures. 

Factors influencing attitudes towards violence against women in 
the EU: future directions for research

Conclusions

For this review we asked experts for disaggregated survey results. We were parti-
cularly interested in this information as attitudes towards violence against women 
may be influenced by a number of individual and social background characteristics 
(e.g. age, gender, educational level, ethnic or religion background, minority or im-

109

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSmigrant status). Disaggregated information was, however, scarce across the survey 
questionnaires included in this review. When disaggregated information was availa-
ble, it was mainly regarding gender, age, and socio-economic background. 

When  the  available  disaggregated  information  was  analysed,  the  results  of  this 
review  suggested  that  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  are  not  evenly 
distributed across different socio-economic defined groups. This was the case for 
attitudes such as public awareness of violence against women as a social problem, 
acceptability and perceived severity, gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes, vic-
tim-blaming attitudes, or knowledge of resources and support services for victims. 
In general, little knowledge or negative attitudes were more common among males, 
the older, the less educated and with lower income, minority groups, and those living 
in rural areas. Information was, however, scant and generalisations should be made 
with caution and are limited by the nature of the data.

In  some  cases,  variations  within  countries  across  different  socio-demographic 
groups were larger than variations across countries. Results suggest that surveys 
results  are  important  to  identify  and  understand  variations  across  countries,  but 
also that socio-demographic information and other factors are key to better under-
standing variations within countries across different sectors of society.

Recommendations

The inclusion and detailed analysis of socio-demographic data in surveys and stu-
dies are particularly important to better understand variations in attitudes towards 
violence against women across different social groups, and regarding different types 
of violence, which in turn would help to better target awareness-raising, public edu-
cation, and intervention strategies. From a comparative point of view, this analysis 
would  help  to  understand  the  importance  of  these  factors  in  explaining  within-
country variations in the EU, and to better assess between-country variations, both 
in attitudes and prevalence.

Other factors influencing attitudes towards violence against women, beyond socio-
demographic ones, need to be taken into account in future surveys and in-depth 
studies. Factors influencing attitudes are multiple and can be identified at multiple 
levels, including individual, relational, group, community, and macro (cultural) levels. 

To better understand individual, group, community, as well as between-country and 
within-country variations in attitudes towards violence against women and the link 
with its prevalence, more advanced research is needed. Averages between countries 
provide only an initial approach to understanding the factors that shape attitudes. 

An  appropriate  understanding  of  both  between  and  within-country  variations  in 
attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  (and  in  prevalence  as  well)  will  need 
complex multilevel analyses that take into account the effect and relative influen-
ce of multiple factors working at different levels, but also the complexity of their 
interactions. This multinational and multilevel type of research will require a new 
generation of studies, and an international EU-level research effort.

110

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSREFERENCES

Barnett, O. W. (2001). Why battered women do not leave, Part 2: External inhibiting 
factors-social support and internal inhibiting factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2, 
3-35.

Biden, J. R. Jr. (1993). Violence against women: The congressional response. Ameri-

can Psychologist, 48, 1059-1061.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, Mass: 

Harvard University Press. 

Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorgani-
zation theory to partner violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 833–850.

Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 

359, 1331-1336.

Campbell, J. C., & Manganello, J. (2006). Changing public attitudes as a prevention 
strategy to reduce intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment 
& Trauma, 13, 13-40.

Capezza, N. M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2008). Factors associated with acceptance of psy-

chological aggression against women. Violence Against Women, 14, 612-633.

Carlson, B. E., & Worden, A. P. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: 
Results of a public opinion survey. I. Definitions of domestic violence, criminal do-
mestic violence, and prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1197–1218. 

Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y. T., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G., et al. 
(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 
340, 1527-1528.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. 
T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2005). Attitude research in the 21st century: The current 
state of knowledge. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The hand-
book of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of at-

titude. Social Cognition, 25, 582-602.

Ellsberg, M., & Heise, L. (2002). Bearing witness: Ethics in domestic violence re-

search. Violence Against Women, 359, 1599-1604.

111

RefeRencesEllsberg, M., & Heise, L. (2005). Researching violence against women: A practical 

guide for researchers and activists. Washington, DC: World Health Organization

Ellsberg, M., Jansen, H. A., Heise, L., Watts, C. H., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2008). Inti-
mate partner violence and women‘s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-
country  study on women‘s health and domestic violence: An observational study. 
Lancet, 371, 1165–1172.

European Commission (2010). Domestic violence against women report. Brussels: 
DG  Justice.  Available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_344_
en.pdf

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014). Violence against women: 
An EU-wide survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Avail-
able at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/vaw-survey-main-results. 

Fagan, J. (1993). Social structure and spouse assault. In B. Forst (Ed.), The socio-

economics of crime and justice (pp. 209-254). New York: Sharpe.

Finn, M. A., & Stalans, L. J. (1995). Police referrals to shelters and mental health 
treatment: Examining their decisions in domestic assault cases. Crime & Delinquen-
cy, 41, 467-480. 

Flood,  M.,  &  Pease,  B.  (2009).  Factors  influencing  attitudes  to  violence  against 

women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 125-142.

Frye,  V.  (2007).  The  informal  social  control  of  intimate  partner  violence  against 
women: Exploring personal attitudes and perceived neighborhood social cohesion. 
Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 1001-1018.

García-Moreno, C., Zimmerman, C., Morris-Gehring, A., Heise, L., Amin, A., Abrahams, 
N., ... & Watts, C. (2015). Addressing violence against women: a call to action. The 
Lancet, 385(9978), 1685-1695.

Gelles, R. J. (1983). An exchange/social control theory. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, 
G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families (pp. 151–165). Beverly 
Hills, CA: Sage.

Gracia, E. (2004). Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: Towards 
an epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition. Journal of Epidemiology 
and Community Health, 58, 536-537.

Gracia, E. (2014a). Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming 
attitudes among Europeans. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92, 380-381.

Gracia, E. (2014b). Public attitudes toward partner violence against women. In A. 
C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (Vol. 9, pp. 
5192-5195). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Gracia, E. & Tomás, J. M. (2014). Correlates of victim-blaming attitudes regarding 
partner violence against women among the Spanish general population. Violence 
Against Women, 20, 26–41.

112

RefeRencesGracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006a). Acceptability of domestic violence against women 
in the European Union: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Commu-
nity Health, 60, 123-129.

Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006b). Public attitudes toward reporting partner violence 
against women and reporting behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 759-
768.

Gracia,  E.,  Garcia,  F.,  &  Lila,  M.  (2008).  Police  involvement  in  cases  of  intimate 
partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal 
responsibility. Violence Against Women, 14, 697-714.

Gracia, E., García, F., & Lila, M. (2011). Police attitudes toward policing partner vio-
lence against women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles? Journal 
of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 189-207.

Gracia, E., García, F., & Lila, M. (2014). Male police officers’ law enforcement prefer-
ences in cases of intimate partner violence versus non-intimate interpersonal vio-
lence: Do sexist attitudes and empathy matter?. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 41, 
1195-1213. 

Gracia, E., García, F., & Lila, M. (2009). Public responses to intimate partner violence 
against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. The 
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 648-656.

Gracia,  E.,  Rodriguez,  C.,  &  Lila,  M.  (2015).  Preliminary  evaluation  of  an  analog 
procedure to assess acceptability of intimate partner violence against women: the 
Partner Violence Acceptability Movie Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1567.

Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific prog-

ress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma Violence Abuse, 15, 149-158. 

Heise,  L.  (1998).  Violence  against  women:  An  integrated,  ecological  framework. 

Violence Against Women, 4, 262-290.

Heise, L. (2011). What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. 

London: STRIVE, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Heise,  L.  L.,  &  Kotsadam,  A.  (2015).  Cross-national  and  multilevel  correlates  of 
partner  violence:  an  analysis  of  data  from  population-based  surveys.  The  Lancet 
Global Health, 3(6), e332-e340.

Husso, M., Virkki, T., Notko, M., Holam, J., & Laitila, A. (2012). Making sense of do-
mestic violence intervention in professional health care. Health and Social Care in 
the Community, 20, 347–355.

Jansen, H. A., Watts, C., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2004). Inter-
viewer training in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic 
violence. Violence Against Women, 10, 831-849.

Jenkins,  P.  (1996).  Threads  that  link  community  and  family  violence:  Issues  for 
prevention. In R. L. Hampton, P. Jenkins, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Preventing violence in 
America (pp. 33-52). London: Sage.

113

RefeRencesJewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. The lancet, 

359, 1423-1429.

Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes 
of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: a conceptual shift 
in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580-
1589.

Kelly,  L.  (1996).  Tensions  and  possibilities:  Enhancing  informal  responses  to  do-
mestic violence. In J. L. Edleson & Z. C. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with 
battered women and their families (pp. 67-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kelmendi, K. (2013). Violence against Women: Methodological and ethical issues. 

Psychology, 4, 559-565.

Klein E., Campbell, J., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). Ending domestic violence: Chang-

ing public perceptions/halting the epidemic. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lackey, C., & Williams, K. R. (1995). Social bonding and the cessation of partner 

violence across generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 295-305.

Lila, M., Gracia, E., & García, F. (2013). Ambivalent sexism, empathy and law en-
forcement attitudes towards partner violence against women among male police 
officers. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 907-919.

Lila, M., Oliver, A., Catalá-Miñana, A., Galiana, L., & Gracia, E. (2014). The Intimate 
Partner Violence Responsibility Attribution Scale (IPVRAS). European Journal of Psy-
chology Applied to Legal Context, 6, 29-36.

Loseke,  D.  R.  (1989).  “Violence”  is  “violence”…or  is  it?  The  social  construction  of 
“wife abuse” and public policy. In J. Best (Ed.), Images of issues: Typifying contem-
porary social problems (pp. 191-206). New York: de Gruyter.

Loseke, D. R., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). Conclusion: Social problems, social policy, and 
controversies on family violence. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current contro-
versies on family violence (pp. 357-366). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Machado, C., Caridade, S., & Martins, C. (2010). Violence in juvenile dating relation-
ships  self-reported  prevalence  and  attitudes  in  a  Portuguese  sample.  Journal  of 
Family Violence, 25, 43–52.

Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., Bernard, M. M., & Luke, M. A. (2003). Ideologies, values, 
attitudes, and behavior. In J. DeLamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. New 
York: Plenum.

McCarry, M. (2010). Becoming a “proper man”: young people’s attitudes about in-

terpersonal violence and perceptions of gender. Gender and Education, 22, 17-30.

Mørk , T. I., Andersen, P. T., & Taket, A. (2014). Barriers among Danish women and 
general  practitioners  to  raising  the  issue  of  intimate  partner  violence  in  general 
practice: a qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health, 14, 74. 

114

RefeRencesMuehlenhard, C. L., & Kimes, L. A. (1999). The social construction of violence: The 
case of sexual and domestic violence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 
234-245.

Nybergh, L., Taft, C., & Krantz, G. (2013). Psychometric properties of the WHO Vio-
lence Against Women instrument in a female population-based sample in Sweden: 
a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open, 3, e002053. 

Papadakaki, M., Kastrinaki, E., Drakaki, R., & Chliaoutakis, J. (2013). Managing inti-
mate partner violence at the social services department of a Greek university hos-
pital. Journal of Social Work, 13, 533-549.

Papadakaki, M., Petridou, E., Kogevinas, M., & Lionis, C. (2013). Measuring the ef-
fectiveness of an intensive IPV training program offered to Greek general practitio-
ners and residents of general practice. BMC Medical Education, 13, 2-11.

Pecnik, N., & Bezensek-Lalic, O. (2011). Does social workers’ personal experience 
with violence in the family relate to their professional responses, and how? Euro-
pean Journal of Social Work, 14, 525-544.

Podaná, Z. (2010). Reporting to the police as a response to intimate partner vio-

lence. Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 46, 453-474.

Podreka, J. (2014). Intimate partner homicides in Slovenia and their gender-specif-

ic differences. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo / Ljubljana, 65, 60–73.

Ruiz-Perez,  I.,  Plazaola-Castano,  J.,  &  Vives-Cases,  C.  (2007).  Methodological  is-
sues in the study of violence against women. Journal of Epidemiology & Community 
Health, 61, ii26-ii31.

Saunders, D. G., & Size, P. B. (1986). Attitudes toward women abuse among police 

officers, victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 24-42.

Saunders, D. G., Lynch, A. B., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). The inventory of beliefs 
about wife beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs 
and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2, 39-57.

Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for mea-
suring  and  characterizing  violence  against  women.  Violence  Against  Women,  6, 
815-838. 

Smetáčková, I. & Pavlík, P. (2011). Sexuálni obtěžování na vysokých školách: Teo-
retické  vymezení,  metodologický  přistup,  vyzkumné  výsledky  [Sexual  harassment 
at  universities:  theoretical  definition,  methodological  approach,  research  results]. 
Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 47, 361-386.

Staub, E. (2003). Social and prosocial behavior: Personal and situational influences 
and their interactions. In E. Staub (Ed.), The psychology of good and evil (pp. 103-
144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stöckl,  H.,  Devries,  K.,  Rotstein,  A.,  Abrahams,  N.,  Campbell,  J.,  Watts,  C.,  et  al. 
(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: a systematic review. 
Lancet, 382, 859-865.

115

RefeRencesTaylor,  C.  A.,  &  Sorenson,  S.  B.  (2005).  Community-based  norms  about  intimate 
partner  violence:  Putting  attributions  of  fault  and  responsibility  into  context.  Sex 
Roles, 53, 573-589.

Uthman,  O.  A,  Moradi,  T.,  &  Lawoko  S.  (2009).  The  independent  contribution  of 
individual-, neighbourhood-, and country-level socioeconomic position on attitudes 
towards  intimate  partner  violence  against  women  in  sub-Saharan  Africa:  A  mul-
tilevel  model  of  direct  and  moderating  effects.  Social  Science  and  Medicine,  68, 
1801-1809. 

Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., Moya, M. (2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of 
the perpetrator in domestic violence: the role of beliefs in a just world and ambiva-
lent sexism. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 195-206.

VicHealth (2010). National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women 
Survey, 2009. Changing cultures, changing attitudes– Preventing violence against 
women. A summary of findings. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

VicHealth (2014). National Community Attitudes towards Violence Against Women 
Survey, 2013. Research summary. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Founda-
tion.

Vohlídalová,  M.  (2011).  The  perception  and  construction  of  sexual  harassment 
by  Czech  university  students.  Sociologický  časopis/Czech  Sociological  Review,  47, 
1119-1147. 

Walby, S. (2001). Improving the statistics on violence against women. Statistical 

Journal of the United Nations, 22, 193-216. 

Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence 

against women. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 502-522. 

Waltermaurer, E. (2005). Measuring intimate partner violence (IPV) you may only 

get what you ask for. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 501-506.

Waltermaurer, E. (2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: a review 

of the literature. Trauma & Violence Abuse, 13, 167-175.

Wasileski,  G.  (2015).  Prosecutors  and  use  of  restorative  justice  in  courts:  Greek 

case. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1–24.

Webster,  K.,  Pennay,  P.,  Bricknall,  R.,  Diemer,  K.,  Flood,  M.,  Powell,  A.,  Politoff,  V., 
&  Ward,  A.  (2014).  Australians’  attitudes  to  violence  against  women:  Full  techni-
cal report, Findings from the 2013 National Community Attitudes towards Violence 
Against Women Survey (NCAS). Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

West, A., & Wandrei, M. L. (2002). Intimate partner violence: A model for predicting 

interventions by informal helpers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 972-986.

Whatley, M. A. (2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and traditional 
attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape victims. Journal of Family Violence, 
20, 191-200.

116

RefeRencesWorden, A. P., & Carlson, B. E. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic vio-
lence: Results of a public opinion survey. II. Beliefs about causes. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 20, 1219-1243.

World Health Organization (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: 

World Health Organization.

World  Health  Organization  (2013).  Global  and  regional  estimates  of  violence 
against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-
partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization.

117

RefeRencesATTITUDES 
TOWARDS VIOLENCE 
AGAINST WOMEN 
IN THE EU

APPENDICES

Appendix I. Instructions to 
experts 

Box I.1. Instructions to experts: Survey questionnaire

The main aim of this review is to analyse the results of surveys conducted in the 
EU addressing attitudes towards violence against women. To this end, you as ex-
pert should thoroughly review all relevant surveys in your country related to the 
aim of this study published in the last 5 years. When filling in the questionnaire 
as an expert, please pay particular attention to the following:

a)  We  are  interested  in  surveys  that  provide  data/information  about  attitudes 
towards violence against women in your country by both partners and non-
partners (e.g. violence by strangers, violence by other relatives, violence in 
the work place and other public and on-line space). Please identify all surveys 
relevant to this aim (use as many copies of the questionnaire as the number 
of surveys identified). These surveys may have been conducted on a local, 
regional, national or European level1. Remember that sometimes prevalence 
surveys, general crime surveys, work related surveys, new technologies sur-
veys, etc. may also provide information relevant to the aim of this review. We 
are interested not only in general public attitudes (including professionals) 
but  also,  if  available,  the  attitudes  of  perpetrators.  Bear  in  mind  that  the 
most common form of violence against women is intimate partner violence 
(including physical, psychological and sexual), and most surveys will there-
fore focus on this type;

b)  Attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  may  be  influenced  by  a  number 
of individual and social background characteristics (e.g. age, gender, level of 
education, ethnic or religious background, immigrant status, personal history, 
exposure to violence). This is the reason why we ask about disaggregated 
information for the survey results. We are particularly interested in this infor-
mation in order to better understand attitudes, and we would like experts to 
pay special attention to providing this information;

c)  We are particularly interested in the most recent surveys providing data on at-
titudes towards violence against women in your country. If available, identify-
ing trends comparing recent data with previous surveys will provide valuable 
information.

1  At  the  European  level,  please  only  include  surveys  other  than  the  2010  Eurobarometer  on  Domestic  Violence 
Against Women and the recent survey conducted by the European Union Agency for the Fundamental Rights (FRA), 
Violence against women: an EU-wide survey, which already provide comparative data across European Union Mem-
ber States.

Notes: In the following sections of this questionnaire you will find a wide range of questions. Understandably, in 
many cases the survey from which you provide information will not cover all these questions, so you may leave 
many of them unanswered. 

It is also possible that you will find relevant information in non-specialised surveys (e.g. crime report surveys), co-
vered only by few items. Here too, you may have to leave many of the questions in this questionnaire unanswered.

119

APPENDICESBox I.2. Instructions to experts: Qualitative and quantitative studies

Although  the  main  aim  of  this  review  is  to  map  surveys  on  attitudes  towards 
violence  against  women  in  the  EU,  we  are  also  interested  in  quantitative  and 
qualitative studies of high scientific quality conducted in your country that also 
address  this  issue,  published  in  academic  journals1  in  the  last  5  years.  These 
studies sometimes provide relevant information not available in surveys that may 
be of interest for this review (e.g. studies on perpetrators’ history, perceptions and 
attitudes towards violence against women, effectiveness of campaigns and pre-
ventive measures assessed through quantitative or qualitative studies). For this 
reason, we ask you, as an expert, to identify published quantitative and qualita-
tive studies (up to five of each type) relevant to the aim of this review.

1 For high quality academic journals, include only those indexed in the Journal Citation Reports.

120

APPENDICESAppendix II. Survey 
questionnaires and study 
summaries selection

Experts provided information based on 89 surveys and 88 studies (see Table II.1). 

Table II.1. Number of surveys and studies received by country1

Country

Surveys Quantitative 

studies

Qualitative 
studies

Country

Surveys

Quantita-
tive studies

Qualitative 
studies

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria 

Croatia

Czech 
Republic 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

3

1

5

2

4

3

2

6

2

5

4

2

0

1

2

4

3

5

1

0

4

0

0

1

2

4

2

1

0

1

4

1

2

0

1

0

1

1

2

3

1

2

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands 

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United 
Kingdom

1

2

2

1

1

1

10

6

3

3

3

4

2

8

0

1

2

0

1

0

0

4

4

3

2

5

0

1

0

3

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

4

1

1

0

1

We selected the survey questionnaires and study summaries for this research re-
view by the following process: firstly, each survey questionnaire and study summary 
was  assigned  a  code2;  secondly,  an  analysis  of  the  information  provided  (survey 
questionnaires and study summaries) was conducted in order to verify the relevan-
ce for their inclusion in the review. Regarding survey questionnaires, the following 
exclusion criteria were established: 

1) The survey was published before 2010.

2) The survey questionnaire does not correspond to the information requested (i.e. it 
is not a survey, or reports on the 2010 Eurobarometer on Domestic Violence Against 

1   This selection is based on information provided by the 28 experts from EU countries contacted by 
ENEGE for this review. This selection of surveys and studies is as valid as the reliability of the source 
that provided them.

2   Codes are based on the country abbreviation and the number of surveys/studies in that country 
(see Appendix IV and V).

121

APPENDICESWomen and/or the 2014 European Union Agency for the Fundamental Rights (FRA) 
survey).

3) The survey questionnaire does not contain any information on attitudes towards 
violence  against  women  in  the  EU  (e.g.  the  survey  asks  about  the  prevalence  of 
violence but not about attitudinal issues).

As shown in Figure II.1, 89 survey questionnaires were received. 20 surveys que-
stionnaires were excluded under exclusion criteria 1 and 2; 69 surveys questionnai-
res were read and assessed for inclusion; 29 were excluded because they provided 
no information on attitudes. In total, 40 survey questionnaires from 19 countries 
were included in the review. 

Figure II.1. Survey questionnaires selected for inclusion in the review

Received Surveys
n = 89 

n=  89

Excluded Surveys

Not in the last 5 years = 12

Information not requested = 8 

Selected Surveys

n=  69

Excluded Surveys

No attitudes information = 29

Included Surveys

n=  40

122

APPENDICES 
Regarding study summaries, the following exclusion criteria were applied:

1) The study was published before 2010.

2) The journal where the study was published was not indexed in the Journal Cita-
tion Report.

3) The study summary does not contain any information on attitudes towards vio-
lence against women in the EU (e.g. the study deals with the prevalence of violence 
but not with attitudes).

As Figure II.2 shows, of the 280 potential study summaries (10 by country; 5 quan-
titative and 5 qualitative), 88 were received; 47 studies were excluded based on 
criteria 1 and 2; 38 study summaries were read and analysed, of which 24 were 
excluded because they did not provide any information on attitudes towards violen-
ce against women. Although it is possible that some studies published in academic 
journals  with  Journal  Citation  Reports  impact  factor  were  not  included,  the  data 
provided is nevertheless an adequate sample that provides a “picture” of the scope 
of high quality research conducted in the EU addressing attitudes towards violence 
against women. In any case, the limited high quality research on attitudes towards 
violence against women is not surprising, as this has traditionally been an under-
researched area, even internationally. As Waltermaurer (2012) noted in a recent re-
view of the literature: “There are many gaps to our knowledge internationally about 
the justification of IPV particularly in Europe and the Western Hemisphere” (p. 173).

Figure II.2. Study summaries selected for inclusion in the review

Requested studies 

n = 280 

n

Received studies 

n=  88

Excluded studies

No JCR = 47

Not in the last 5 years = 2

Selected studies

n=  38

Excluded studies

No attitudes = 24

Included studies

n=  16

123

APPENDICESThis report therefore includes content from 40 survey questionnaires and 16 stud-
ies provided by the experts from 28 EU countries contacted by ENEGE (see Table 
II.2). The next chapter will provide a detailed descriptive analysis of the surveys and 
studies selected for this review. 

Table II.2. Number of surveys and studies selected by country

Country

Surveys Quantitative 

studies

Qualitative 
studies

Country

Surveys Quantitative 

studies

Qualitative 
studies

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria 

Croatia

Czech Republic 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

1

1

2

0

3

3

1

6

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands 

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United 
Kingdom

1

0

2

1

1

1

6

0

1

0

2

4

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

124

APPENDICESAppendix III. Descriptive 
Analysis of surveys and 
studies

The surveys 

40  surveys  in  19  countries  were  eventually  included  in  this  review,  as  they  met 
the criteria established for inclusion. The data analysed for this report reflects the 
responses of around 85,000 European citizens. There were wide variations across 
countries regarding the availability of surveys. In some countries, no surveys were 
available  in  the  requested  period,  whereas  in  others  several  were  provided  (see 
Appendix IV).

Some  of  the  selected  surveys  did  not  specifically  address  violence  against  wo-
men, although they included a few questions related to attitudes towards violence 
against women (e.g. Emancipation Monitor 2014; NL-Survey 1 or Gender Equality 
Monitoring  2013;  EE-Survey  4).  35  surveys  specifically  addressed  some  type  of 
violence or abuse. However, in most of the surveys addressing violence, the main 
topic was violence prevalence, frequency, consequences, etc., but not public attitu-
des (e.g. Extent, Frequency, Nature and Consequences of Domestic Violence against 
Women in Cyprus; CY-Survey 1 or Domestic violence: Prevalence and frequency of 
reporting; PL-Survey 8). Few surveys were designed to specifically address attitu-
des towards violence against women. Interestingly, the only three surveys with the 
word “attitudes” related to some kind of violence against women were surveys on 
sexual violence and/or rape. Attitude-related concepts, which were present in some 
of the survey titles, were “public opinion” (e.g. Public opinion barometer. The truth 
about Romania. Domestic violence; Ro-Survey 1), “awareness” (e.g. Gender-based 
and domestic violence: Awareness of the possibilities of obtaining assistance; EE-
Survey 5) or “social perception” (e.g. Social perception of gender based violence by 
Adolescence and Young people; ES-Survey 3). 

The vast majority of surveys included in the review had a national scope and used 
representative samples. Some of the surveys addressed very specific samples, like 
victims of violence or professionals (see Figure III.1). Most surveys were conducted 
using the general population (men and women), with some using only men or wo-
men  samples.  Few  surveys  used  specific  samples  (three  victim  samples  and  two 
professional samples). Almost no surveys specifically addressed perpetrators’ atti-
tudes, although one was about public perception of perpetrators (Diagnosis of the 
perpetrators of  domestic violence: Domestic violence from the perspective of the 
Polish adult population; PL-Survey 2a).

125

APPENDICESFigure III.1. Number of surveys selected and samples

* Women from the general population and Social Services professionals; Women victims and Professionals working 
in specialised domestic violence programs

Although the vast majority of surveys selected addressed intimate partner violence 
against women, this type of violence was defined in a variety of ways (e.g. dome-
stic violence, domestic violence against women, intimate partner violence, gender-
based violence, violence in the private sphere and in partner relationships…). When 
the experts were asked to select the type of violence addressed in the survey (see 
Table III.1), in thirteen cases they selected all types: physical, sexual and psycholo-
gical (control and emotional) violence by partners and non-partners. Ten surveys ad-
dressed all types of violence by partners. Two surveys (AT-Survey 2 and BG-Survey 
5) addressed physical and sexual violence (not psychological) by both partners and 
non-partners. Other surveys included some types of violence and, in some cases, 
the experts did not select any.

126

APPENDICESTable III.1. Type of violence addressed in surveys

Code

Violence by partners

Violence by non-partners

Physical

Sexual

Psy.*
 control

Psy.* 
emotional

Physical

Sexual

Psy.*
 control

Psy.* 
emotional

AT-Survey 2

BE-Survey 1

BG-Survey 1

BG-Survey 5

CY-Survey 1

CY-Survey 2

CY-Survey 3

CZ-Survey 1

CZ-Survey 3

CZ-Survey 4

DE-Survey 4

DK-Survey 2

EE-Survey 1

EE-Survey 2

EE-Survey 3

EE-Survey 4

EE-Survey 51

EE-Survey 6

ES-Survey 1

ES-Survey 2

ES-Survey 3

ES-Survey 4

IT-Survey 1

LT-Survey 1

LT-Survey 2

LU-Survey 1

MT-Survey 1

NL-Survey 1

PL-Survey 1a

PL-Survey 2a

PL-Survey 2b

PL-Survey 3

PL-Survey 4

PL-Survey 8

RO-Survey 1

SE-Survey 1

SE-Survey 2

SI-Survey 1

SI-Survey 32

UK-Survey 4

* Psychological

1 EE-Survey 5: Women in shelters. They were asked about the services provided. 

2 SI-Survey 3: No one selected by the expert. 

127

APPENDICESTable  III.2  shows  the  available  methodological  characteristics  of  the  surveys  se-
lected for this review, as described by the experts. Although in many cases the infor-
mation was lacking, when available, surveys were characterised in terms of whether 
the  different  types  of  violence  addressed  were  defined;  the  survey  method  used 
(e.g. face to face, on-line, case study, telephone, written questionnaire); whether the 
survey used any confidential self-completion methodology; whether there was any 
information about response rates; whether the sample characteristics were descri-
bed; whether the survey provided information about who conducted the survey (e.g. 
male/female interviewer), and if the interviewers were specifically trained.

128

APPENDICESTable III.2. Methodological characteristics of surveys

Code

Definition

Method*

Confidential 

Response 
rate

Sample de-
scription

Conducted by**

Training

AT-Survey 2

BE-Survey 1

BG-Survey 1

BG-Survey 5

-

YES

-

-

CY-Survey 1

YES

CY-Survey 2

CY-Survey 3

CZ-Survey 1

CZ-Survey 3

CZ-Survey 4

DE-Survey 4

DK-Survey 2

EE-Survey 1

EE-Survey 2

EE-Survey 3

EE-Survey 4

EE-Survey 5

EE-Survey 6

ES-Survey 1

ES-Survey 2

ES-Survey 3

ES-Survey 4

IT-Survey 1

LT-Survey 1

LT-Survey 2

LU-Survey 1

MT-Survey 1

NL-Survey 1

PL-Survey 1a

PL-Survey 2a

PL-Survey 2b

PL-Survey 3

PL-Survey 4

PL-Survey 8

RO-Survey 1

SE-Survey 1

SE-Survey 2

SI-Survey 1

SI-Survey 3

UK-Survey 4

-

-

YES

-

YES

-

YES

-

YES

-

-

-

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

-

-

-

YES

YES

-

OL

OL & T

OL & WQ

OL & WQ

WQ

WQ

WQ

OL

FF

FF

FF & WQ

FF & OL

OL

FF

OL, T & WQ

FF

FF

OL

FF

FF

FF

OL

FF & T

WQ

FF

WQ

FF

OL & WQ

T

T

FF & WQ

FF

T

T

FF & WQ

WQ

FF

WQ

-

WQ

-

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

-

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

YES

-

-

-

-

YES

-

YES

-

YES

YES

YES

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

YES

-

-

-

41%

-

-

29.24%

-

-

-

-

-

19%/65%

-

44.5%

28%

73%

-

-

34%

-

-

-

-

-

-

41.7%

-

-

70%/72%

-

-

-

50%-80%

-

-

-

40%-50%

-

25%

-

-

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

YES

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

YES

-

-

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

-

-

YES

-

YES

Abbreviations: *FF = Face to face; OL = Online; CS = Case Study; T = Telephone; WQ = Written Questionnaire

** W – W = Women interviewed by Women; SC = Self-Completion

-

-

-

-

SC

SC

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

W - W

YES

-

SC

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

W - W

YES

-

-

-

-

W - W

-

-

W -W

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

W - W

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

YES

-

YES

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

YES

-

-

129

APPENDICESSome surveys provided definitions of the different types of violence. For example, 
in an Estonian survey (EE-Survey 2), sexual violence was defined as “an unwanted 
sexual  activity  towards  a  victim,  such  as  touching  the  intimate  parts  (fumbling), 
coercion  to  sexual  intercourse  (rape).  Sexual  violence  can  occur  in  the  family  or 
outside the home”. In other surveys, the different types of violence were described 
using specific indicators (see Box III.1) or legal definitions (see Box III.2). 

Box III.1. Examples of the definition of violence using specific indicators 

	BE-Survey 1: The concept of violence is described using indicators such as forms and 

acts of violence, severity and relationship with the perpetrator:

-  Verbal  and  emotional  abuse:  insults,  criticism,  contempt  for  actions  and  words; 
control over relationships; attempt to limit contacts with family or friends; refusal 
to talk or discuss; intimidation; mistreatment of children, separation from children 
or threats to do it;

- Economic abuse: appropriation of income or savings;
- Physical abuse: throwing an object, pushing or grabbing brutally; scratching, biting, 
pinching, hair-pulling; slapping, punching or kicking, injuring with an object; armed 
threat, attempted murder or strangulation; preventing access to the home, locking 
in, locking out;

-  Sexual  abuse:  imposing  degrading  or  humiliating  sexual  practices  or  gestures; 

forced sexual touching and (attempted) forced sexual relation.

	CY-Survey 1: Psychological, emotional, physical, social, economic and sexual violence 
are defined by the 33 specific examples of behaviour. Some examples are: pushing, 
shaking, burning, cutting, insulting in the presence of third persons, threat of abandon-
ment, financial deprivation, hitting, threats, object throwing, punching and kicking, slap-
ping, cigarette burning, swearing, use of bad language, death threat, prohibiting talking 
to third persons, prevention of employment, threat to hit, prohibition of communication 
with friends, pet abuse, forced sexual relations, threatening to injure children.

	CZ-Survey  1:  Domestic  violence  consisted  of  16  items  including  various  forms  of 
violent behaviour ranging from economic and psychological violence (such as pre-
venting access to shared money and limiting contact with friends or relatives) to a 
very severe physical or sexual assault using a weapon or threatening the victim with 
the  use  of  guns  or  killing.  Aside  from  physical,  psychological  and  sexual  violence, 
domestic violence included damaging or destroying property (particularly belongings 
cherished by the victim), as well as any harassment or pressure from the aggressor 
against the victim’s will.

	ES-Survey 4: The survey asks about 15 behaviours that fit with the usual typology 
of violence, although new elements (use of new technologies) have been included. 
Physical violence: breaking something of hers, beating her, making her feel scared, 
forcing her to do things she does not want to through threats. Sexual violence: In-
sisting  on  having  a  sexual  relationship  when  she  does  not  want  to.  Psychological 
violence/emotional: telling her that she’s not worth anything, insulting her, telling her 
that he will hurt her if she leaves him, sending her internet or text messages, scaring, 
offending or threatening her, disseminating messages, insults or images of her with-
out her permission. Psychological violence/control: telling her who she can or cannot 
talk  to,  where  she  can  go,  trying  to  prevent  her  from  meeting  friends,  controlling 
everything she does, recording her with a mobile phone or video camera, or taking 
pictures of her without her knowledge.

130

APPENDICESBox III.2. Examples of legal definitions of violence

	PL-Survey 2a: Definition taken from the Blue Card procedure used by the police, cov-
ering physical, psychological and sexual violence. The main characteristics of each 
type of violence are defined. Psychological violence: insulting, threatening, control-
ling, limiting contacts, humiliation, harassment and similar. Physical violence: push-
ing, hitting, twisting hands, kicking, slapping, scratching, causing bleeding, burns etc. 
Sexual violence: forcing sexual intercourse and other unwanted sexual acts.

	PL-Survey  2b:  Based  on  the  legal  concept  of  domestic  violence,  not  necessarily 
against women. According to this definition: domestic violence means all one-off or 
repeated  activities  or  omissions  infringing  the  personal  rights  of  family/household 
members, in particular exposing them to the risk of loss of life or health, infringing 
dignity, bodily inviolability, including sexual, depriving of freedom, damaging physical 
or mental health as well as causing suffering and moral harm.

The most common survey method used was Face-to-Face (12), followed by Written 
Questionnaires  (8),  Online  surveys  (5)  and  Telephone  surveys  (4).  Other  surveys 
combined  two  or  more  methods.  The  experts  informed  us  that  confidential  self-
completion methodology was only used in 17 surveys (see Box III.3).

Box III.3. Examples of confidential self-completion methodology used in surveys

	EE-Survey 1: A letter with information about the study was sent by post to all se-
lected men in the sample. The letter also included a link for access to the electronic 
questionnaire and an individual code. In order to complete the online questionnaire, 
interviewees  had  to  enter  the  individual  code  on  the  website.  The  answers  were 
stored in a separate database so that the answers could not be associated with the 
specific code entered earlier.

	ES-Survey 4: Online surveys were anonymous so that students and teachers could 

answer freely.

	LU-Survey 1: Anonymous questionnaire to be returned through a self-addressed and 
pre-stamped envelope. It was also possible for respondents to be helped by profes-
sionals. In that case measures were also taken to guarantee confidentiality.

	MT-Survey 1: The nationwide quantitative research study adhered to the ethical and 
safety guidelines set down by the World Health Organization for domestic violence 
research. These measures focussed on ensuring confidentiality and privacy, primarily 
through the safety of the survey respondents and the MF&A field research team, to 
improve the quality of the data compiled.

131

APPENDICESInformation on survey response rates was only available in 12 survey questionnai-
res, and ranged from 19% to 80%. It is difficult to make comparisons among the 
response  rates  in  this  review,  as  response  rates  were  not  available  in  28  survey 
questionnaires  and  because  there  were  a  wide  range  of  survey  methods.  Never-
theless, most of the available response rates were over 40%, which is similar, for 
example, to the overall response rate in the FRA survey (2014). Almost no informa-
tion was available about reasons for not participating in the survey. Regarding the 
description of the sample characteristics in the surveys analysed, some provided 
specific information about socio-demographic data such as gender, age, education, 
etc., but in others this information was missing (e.g. in CZ-Survey 4 the survey inclu-
ded women aged 18-70, but no other sample characteristic was provided). In other 
cases, the information about sample characteristics was summarised according to 
its representativeness (e.g. CZ-Survey 1). Additional information about sample cha-
racteristics, such as ethnic minorities or non-nationals, is provided in some surveys, 
but most of them do not provide this type of information. 

Only eight survey questionnaires provided information on who conducted the sur-
vey (e.g. male/female interviewer). Finally, the experts noted that only in five survey 
questionnaires interviewers had received specific training (see Box III.4).

Box III.4. Does the survey provide information about who conducted the survey 
or whether the interviewers were specifically trained? (MT-Survey 1)

	The  interviewers  were  all  women,  carefully  selected  and  employed  to  work  on 
this  research  project.  They  received  specialised  training  on  interview  techniques 
required when conducting primary research “by personal interviews” on sensitive 
issues. Detailed explanations were given of the protocol and field procedures nec-
essary in the interviewing/data collection and input process. During the briefing, 
the research study questionnaire was thoroughly explained in order to ensure that 
field interviewers had fully understood all the various sections. 

Field  interviewer  training  also  covered  gender-based  violence  and  its  effects  on 
women’s  health  and  how  they  responded  to  the  abuse.  Field  interviewers  were 
informed how to react when they came across a case of gender-based violence, 
to respect the respondent’s decisions and choices, and to ensure that the research 
did not lead to the participant suffering further harm. The questionnaire made pro-
visions for ending the interview on a positive note, which emphasised a woman’s 
strengths  and  the  unacceptability  of  violence.  Interviewers  were  also  equipped 
with a list of agencies and shelters assisting and taking in women going through 
this kind of experience, to be given to all participating female respondents, whether 
or not the survey respondent had disclosed problems/violence. Moreover, specific 
ground rules were established for selecting survey respondents, to be strictly ad-
hered to by all interviewers, in order to acquire an appropriate representation of the 
target population. All major towns/villages of each geographic region were covered 
by allocating 1-2 towns/villages to each interviewer. Interviewers were instructed 
to interview only one respondent per household, not more than two respondents 
per street, and not to conduct personal interviews with relatives/friends/colleagues.

132

APPENDICESThe studies 

Very  few  studies  addressing  attitudes  towards  violence  against  women  in  EU 
countries were published in academic journals of high scientific quality in the last 
five years. In the end, 16 studies in 8 countries met the inclusion criteria for this 
review (see Appendix V). 

The  selected  studies  mainly  addressed  intimate  partner  violence.  Eight  of  them 
were quantitative studies, five qualitative, and two used a mixed methodology ap-
proach. Regarding the sample composition in the selected studies, six were drawn 
from the general population (men and women, including adults, young people and 
students), seven were professionals (mainly from the health or legal sectors), one 
was  composed  of  perpetrators,  one  of  female  victims,  and  one  addressed  study 
research into criminal file cases (see Figure III.2).

Figure III.2. Number of studies selected by sample composition

Three studies were conducted in the Czech Republic, one in Denmark, three in Gree-
ce,  four  in  Spain,  one  in  Finland,  one  in  Portugal,  two  in  Slovenia  and  one  in  the 
United Kingdom. In relation to the research questions posed in the selected studies 
(see Appendix V):

•	

•	

•	

Two  of  the  studies  conducted  in  the  Czech  Republic  used  university  student 
samples  to  analyse  the  perception  and  definition  of  sexual  harassment  (CZ-
Study  2;  CZ-Study  3).  The  other,  with  a  sample  of  female  victims,  addressed 
reporting to the police as a response to experiences of intimate partner violence 
(CZ-Study 1); 

The qualitative study conducted in Denmark addressed barriers and attitudes 
towards inquiring about intimate partner violence in primary care (DK-Study 1); 

The three studies conducted in Greece used samples of professionals. The first 
one evaluated the effectiveness of a training program on intimate partner vio-
lence knowledge and detection ability of general practitioners (EL-Study 1). The 
second analysed views of mediation in IPV by public prosecutors (EL-Study 2). 

133

APPENDICESThe third focused on perceived self-efficacy in managing IPV of hospital social 
workers (EL-Study 3);

The qualitative study conducted in Finland identified practices and attitudes of 
health care professionals towards domestic violence (FI-Study 1);

The study conducted in Portugal used a sample of young people to analyse at-
titudes towards dating violence and its socio-demographic correlates (PT-Study 
1); 

•	

•	

•	 Of the two studies carried out in Slovenia, one explored social workers’ personal 
experience and professional responses to intimate partner violence (SI-Study 1). 
The second, a qualitative study, reviewed criminal files to determine the cha-
racteristics of perpetrators (SI-Study 3);

•	

Spain  is  the  country  with  the  highest  number  of  studies  selected  (four).  One 
of them was based on a representative sample of the general population (ES-
Study 1) and examined correlates of victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner 
violence  against  women  among  the  Spanish  general  population.  Another  one 
analysed police attitudes towards policing partner violence against women (ES-
Study 2). A third was based on a sample of adult male IPV perpetrators (ES-
Study 3) and presented an instrument to evaluate perpetrators’ responsibility 
attributions. The last one was based on a community sample (ES-Study 4) and 
studied the role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism on victim bla-
ming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence;

•	

Finally, a qualitative study was conducted in the United Kingdom on a sample 
of young people (UK-Study 2), analysing gender stereotypes and their relation 
to interpersonal violence in heterosexual relationships.

134

APPENDICESAppendix IV. Surveys

Table IV.1. Surveys selected by country: title, year (conducted/published), organisation, 
scope and sample

Year

2012/
2012

2010/
2013

2011/
2013

2012/
2014

2012/
2012

2011/
2011

2012/
2012

2011/
2014

2013/
2013

2011/
2012

Code

Title of the survey

AT-Survey 2

BE-Survey 1

BG-Survey 1

Fourth Women Barom-
eter – Focus on Vio-
lence Against Women

Emotional, physical 
and sexual abuse-The 
experience of women 
and men

Domestic violence in 
Bulgaria. Studies and 
facts

BG-Survey 5 Without violence

CY-Survey 1

CY-Survey 2

CY-Survey 3

CZ-Survey 1

CZ-Survey 3

CZ-Survey 4

DE-Survey 4

Extent, Frequency, Na-
ture and Consequences 
of Domestic Violence 
against Women in 
Cyprus

The detection of violent 
behaviour in the inter-
personal relationships 
of young adults 18-25 
years old in Cyprus

Attitudes on Gender 
Stereotypes and 
Gender-based Violence 
among Young people

Survey on the preva-
lence of domestic 
violence

IKSP_SEXKRIM2011 
(IKSP= Institute of 
Criminology and Social 
Prevention, SEXKRIM = 
sexual criminality)

Intimate Partner Vio-
lence 2013

Report of the govern-
ment on the situation 
of women’s shelters, 
counselling services 
and other offers of 
support for women who 
experienced violence 
and their children

2008-
2009/
2010

Institute for the 
equality of women 
and men

National

Organisation 

Scope

Sample*

Federal Chancellery

National

National Women and men. Age 

1245 women and men. 
Age 15-69. Representa-
tive sample

2073 women and men. 
Age 18-75. General 
population

18+. Representative 
sample

2000 women and men. 
General population

1107 women Age 18-
65+. Representative 
sample

National

1000 women and men. 
Age 18-25. General 
population

National Center 
for Study of Public 
Opinion

IMAGO Association

National

National

Advisory Committee 
for the Prevention & 
Combating of Family 
Violence

National Machinery 
of Women’s Rights, 
Ministry of Justice 
and Public Order

Mediterranean Insti-
tute of Gender Stud-
ies [MIGS]

National

453 women and men. 
Age 15-18. Adolescents 
in five high schools

ProFem (NGO)

National

300 women. Age 18-65. 
Representative sample

Institute of Criminol-
ogy and Social Pre-
vention

National

978 women and men. 
Age 15+. General popu-
lation

National

National

Charles University in 
Prague

Federal Ministry for 
Family Affairs, Senior 
Citizens, Women and 
Young people

1500 women. Age 18-70 
years. General population

1138 representative 
female population (aged 
16-65 years). The study 
also included all spe-
cialised social services 
dealing with violence 
against women (repre-
sentative); local equal 
opportunities officers 
(non-representative); and 
counselling services (non 
representative)

135

APPENDICES 
DK-Survey 2

Dating violence in 
Denmark

2011/
2012

National Institute of 
Public Health

National

EE-Survey 1

EE-Survey 2

The survey on Estonian 
men’s attitudes and 
behaviour: health, edu-
cation, employment, 
migration, and family 
planning

The Survey on Estonian 
population’s aware-
ness of gender-based 
violence and human 
trafficking

2014/
2015

University of Tartu

National

2014/
2014

Ministry of Social 
Affairs

National

EE-Survey 3

Survey on awareness 
of risk behaviour in 
three target groups

2013-
2014/
2014

Police and Boarder 
Guard Board

National

EE-Survey 4

Gender Equality Moni-
toring 2013

2013/
2014

The Ministry of Social 
Affairs

National

EE-Survey 5

Gender-based and do-
mestic violence: Aware-
ness of the possibilities 
of obtaining assistance

2013/
2013

Estonian Women 
Shelters’ Union

National

EE-Survey 6

Attitudes towards 
sexual violence

2014/
2014

Estonian Sexual 
Health Association

National

ES-Survey 1

Macro survey on vio-
lence against women

2011/
2012

Ministry for Equality. 
Centre for Sociologi-
cal Research (CIS).

National

ES-Survey 2

Social perception of 
Gender Based Violence

2012/
2014

Centre for Sociologi-
cal Research

National

ES-Survey 3

ES-Survey 4

Social perception of 
gender based violence 
by Adolescence and 
Young people

Equality and gender 
based violence preven-
tion among adoles-
cents.

2013/
2015

Centre for Sociologi-
cal Research

National

2010/
2010

Ministry for Health, 
Social Services and 
Equality.

National

IT-Survey 1

Violence inside and 
outside the family

2014/
2015

ISTAT

National

2780 women and men. 
Age 16-24. General 
population

2056 men. Age 16 – 55. 
General population

1111; 3 focus groups N 
= 24. Women and men. 
Age 15+.
General population

3850 women and men. 
Age 18-74. General 
population. 3853 stu-
dents. Women and men. 
352 teachers. Represen-
tative samples 

1500 women and men. 
Age 15–74. General 
population; representa-
tive sample

1001 women and men. 
Age 15–74. General 
population; representa-
tive sample

1076 women and men. 
Age 15–74. Internet 
users

7898 women. Age 18+. 
General population. Rep-
resentative sample

2580 women and men. 
Age 18+. General popu-
lation

2457 women and men. 
Age 15-29. General 
population

11020 students of sec-
ondary education (boys 
and girls) Representative 
sample; average age 
17 years; 2727 female 
and male teachers; 254 
school staff

21,000 women. Age 
16-70; 4000 foreign 
women legally resident in 
Italy. Age 16-70. General 
population. Representa-
tive sample

LT-Survey 1

LT-Survey 2

Evaluation of Women 
Victims of Domestic 
Violence Quality of Life, 
Emotional Condition 
and Accessibility of 
Support in Lithuania

Prevalence Study of 
Violence and Abuse 
against Older Women

2012-
2013/
2013

Institute of Hygiene, 
Department of Public 
Health Research

National

89 women experienced 
violence. Age 21-69

2010/
2010

Vytautas Magnus 
University

European

515 elderly women 
experienced violence. 
Age 60+. Representative 
sample

136

APPENDICES2012-
2014/
2015

Public Health Depart-
ment, Luxembourg 
Institute of Health

National

133 women victims; 10 
men victims; 32 men 
perpetrators; 7 women 
perpetrators

2010/
2011

Commission on Do-
mestic Violence Malta

National

1200 women. Represen-
tative sample

LU-Survey 1

MT-Survey 1

Domestic violence in 
the Grand Duchy of 
Luxembourg: studying 
Risk Factors for Tar-
geted prevention

A nationwide research 
study on the preva-
lence of domestic vio-
lence against women 
in Malta and its impact 
on their employment 
prospects 

NL-Survey 1

Emancipation Monitor 
2014

2013/
2014

The Netherlands 
Institute for Social 
Research (SCP) and 
Statistics Netherlands

Research Agency TNS 
OBOP for the Ministry 
of Labour and Social 
Policy

National

2155 men and women. 
Age 16+. General popu-
lation

National

1500 men; N = 1500 
women. Age 18+

2010/
2011

2011/
2012

KRC for the Ministry 
of Labour and Social 
Policy

National

1500 women and men. 
Age 18+. General popu-
lation

2011/
2012

KRC for the Ministry 
of Employment and 
Social Policy

National

2013/
2013

University of Social 
Sciences and Hu-
manities/ Ministry of 
Labour and Social 
Policy

National

119 professionals, se-
lected from the centres 
implementing Ministry 
programmes for per-
petrators of domestic 
violence

545; 96% women. Vic-
tims in specialised do-
mestic violence programs 
(330); members of inter-
disciplinary teams (215)

2014/
2014

WYG PSDB for the 
Ministry of Labour 
and Social Policy

National

3000 women and men. 
General population

2014/
2014

Ipsos for the Ministry 
of Interior

National

2013/
2013

INSCOP Research

National

1000 women and men. 
Age 16+. Representative 
sample

1050 women and men. 
Age 18+. Probabilistic 
sample

PL-Survey 1a

PL-Survey 2a

PL-Survey 2b

PL-Survey 3

PL-Survey 4

PL-Survey 8

RO-Survey 1

Diagnosis of domestic 
violence against wom-
en and men in Poland 
(Part 1 – Nationwide 
survey)

Diagnosis of the per-
petrators of domestic 
violence: Domestic 
violence from the per-
spective of the Polish 
adult population

Nationwide survey of 
professionals imple-
menting corrective 
and educational pro-
grammes for people 
using domestic violence

Evaluation of the local 
system of counteract-
ing domestic violence 
– ways of support 
and severity of post-
traumatic stress dis-
order (PTSD) from the 
perspective of victims 
of violence

Diagnosis of the extent 
and forms of domestic 
violence against adults 
and children, and pro-
viding characteristics 
of victims and perpe-
trators

Domestic violence: 
Prevalence and fre-
quency of reporting

Public opinion barom-
eter “The truth about 
Romania. Domestic 
violence”

SE-Survey 1

Young people, sex and 
internet

2009/
2013

Swedish Agency for 
Young people and 
Civil Society

National

Students in the third year 
of secondary education

SE-Survey 2

Where is the dividing 
line? An investigation 
of attitudes about rape

2008/
2011

Amnesty Interna-
tional in Sweden

National

2626 women and men

137

APPENDICESSI-Survey 1

SI-Survey 3

National survey on 
violence in the private 
sphere and in partner 
relationships

Survey on proceedings 
and the perception of 
dating violence (advi-
sory services of sec-
ondary schools)

2009/
2010

2010/
2010

Institute of Criminol-
ogy at the Faculty of 
Law of the University 
of Ljubljana

Ministry of Labour, 
Family, Social Affairs, 
and Equal Opportu-
nities

National

752 female. Representa-
tive sample

National

Professionals. Advisors at 
high schools

UK-Survey 4

The REaDAPT project 
(Relationship Education 
and Domestic Abuse 
Prevention tuition)

2011-
2012/
2012

University of Man-
chester, University of 
Keele, University of 
London

European 
(England, 
France, 
Spain)

2395 young girls and 
boys (primary and sec-
ondary school)

* As described in the expert survey questionnaire

138

APPENDICESAppendix V. Studies 

Table V.1. Study summaries selected by country: Reference, sample, method and 
type of violence

Code

Reference

Sample

Method

Type of 
Violence*

CZ-Study 1 Podaná, Z. (2010). Reporting to the police as a 

response to intimate partner violence. Socio-
logický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 46, 
453-474.

CZ-Study 2 Vohlídalová, M. (2011). The perception and 

construction of sexual harassment by Czech 
university students. Sociologický časopis/Czech 
Sociological Review, 47, 1119-1147. 

CZ-Study 3 Smetáčková, I. & Pavlík, P. (2011). Sexuálni 
obtěžování na vysokých školách: Teoretické 
vymezení, metodologický přistup, vyzkumné 
výsledky [Sexual harassment at universities: 
theoretical definition, methodological approach, 
research results]. Sociologický časopis/Czech 
Sociological Review, 47, 361-386.

709 female 
victims of IPV

Quantitative

IPV

700 university 
students

Mixed

Non-IPV

832 university 
students

Mixed

Non-IPV

DK-Study 
1

Mørk , T. I., Andersen, P. T., & Taket, A. (2014). 
Barriers among Danish women and general 
practitioners to raising the issue of intimate 
partner violence in general practice: a qualita-
tive study. BMC Women’s Health, 14, 74. 

13 women 
(survivors of 
IPV and with-
out history of 
IPV) + 13 GPs

Qualitative

IPV

EL-Study 1 Papadakaki, M., Petridou, E., Kogevinas, M., & 
Lionis, C. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness 
of an intensive IPV training program offered to 
Greek general practitioners and residents of 
general practice. BMC Medical Education, 13, 
2-11.

EL-Study 2 Wasileski, G. (2015). Prosecutors and use of 
restorative justice in courts: Greek case. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1–24.

EL-Study 3 Papadakaki, M., Kastrinaki, E., Drakaki, R., & 
Chliaoutakis, J. (2013). Managing intimate 
partner violence at the social services depart-
ment of a Greek university hospital. Journal of 
Social Work, 13, 533-549.

ES-Study 
1

ES-Study 
2

Gracia, E. & Tomás, J. M. (2014). Correlates 
of victim-blaming attitudes regarding partner 
violence against women among the Spanish 
general population. Violence Against Women, 
20, 26–41.

Gracia, E., García, F., & Lila, M. (2011). Police 
attitudes towards policing partner violence 
against women: do they correspond to different 
psychosocial profiles? Journal of Interpersonal 
Violence, 26, 189-207.

25 GPs and 15 
residents 

Quantitative

IPV

15 public pros-
ecutors and 
3 facilitators 
of mediation 
process

10 hospital 
social workers 

Qualitative

IPV

Qualitative

IPV

1006 respon-
dents (general 
population)

Quantitative

IPV

378 police of-
ficers

Quantitative

IPV

139

APPENDICESES-Study 
3

ES-Study 
4

FI-Study 1

Lila, M., Oliver, A., Catalá-Miñana, A., Galiana, L., 
& Gracia, E. (2014). The Intimate Partner Vio-
lence Responsibility Attribution Scale (IPVRAS). 
European Journal of Psychology Applied to 
Legal Context, 6, 29-36.

Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F., & Moya, M. (2011). 
Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpe-
trator in domestic violence: the role of beliefs 
in a just world and ambivalent sexism. Spanish 
Journal of Psychology, 14, 195-206.

Husso, M., Virkki, T., Notko, M., Holam, J., & 
Laitila, A. (2012). Making sense of domestic 
violence intervention in professional health 
care. Health and Social Care in the Community, 
20, 347–355.

PT-Study 1 Machado, C., Caridade, S., & Martins, C. (2010). 

SI-Study 1

SI-Study 3

Violence in juvenile dating relationships self-
reported prevalence and attitudes in a Portu-
guese sample. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 
43–52.

Pecnik, N. & Bezensek-Lalic, O. (2011). Does 
social workers’ personal experience with vio-
lence in the family relate to their professional 
responses, and how? European Journal of 
Social Work, 14, 525-544.

Podreka, J. (2014). Intimate partner homicides 
in Slovenia and their gender-specific differ-
ences. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo / 
Ljubljana, 65, 60–73.

423 adult male 
IPV offenders

Quantitative

IPV

485 people 
(general popu-
lation)

30 profession-
als in specialist 
health care 

4667 partici-
pants, aged 13 
to 29 

Quantitative

IPV

Qualitative

IPV

Quantitative

IPV

106 social 
workers

Quantitative

Non-IPV

30 closed 
criminal cases

Qualitative

IPV

UK-Study 
2

McCarry, M. (2010). Becoming a “proper man”: 
young people’s attitudes about interpersonal 
violence and perceptions of gender. Gender and 
Education, 22, 17-30.

77 young 
people aged 15 
to 18

Qualitative

IPV

* IPV = Intimate Partner Violence; Non-IPV = Non-Intimate Partner Violence

140

APPENDICESTable V.2. Content of studies: selection of main results

Study

Research Question

Main Results

CZ-Study 1

Reporting to the police as a 
response to intimate part-
ner violence (IPV)

CZ-Study 2 

Perception and definition of 
sexual harassment

CZ-Study 3

Definition of sexual harass-
ment

	 Distrust of the police proved to be an important factor for 

not reporting to the police (29% of women).

	 The victim’s subjective evaluation of the incident, espe-
cially  her  belief  that  the  incident  was  a  crime,  was  an 
important factor for reporting.

	 Other reasons given by IPV victims for not reporting the 
incident to the police were that they often tried to keep 
the matter private and were likely to express fear of fur-
ther victimisation by the offender or by the police.

	 Controlling  behaviour  by  the  partner  contributes  to  the 

victim’s distrust of the police.

	 Threats and indirect aggression lead to reporting to the 

police. 

	 IPV victims are less reluctant to report to the police if they 
have some kind of direct or indirect evidence of violence 
(e.g.  severe  injuries  were  more  likely  to  be  reported  to 
the police). 

	 Sexual violence in an intimate relationship still seems to 
be  a  taboo  subject.  Severe  sexual  abuse  made  no  dif-
ference  to  reporting  behaviour,  and,  moreover,  sexually 
abused women who did not report the incident were more 
likely  to  fear  that  the  police  would  not  believe  them  or 
would not help them.

	 Distrust  of  the  police  may,  in  some  cases,  also  be  con-
nected to the learned helplessness of abused women.

	 Despite a high percentage of university students (67%) 
encountering some form of sexual harassment (SH) dur-
ing their studies, the students rarely discussed their expe-
rience in terms of SH. 

	 The students saw SH as a remote problem that did not 

relate to them. 

	 SH was perceived as an extreme experience violating all 

regular norms of interpersonal behaviour. 

	 Students have a tendency to see victims of harassment 
as having provoked the behaviour or as being unable to 
defend themselves. 

	 Women,  younger  students,  girls  from  the  country,  and 
weak and naive women were seen as victims of sexual 
harassment.

	 Responsibility for sexual harassment was transferred to 

the victims of harassment. 

	 Students  identified  SH  only  with  explicit  and  physical 

forms of harassment. 

	 Despite a high percentage of university students (78%) 
personally  experiencing  teacher  behaviours  that  can  be 
characterised  as  sexual  harassment  (SH),  only  3%  of 
them said explicitly that they had been sexually harassed. 

	 One  of  the  reasons  for  this  contradiction  was  the  rela-

tively low awareness about SH in Czech society. 

	 A  narrow  definition  of  SH  was  often  preferred  and  the 
gender dimension of the problem was not considered.

	 Students did not label their experiences as SH because of 

their very narrow definition. 

141

APPENDICESDK-Study 1

Barriers and attitudes 
towards inquiry about IPV 
in primary care

EL-Study 1

Effectiveness of a training 
program on IPV knowledge 
and detection ability of 
general practitioners (GPs)

EL-Study 2

Views of mediation in IPV 
by public prosecutors

	 Despite  Danish  women  wanting  general  practitioners  to 
ask  about  violence  in  a  respectful  and  non-judgmental 
manner,  general  practitioners  were  resistant  towards 
such an inquiry.

	 General practitioners would benefit from training regard-
ing  how  to  respond  to  women  who  have  been  exposed 
to IPV.

	 The training program met high acceptance and high prac-

ticality in clinical practice. 

	 The GPs in the intervention group performed better than 
the GPs in the control group on “Perceived preparedness” 
and “Perceived knowledge”.

	 Prosecutors’  experiences,  professional  positions  and 
views  of  mediation  in  adult  cases  of  gendered  violence 
were shaped by their legal training. 

	 Their  perceptions  reflected  their  work  in  an  adversarial 

system. 

	 Their views were complex yet ultimately unreceptive and 

their practices failed the victims of IPV.

	 Three  dominant  themes  emerged:  misperception  of  the 
rationale  for  using  mediation  -  the  artificial  role  of  the 
batterer,  misunderstanding  of  interpersonal  violence 
dynamics,  and  marginalizing  the  battered  victims;  con-
flicting roles and responsibilities of the prosecutor in the 
mediation  process;  consequences  of  mediation  and  the 
fallacy of offender therapy.

EL-Study 3

Perceived self-efficacy in 
managing IPV of hospital 
social workers

	 Lack of training was stressed by social workers as one of 
the main barriers to effective IPV management, contribut-
ing to low perceived self-efficacy. 

ES-Study 1

Victim-blaming attitudes 

ES-Study 2

Police attitudes towards 
policing partner violence 
against women

	 Another issue that emerged from this study was the lack 
of  professional  protocols  for  the  management  of  IPV 
cases.

	 Victim-blaming attitudes were more common among re-
spondents who were older, less educated, and who placed 
themselves at the bottom of the social scale. 

	 Victim-blaming attitudes were higher among respondents 
who thought that IPV against women was common in so-
ciety,  considered  it  more  acceptable,  and  knew  women 
victims of partner violence in their circle of friends and 
family.

	 Two attitudes toward policing partner violence were con-
sidered  -  one  reflecting  a  general  preference  for  condi-
tional law enforcement (depending on the willingness of 
the victim to press charges against the offender) and the 
other  reflecting  a  general  preference  for  unconditional 
law enforcement (regardless of the victim’s willingness to 
press charges against the offender). 

	 Police  officers  who  expressed  a  general  preference  for 
unconditional  law  enforcement  scored  higher  in  other-
oriented empathy, were less sexist, tended to perceive the 
same incidents of partner violence as more serious, and 
felt more personally responsible than the group of police 
officers who expressed a preference for a conditional law 
enforcement approach.

142

APPENDICESES-Study 3

Perpetrators responsibility 
attribution 

ES-Study 4

Victim blaming and exon-
eration of the perpetrator 

FI-Study 1

Making sense of domestic 
violence intervention in 
professional health care

PT-Study 1

Attitudes on dating rela-
tionships

SI-Study 1

Social workers’ personal 
experience and profes-
sional responses

	 Three responsibility attribution factors were identified in 
this instrument responded by IPV perpetrators: responsi-
bility attribution to the legal system, responsibility attri-
bution to the victim, and responsibility attribution to the 
offender personal context. 

	 This measure is linked to satisfaction with the legal sys-
tem, victim-blaming attitudes, alcohol consumption, hos-
tile sexism, stressful life events, social desirability, impul-
sivity and household income.

	 Participants  blamed  the  victim  and  exonerated  the  ag-
gressor more when no cause of the aggression was men-
tioned  than  when  a  cause  was  mentioned  (the  woman 
wanted to separate, to see an old male friend, or simply 
to take a trip with her female friends). Hostile sexism and 
just world beliefs influenced victim blaming and exonera-
tion of the perpetrator.

	 The study identified practices and attitudes of health care 

professionals towards domestic violence. 

	 The obstacles to intervention on domestic violence were 

described as lack of relevant knowledge and know-how.

	 The interviewees did not consider it appropriate to raise 
the topic of violence and deal with the issue within the 
medical  context:  domestic  violence  is  seen  as  a  social 
problem  and  thus  as  belonging  to  the  domain  of  social 
work, psychology or individual psychopathology. 

	 The complex health and social factors involved were re-
defined in terms of the individual victim’s attributes and 
his⁄her responsibility: domestic violence was defined as a 
problem  merely  for  the  individual  and  the  victims  were 
seen as responsible for the situation. 

	 Violence was seen as a cause of many possible psycho-

logical problems and disturbances.

	 The authors concluded that there appeared to be a ten-
dency for health professionals to focus on fixing the in-
juries and consequences of domestic violence while by-
passing violence as the cause of symptoms and injuries.

	 Although not uncommon (dating partner was reported by 
25.4% and abuse of a partner by 30.6%), the attitudinal 
data  revealed  a  general  disapproval  of  the  use  of  vio-
lence. 

	 Support  for  violence  was  higher  among  males,  partici-
pants with lower educational and social status and those 
who had never been involved in a dating relationship. 

	 The  best  predictors  of  violence  were  educational  status 

and attitudes toward partner.

	 Social workers who had personally experienced violence 
from their parents and intimate partners were most re-
luctant to suggest shelter for battered women and chil-
dren, parent counselling, or notification to the police. 

	 The  results  highlighted  the  importance  of  addressing 
the  influence  of  personal  experiences  of  violence  on 
professional  judgments,  through  supervision  and  other 
programs supporting quality in social work with children 
exposed to violence in their families.

143

APPENDICESSI-Study 3

Perpetrators motives in IPV 
murders and attempted 
murders

UK-Study 2

Attitudes on interpersonal 
violence and perceptions of 
gender

	 In  67%  of  cases  of  intimate  partner  murders  and  at-
tempted murders of women, the court concluded that the 
explanation for the perpetrator behaviour was connected 
to his arrogance and jealousy.

	 A review of criminal files showed that, in almost one third 
of cases, the perpetrators mainly murdered or attempted 
to murder women who were seen as rivals or authority, 
and they were blamed for the departure of a partner. 

	 The incidence and prevalence of gendered interpersonal 

violence is not decreasing.

	 Research  with  young  people  revealed  significant  accep-
tance  and  tolerance  of  interpersonal  violence  if  perpe-
trated by men in intimate heterosexual relationships.

	 In  order  to  understand  the  continued  tolerance  of  male 
abuse/violence, it is necessary to appreciate how young 
people conceptualise the role of women and men within 
intimate heterosexual relationships.

144

APPENDICESAppendix VI. Survey 
questions

Box  VI.1.  Survey  items on public perceptions of violence against women as a 
social problem (Chapter 2)

Public awareness of violence against women as a social problem

	BG-Survey 1:

How  do  you  treat  domestic  violence  as  a  social  phenomenon  in  the  Bulgarian 
society? 

	CY-Survey 2:

Level of agreement or disagreement with… (completely agree, agree, somewhat 
agree, disagree, completely disagree;);

-  Couples in Cyprus experience less violent incidents, compared to other coun-

tries

	CZ-Survey 1:

Estimate the extent of violent sexual criminality and rape 

	RO-Survey 1:

Why  do  you  think  that  Romania  is  among  the  EU  countries  with  high  rates  of 
violence against women? (Agree, disagree, don’t know);

-  Domestic violence has always been present in Romania

-  Domestic violence is an issue of public interest

Public definitions of violence against women

	BG-Survey 5:

How do you define sexual violence? (Physical act of rape or attempted rape; Traf-
ficking in women for sexual exploitation); 

Have  you  got  any  experience,  and  if  yes,  can  you  indicate  the  place  of  sexual 
abuse: home, at work, in a public place, other?

	CY-Survey 1:

Which  of  the  following  behaviours  can  be  considered  as  acts  of  violence  by  a 
spouse/partner?: pushing, shaking, hair pulling, hot water burning, etc.

145

APPENDICES	EE-Survey 2:

Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which they agree with the follow-
ing statement (completely agree, partly agree, partly disagree, completely disagree, 
don’t know);

-  Violence in the family/intimate relationship is a crime

-  Is prostitution violence against women?

Do you think it is sexual violence when someone does the following…?

	PL-Survey 4:

Do you agree that…:

-  …rape cannot occur among partners/spouses?

Public acceptability and perceived severity of violence against women

	CY-Survey 3:

It is OK for a boy:

-  … to shout at his girlfriend if she is constantly nagging/arguing

-  … to shout at his girlfriend if she is not treating him with respect

-  … to set limits on how his girlfriend dresses

-  … to set limits on where his girlfriend goes

-  … to push a girl into having sex if she has been flirting with him all night

-  … to spy on his partner’s mobile phone 

-  … to push a girl into having sex if they have been dating

-  … to threaten to leave a partner in order to achieve something you want

-  … to hit his girlfriend if she has been unfaithful

-  … threaten to hit a partner as long as he doesn’t actually hit him/her

-  … to hit his girlfriend if she is constantly nagging/arguing

-  … to push a girl into having sex if he has spent a lot of money on her

-  … to hit his girlfriend if she is not treating him with respect

	CZ-Survey 1:

What particular forms of behaviour have the victims encountered from their inti-
mate partner? (16 items were used) 

	CZ-Survey 4:

The incident…;

-  Taking everything into account, how serious was the incident of partner violence 
you suffered? (Very serious, Somewhat serious, Not very serious, Don’t Know, No 
answer)

-  Did you regard the incident as a crime, wrong but not a crime or something that 
just  happens?  (A  crime,  Wrong  but  not  a  crime,  Just  something  that  happens, 
Don’t Know, No answer)

146

APPENDICES	DK-Survey 2:

Reasons for not reporting the violence to the police:

-  Preferred to forget the violence

-  Not serious enough 

-  Good friends again

-  Did not want the police to be involved

-  Afraid to be perceived as guilty

-  No-one would have believed me

-  Did not believe the police could make any difference

-  Shame and guilt

-  No trust in police

	EE-Survey 4:

Physical punishment of a spouse (cohabitant) is sometimes inevitable 

	ES-Survey 1:

Why you did not report the incident? 

-  I didn’t take it that seriously

	ES-Survey 2 and 3:

I will now read some circumstances and behaviours that can occur in the rela-
tionships between women and men. Tell me if you consider them as something 
Unavoidable, Acceptable in some circumstances or Totally unacceptable;

-  Constant quarrelling 

-  Insulting and despising the partner

-  Controlling a partner’s comings and goings

-  Preventing the partner from seeing family and friends

-  Verbal threatening

-  Pushing and beating when angry

-  Not allowing the partner to work or study

-  Telling the partner what they can or cannot do

-  Denigrating the partner in front of the children

-  Forced sexual relationships

A reason why women do not file a complaint against the perpetrators…

-  They do not consider aggressions as something serious

Tell me to what extent you agree with the following statements: 

-  Some women file false complaints to obtain economic benefits and hurt their 

partners 

-  Some women may keep on tolerating violence for fear of being accused of fil-

ing a false complaint

-  Some women withdraw the complaints filed, but this does not mean that the 

complaints are false

147

APPENDICES	ES-Survey 4:

Do the following behaviours constitute mistreatment of a girl by a boy? (Not at 
all, A bit, Quite, A lot);

-  Telling her that she is not worth anything

-  Contradicting her

-  Making her feel scared

-  Insulting her

-  Breaking something of hers

-  Telling her whom she can or cannot talk to, or where to go

-  Trying to stop her seeing her friends

-  Controlling everything she does

-  Insisting on having a sexual relationship when she does not want to

-  Telling her that he will hurt her if she leaves him

-  Beating her

-  Forcing her to do things she does not want to through threats

-  Recording her with a mobile phone or video camera, or taking pictures of her 

when she does not know

-  Sending her internet or text messages, scaring, offending or threatening her

-  Disseminating messages, insults or images of her without her permission

Not leaving the relationship with the boyfriend after an incident of dating violence;

-  Asking him not to do it again and give him a second chance

	IT-Survey 1:

How severe do they consider the episode they have been victims of?

-  The episode was very serious

-  The episode was quite serious

-  She considers the episode as a crime (an offense)

-  She considers the episode as something wrong but not a crime

-  Only something that happened

- 

	LT-Survey 1:

Why you don’t leave the violent relationship? 

-  My intimate partner promised to change

-  Because of the children

-  I have no financial possibility to leave this household

-  I don’t know

-  I still love my intimate partner

-  It’s a shame for me to divorce

-  I depend on my intimate partner financially

-  I want to stay with my intimate partner

-  I do not think that violence is a reason for the divorce

-  I want to stay together with my partner 

148

APPENDICES	LT-Survey 2:

Reasons for not-reporting/talking about the most serious incident 

-  Did not think anyone would be able to do anything 

-  Thought the incident was too trivial 

-  Did not want anyone to get involved

-  Did not want the perpetrator to go to prison

-  Was ashamed or had feelings of guilt

-  Did not think that anyone would believe me

	MT-Survey 1:

Reasons for not-reporting 

-  …it’s not that important

	PL-Survey 1a:

Insulting a wife/partner by a husband/partner during the quarrel is normal (ac-
ceptable).

	PL-Survey 2a: 

Do you agree that if a husband/partner only hits his wife/partner occasionally, it 
is not violence? 

	PL-Survey 3:

Reasons for not reporting

-  Fear of retribution/revenge by the offender 

-  Feeling of shame 

-  Don’t want to put children under stress 

-  Previous interventions by the police were not effective 

-  It’s not that important

-  Don’t want to see the perpetrator arrested 

-  Other

	PL-Survey 4

Do you agree that…:

-  …the behaviour may be seen as violence only if it leaves scars, wounds/bruises 

on the victim’s body?

-  …insulting a partner during a quarrel is a normal behaviour?

	SE-Survey 2:

It is an extenuating circumstance if the perpetrator was under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs? Having a steady relationship with the women, or having had sex 
before with a woman is an extenuating circumstance 

149

APPENDICES	SI-Survey 3:

A list of behaviours classified in 5 groups (Not violence, Mild violence, Violence, 
Strong violence, Very strong violence). 

-  Insulting, humiliating or offending in public

-   Being jealous of friends 

-  Restricting or prohibiting gatherings with friends 

-    If  the  girlfriend/boyfriend  has  to  continuously  report  what  she/he  is  doing, 

where she/he is going when they are not together 

-  If the boy/girl often gets angry or furious with his girlfriend/her boyfriend

-  Stalking

-  Breaking or throwing things around during an argument 

-  Beating, kicking, pinching, pulling hair, choking, twisting hands

-  Forcing to use alcohol or drug 

-  Blaming their girlfriend/boyfriend for their own problems

-  Threatening a girlfriend/boyfriend to harm their boyfriend/girlfriend or family, 

if she/he leaves him/her

-  Frequently apologizing for the violence by saying ‘I’m sorry, I’ll never do this 

again’

-  Persuading a girlfriend/boyfriend to do things they don’t want to by saying ‘if 

you loved me, you’d do this’

-  Making  decisions  for  a  girlfriend/boyfriend,  such  as  what  she/he  will  wear, 

where she/he will go

-  Forced kissing or sexual intercourse

-  Touching in a sexual way when a girlfriend/boyfriend does not want to

-  Restricting or forbidding contact with the family

-  Remarking that a girlfriend/boyfriend is stupid

-  Remarking that a girlfriend/boyfriend is too fat and telling her /him to go on a 

diet

-  Insisting that a girlfriend/boyfriend arrives at a date exactly on time

-  Checking calls and text messages or reading e-mails of a girlfriend/boyfriend 

without her/his permission

In situations of dating violence;

-  Generally they don’t define events as violence

-  The partner would consider these situation as a mistake and apologise

	UK-Survey 4:

It is OK for a man to hit his wife/partner if he is drunk 

150

APPENDICESBox  VI.2.  Survey  items  on  public  attributions,  explanations  and  justifications 
(Chapter 3)

	CY-Survey 2:

Level of agreement or disagreement with… (completely agree, agree, partly agree, 
disagree, completely disagree);

-  Violence in relationships is more common among young people of low socio-

economic status

-  Violence can sometimes correct certain behaviours

-  Relationship issues only concern the couple

-  Loss of control is to blame for violence in interpersonal relationships

-  Men have the right to control their partner

-  Those who experience violence by their own parents become perpetrators in 

their adult relationships

-  Perpetrators of violence in interpersonal relationships are violent in all relation-

ships

-  Violence is an outburst of anger

	CY-Survey 3:

Some men are violent toward women because…. (1 = Never, 4= Always):

-  …they are jealous

-  …they cannot control their anger

-  …they consider themselves superior to women

-  …of alcohol or drug use

-  …they want to control women

-  …they can’t control their sexual urges

-  …they are physically stronger than women

-  …women provoke them

-  …they misunderstand women

-  …they have mental problems

-  …they were abused as children

-  …they are naturally aggressive

-  …they can’t take no for an answer

-  …no one stops them

-  …they are under stress

-  …women are not patient enough with them

-  …women are not sensitive/tender enough with them

-  …society expects them to

-  …that makes them attractive to women

-  …women like it

-  …it is necessary

151

APPENDICES	CZ-Survey 3:

Do you agree that…? (Agree, Disagree, Don’t Know):

-  The majority of violent sexual crimes perpetrators suffered abuse as a child

-  The  majority  of  violent  sexual  crimes  perpetrators  has  some  form  of  sexual 

deviance

-  Sexual deviance is incurable

-  Perpetrators of serious sexual crimes were prosecuted for similar offenses in 

the past

-  Regardless on the court-ordered treatment (psychiatric, serological), the perpe-

trators will do it again

	DE-Survey 4:

What kept you from going to a counselling service?:

-  It is a private matter, I’m embarrassed

	EE-Survey 2:

Describe a typical perpetrator of domestic violence (Focus Group)

	ES-Survey 2 and 3:

Do  you  agree  completely,  partly  agree,  partly  disagree  or  completely  disagree 
with the following statements? 

-  There are more perpetrators among immigrants

-  Perpetrators are mentally ill

-  Women victims of VAW have a low education level

-  Victims hold on because of their children

-  Their daughters and sons are reasons for women not report the violence

Reasons for gender-based violence: Substance abuse, psychological/mental dis-
order, having suffered physical or sexual abuse, conflicts and separation/divorces, 
religious beliefs and practices, changes in responsibilities assumed now by wom-
en and men within the relationship.

	LT-Survey 2:

Why you don’t leave the violent relationship? 

-  My intimate partner promised to change

-  Because of the children

-  I have no financial possibility to leave this household

-  I don’t know

-  I still love my intimate partner

-  It’s a shame for me to divorce

-  I depend on my intimate partner financially

-  I want to stay with my intimate partner

-  I do not think that violence is a reason for the divorce

-  I want to stay together with my partner 

152

APPENDICES	MT-Survey 1:

Survey respondents were asked to state if they agreed/disagreed with six state-
ments 

-  It is important for a man to show his wife/partner who is the boss

-  It’s a wife’s obligation to have sex with her husband even if she doesn’t feel 

like it

-  A good wife obeys her husband even if she disagrees

-  If a man mistreats his wife, others outside the family should intervene

-  Family problems should only be discussed with people in the family

-  A woman should be able to choose her own friends even if her husband disap-

proves

	NL-Survey 1:

Agreement or disagreement with… 

Sexual Violence:

-  When a woman says no to a sexual overture, she means no

-  A man slapping a woman’s buttocks while passing by is a compliment for the 

women

-  A man in a steady or marital relationship is entitled to have sex with his partner

-  Youngsters and men too often force themselves upon women

Intimate Partner Violence:

-  When a man abuses his wife he should leave the house, not the woman

-  In domestic violence cases the police should respond with reticence

-  In cases of domestic violence: when two people fight they both are to blame

	PL-Survey 1a:

Do you agree that insulting a wife/partner by a husband/partner during the quar-
rel is normal (acceptable)? 

Please select/indicate circumstances that accompanied the occurrence of violence 

-  Alcohol

-  Financial problems

-  Marital problems…

	PL-Survey 2b:

Are circumstances of domestic violence…? 

-  Alcohol

-  Experiencing violence in childhood

-  Experiencing violence from relatives

-  Marital problems…

153

APPENDICES	PL-Survey 3:

Reasons for not reporting 

-  Fear of retribution/revenge by the offender 

-  Feeling of shame 

-  Don’t want to put children under stress 

-  Previous interventions by the police were not effective 

-  It’s not that important

-  Don’t want to see the perpetrator arrested 

-  Other

	PL-Survey 4:

Regarding sexual behaviour, the wife should always agree with her husband 

	RO-Survey 1:

Please express your agreement or disagreement regarding the following state-
ments (Agree, Disagree, Don’t Know): 

-  Domestic violence (among partners) only happens in poor households

-  Domestic violence only happens among uneducated people

-  Being beaten is a divine punishment

-  A man who does not beat his wife doesn’t really love her

-  Women is the property of men

Please express your agreement or disagreement regarding the following state-
ment

-  If a woman has children, even if she is beaten she cannot leave the relationship 

	SI-Survey 1:

How do the victims of violence respond to violence and what are their survival 
strategies? Why do women victims not report violence by partners or non-part-
ners, or do not leave a violent relationship?

154

APPENDICESBox VI.3. Survey items on victim-blaming attitudes (Chapter 4)

	CY-Survey 1:

Reasons for not reporting violence in the family (Yes, No):

-  I thought that I may be to blame

	CY-Survey 2:

Do you agree with the following statements? (Agree, Disagree):

-  Sometimes individuals cause the violence inflicted on them by their own be-

haviour

-  The perpetrator will change behaviour towards his/her partner if he or she be-

comes more obedient

-  Women’s behaviour and clothing provokes violence in the relationship

-  If the partner changes, the violence will stop

	CY-Survey 3:

Some men are violent toward women because:

-  …women provoke them

-  …women are not patient enough with them

-  …women are not sensitive/tender enough with them

It is OK for a boy:
-  … to shout at his girlfriend if she is constantly nagging/arguing
-  … to shout at his girlfriend if she is not treating him with respect
-  … to push a girl into having sex if she has been flirting with him all night
-  … to hit his girlfriend if she has been unfaithful
-  … to hit his girlfriend if she is constantly nagging/arguing
-  … to hit his girlfriend if she is not treating him with respect

	DK-Survey 2:

It is OK for a man to beat his partner in the case of infidelity (Agree, Disagree, 
Neither) 

Reasons for not reporting violence to the police 

-  Preferred to forget the violence

-  Not serious enough 

-  Good friends again

-  Did not want the police to be involved

-  Afraid to be perceived as guilty

-  No-one would have believed me

-  Did not believe the police could make any difference

-  Shame and guilt

-  No trust in police

155

APPENDICES	EE-Survey 1:

To  what  extent  do  you  agree  with  the  following  statements?  (Strongly  agree, 
Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree):

-  Wives could avoid being beaten by their husbands if they knew when to stop 

talking

-  Battered  wives  are  responsible  for  their  abuse  because  they  intended  it  to 

happen

-  Wives try to get beaten by their husbands to get sympathy from others

-  When  a  husband  beats  his  wife,  it  is  caused  by  her  behaviour  in  the  weeks 

before the beating

-  A sexually unfaithful wife deserves to be beaten

	EE-Survey 2:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement (Complete-
ly agree, Partly agree, Don’t know, Partly disagree, Completely disagree): 

-  Often victims of domestic violence are partly to blame for what happened 

-  Women cause their victimisation or rape by their clothing 

	EE-Survey 6:

Please evaluate to what extent you agree with the following statements (Com-
pletely agree, Partly agree, Don’t know, Partly disagree, Completely disagree): 

-  Victims of rape who used alcohol before it took place are partly responsible for 

what happened

-  Victims of rape have a bad reputation

-  Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped

-  A woman who has let herself be kissed and embraced shouldn’t refuse to have 

sex

	ES-Survey 2:

If women suffer violence it is because they allow it to happen (Completely agree, 
Partly agree, Partly disagree, Completely disagree, Don’t know)

	ES-Survey 4:

Please  express  your  agreement  or  disagreement  with  the  following  statement 
(Completely disagree, partly disagree, partly agree, completely agree): 

-  If a women is mistreated by her partner and does not leave him, that means 

that she does not dislike the situation

-  If a women is beaten by her husband, she must have done something to pro-

voke him

-  It is justified for a man to beat his wife or girlfriend if she decides to leave him 

	LU-Survey 1:

According to you, what elements or events triggered the violence?: 

-  Your own behaviour

156

APPENDICES	MT-Survey 1:

Reasons for not reporting 

	PL-Survey 2a:

Do you agree that…:

-  …a wife hit/struck by her husband/partner is very often responsible for his be-

haviour? 

-  …a husband/partner is justified if he hits his wife/partner if she made him an-

gry? 

-  …a husband/partner is justified if he hits his wife/partner if he finds out that 

she has been unfaithful?

	PL-Survey 4:

Do you agree that a perpetrator would cease using violence if he found a partner 
who does not provoke him? 

	RO-Survey 1:

Please express your agreement or disagreement regarding the following state-
ment (Disagree, Agree, I don’t know/I can’t answer): 

-  Women are sometimes beaten because of their own fault 

- 

	SE-Survey 1:

Do you agree?:

-  If a woman is raped when she is drunk, then she is at least partly responsible 

for not being in control

-  Usually it is only women who dress provocatively who are raped 

-  A woman who “teases” men deserves everything that happens

-  When women are raped it is often because they said “no” ambiguously 

-  A woman who dresses in tight clothes should not be surprised if a man tries to 

force her to have sex 

	SE-Survey 2:

Do you think…:

-  … that the women herself is responsible for being raped if she dresses and acts 

“provocatively”?

-  … that the woman herself is responsible if she has flirted and petted with the 

man before the rape? 

-  … the woman herself is responsible for being raped if she is known to have had 

many partners?

-  …that the woman herself is responsible for being raped if she voluntarily fol-

lows a man home for example after a party/restaurant? 

-  …  that  the  woman  herself  is  responsible  for  being  raped  if  she  is  under  the 

influence of alcohol/drugs? 

-  …that the woman herself is responsible for being raped if she does not resist 

bodily or screams?

-  …that the woman herself is responsible for being raped if she had sex with the 

man before? 

157

APPENDICES	SI-Survey 3:

Responses estimated by professors/advisors:

-  They blame themselves

	UK-Survey 4:

It is OK for a man to hit his wife/partner…

-  …if she cheats on him with another man

-  …if he thinks she deserves it 

-  …if she really embarrasses him

Box VI.4. Survey items on public knowledge, attitudes towards intervention and 
responses in cases of violence against women (Chapter 5)

Public knowledge of resources and services for women victims of violence

	AT-Survey 2:

Do you know about the following counselling and support facilities?

-  Women’s shelters

-  White ring

-  24 h. helpline/women’s emergency hotline

-  Women’s counselling facilities

-  Intervention centres/ protection from violence centres

-  Other support facilities

-  Don’t know any

	BE-Survey 1:

Did you know about the services helping violence victims? 

	CY-Survey 1:

Whether the respondents were familiar with the services available for victims of 
domestic violence such as shelter, hotline, legal aid, counselling and support, and 
programs for perpetrators.

	DE-Survey 4:

Assuming that you seek more detailed information on counselling services or other 
services which could help your friend, please put a cross against the two most im-
portant sources of information in the list; 

-  Newspapers/magazines

-  Internet

-  Related person (friends, acquaintances)

-  Counselling services

-  Offices

-  Others (namely)

-  I don’t know a way to find information

158

APPENDICES	EE-Survey 2:

Please indicate all those in the following list to who you know have support services 
available for them:

-  Victims of sexual violence (harassment, rape) 

-  Victims of domestic violence 

-  Children who have witnessed domestic violence 

-  Perpetrators 

-  Victims of forced prostitution 

-  Victims of forced labour 

-  None of them 

-  I don’t know 

Which of the following organisations or programs have you heard about?

-  Estonian Women’s Shelters Union and their hotline 1492

-  NGO  Living  for  Tomorrow  (LFT)  and  their  anti-human-trafficking  helpline  660 

7320 

-  NGO Eluliin [helpline providing psychological counselling and support for victims 

of prostitution] 

-  National victim support service 

-  Employment Inspectorate 

-  Norwegian program for reducing domestic violence and human trafficking 

-  None of them

	EE-Survey 5:

Have you heard about women’s shelters in Estonia?

-  I’ve heard that the shelters exist and I know what kind of help they provide

-  I’ve heard that the shelters exist but I don’t know exactly what kind of help they 

provide

-  I have not heard about women’s shelters, but I would like to know more about 

them 

-  I have heard nothing about women’s shelters, nor do I want to

Have you heard about nationwide hotline 1492 for women victims?

-  I’ve heard that this hotline operates and I know what kind of help it provides

-  I’ve heard that this hotline operates but I don’t know exactly what kind of help 

it provides

-  I have not heard about this hotline but I would like to know more about it

-  I have heard nothing about this hotline, nor do I want to

	EE-Survey 6:

What kind of support services for victims of sexual violence have you heard about?

-  Women’s Shelters

-  Victim support service

-  Medical assistance in the health care institutions

-  Counselling via the internet www.amor.ee

-  Telephone counselling in the hotline 1492

-  None of them

159

APPENDICES	PL-Survey 8:

What institutions provide services for the victims of domestic violence?

-  Police 

-  Social Assistance Centres 

-  Blue Line 

-  NGOs 

-  Other institution/agency 

-  Other person 

-  Don’t know

Public attitudes towards intervention or involvement in cases of violence 
against women

	BG-Survey 1:

If a person from your circle of acquaintances shares with you that she has been a 
victim of domestic violence, who would you advise them to contact?

-  Police 

-  Relatives 

-  Friends 

-  Social service offices 

-  Medical service offices 

-  NGOs 

-  Mass media 

-  Other 

	DE-Survey 4:

Assuming that a friend of yours has been abused by her partner or husband, what 
do you recommend? Where should she go?;

Assuming that a friend of yours is/was raped, groped or sexually abused now or in 
the past, what do you recommend? Where should she go?

-  Police 

-  Doctor

-  Women’s shelter

-  Counselling service for families or women

-  Related persons: friend, colleague, sister, mother

-  Lawyer

-  Therapist

-  Local equal opportunities officers

	EE-Survey 1:

To assess the extent to which they agree with the following statement 

-  A victim of domestic violence is not able to stop a violent relationship by herself

160

APPENDICES	EE-Survey 3:

Participants were asked whether they should intervene if the husband is beating 
his wife in the neighbour’s family (certainly should, partly should, partly should not, 
certainly should not, don’t know)

	EE-Survey 4:

What  do  you  think  of  the  following  statement?  (Completely  agree,  partly  agree, 
partly disagree, completely disagree, don’t know)

-  Witnesses or over-hearers should intervene to stop a violent quarrel in the family

	EE-Survey 5:

Would you recommend your friend or colleague who has experienced violence to go 
to a women’s shelter for advice and assistance? (Definitely yes, Maybe, No, Don’t 
know).

	ES-Survey 1, 2 and 3:

Would you know where to go to file a complaint in a case of mistreatment? (Yes, 
No, Don’t Know) 

If YES: “And specifically, where would you go?” (open question, max 3 answers)

Should you find out about or witness an aggression or mistreatment of a woman 
by a man, what do you think you would do? 

	ES-Survey 4:

What would you do if you became aware that a girl friend of yours has been or is 
being mistreated by the boy she is with?

What would you do if you became aware that a boy friend of yours has mistreated 
or is mistreating the girl he is with?

-  Nothing 

-  I would end my relationship with him

-  I would tell somebody who could punish him

-  I would confront him

	LT-Survey 1:

In the case of domestic violence in the neighbourhood, would you call the police? 
(Yes/No, I don’t know)

What would you do in the case of violence against you?

-  I would seek the support of close relatives 

-  I would call the police

-  I would contact a doctor

-  No answer/I don’t know

161

APPENDICES	PL-Survey 2a:

Do you agree that a witness of domestic violence should react… (Yes/No;):

-  …to prevent jeopardy 

-  …because responding is morally right 

-  …because violence is a crime 

-  …because victims are helpless

Do you agree that a witness of domestic violence should NOT react… 

-  …because it is hard to know who is right 

-  …because responding involves trouble 

-  …because responding might put the victim in a worse position 

-  …because it is a private matter

	PL-Survey 4:

It is not worth or effective to support or help victims of domestic violence because 
they would return to the perpetrators (Yes/No)

	RO-Survey 1:

In your opinion, who do you think should intervene when somebody is beating a 
partner?

-  Police

-  Relatives

-  Neighbours

-  Friends

-  Priest

-  Others

-  Nobody

-  I don’t know 

162

APPENDICESPublic responses to known cases of violence against women 

	EE-Survey 2:

Have you ever overheard, seen or suspected any case of domestic violence?;

If YES: Did you respond to it in any way or do something? (yes, no, don’t know).

If  YES:  What  did  you  do,  how  did  you  respond?  Please  indicate  all  appropriate 
options:

-  I tried to solve the situation

-  I called the police

-  I informed other neighbours, the leader of the apartment association

-  I informed local government officials (e.g. social worker, child protection worker)

-  I talked to the victim/perpetrator, advised them, and tried to help them

-  Some other response

If NOT: What is the main reason why you did not do anything?:

-  I did not know what to do

-  I did not want to respond because the situation was a private matter

-  I was afraid to respond

-  I was a child, a minor

-  The situation resolved itself; somebody else solved the situation

-  Some other reason

-  I don’t know. 

	PL-Survey 8:

Have you reported the incidence of violence? (Yes/No)

Whom/where did you report it to?

-  The police 

-  Social Assistance Centre 

-  Blue Line 

-  NGO 

-  Other institution 

-  Other person

Why did you not report it?

-  Domestic problems should be solved at home 

-  Reporting does not change anything 

-  It is not my business 

-  Being afraid of bureaucracy 

-  Didn’t know where to report

	SI-Survey 1:

Responses/or intentions to response to known cases of violence against women 

d
o

i
:

.

1
0
2
8
3
8
0
4
5
4
3
8

/

D
S
-
0
2
-
1
5
-
9
6
3
-
E
N
-
N