How Does Denial, Minimization, Justifying, and Blaming Operate in Intimate Partner Abuse Committed by Men: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Intimate partner abuse (IPA) is widespread, and denial, minimization, justifying, and blaming (DMJB) are common among people who have committed IPA. Views on the function of DMJB in IPA are mixed, often based on the theoretical standpoint of the authors. This systematic review brings together the knowledge of how distorted accounts operate in IPA committed by men. A systematic review of primary research related to DMJB in heterosexual men who have committed to IPA was conducted. In all, 31 papers were found to meet the inclusion criteria (adult, male-to-female abuse, in western culture, peer reviewed and published in English) and were quality appraised. Data were extracted and analyzed using narrative synthesis. The findings indicate the way DMJB operates in this group is complex. It can represent facilitators of abusive behavior, a way to protect the individual's identity and self-esteem, and a tool men use instrumentally to achieve goals. Themes were present within and between studies highlighting the complex function of DMJB. A model representing the hypothesized intertwined function of DMJB for IPA is proposed. The limitations of the review are discussed and implications and recommendations for policy, practice, and future research are proposed.

The Moral Reasoning of Ideology: The Mediating Role of Moral Foundations, Moral Absolutism, and Consistency Norm

Focusing on the ideological and worldview premises of moral reasoning, our study (N = 313) has as a starting point the well-known relationship between morality and distributive justice norms. We examined the serially mediating role of progressiveness on morality, moral absolutism, and consistency norm on the relationship between ideological/worldview perspectives and distributional criteria. Three groups of respondents were formed based on participants' ideological and worldview perceptions and then serial mediation analysis was conducted. The present findings suggest that morality is predicted by ideology and worldview and predicts attitudes toward the norms of equity and welfare chauvinism, through moral absolutism and interpretations of consistency norm, thus confirming our hypothesis. Moderate Passive Individualists emerged as the group who adopts the most progressive and inclusive attitude towards moral evaluations and practices, while Demobilized Collectivists and Neoliberals maintain a more conservative attitude towards issues that are subjected to moral framing. Our findings shed light on the crucial role of consistency norm, which has not received enough attention until now.

Moral foundations of pro-choice and pro-life women

Opinions on abortion are more polarized than opinions on most other moral issues. Why are some people pro-choice and some pro-life? Religious and political preferences play a role here, but pro-choice and pro-life people may also differ in other aspects. In the current preregistered study (N = 479), we investigated how pro-choice women differ in their moral foundations from pro-life women. When the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) was applied (i.e., when declared moral principles were measured), pro-life women scored higher than pro-choice women in loyalty, authority, and purity. However, when women were asked about moral judgments indirectly via more real-life problems from the Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFV), pro-choice women scored higher than pro-life women in emotional and physical care and liberty but lower in loyalty. When we additionally controlled for religious practice and political views, we found no differences between groups in declaring moral foundations (MFQ). However, in the case of real-life moral judgments (MFV), we observed higher care, fairness, and liberty among pro-choice and higher authority and purity among pro-life. Our results show intriguing nuances between women pro-choice and pro-life as we found a different pattern of moral foundations in those groups depending on whether we measured their declared abstract moral principles or moral judgment about real-life situations. We also showed how religious practice and political views might play a role in such differences. We conclude that attitudes to abortion "go beyond" abstract moral principles, and the real-life context matters in moral judgments.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04800-0.

The Mediating Role of Moral Absolutism Between the "Binding Moral Foundations" and Sexist Attitudes: A Path That May Lead to Intimate Partner Violence

The binding foundations (loyalty, authority, and purity) constitute adaptive mechanisms for preserving groups' interests. However, they have also been related to intergroup prejudice and violence. We show that the known relationship between the binding foundations and sexist attitudes is mediated by moral absolutism, a variable that reflects the degree to which people believe that their own definition of morality is objectively correct. Two different samples are used: a conventional one (Study 1, N  =  321), and a forensic one at the beginning (T1) and at the end (T2) of court-mandated psychological therapy (Study 2, N  =  354; N  =  327).

Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta-analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior

Social desirability (SD) scales have been used for decades in psychology and beyond. These scales are sought to measure individuals' tendencies to present themselves overly positive in self-reports, thus allowing to control for SD biases. However, research increasingly questions the validity of SD scales, proposing that SD scales measure substantive trait characteristics rather than response bias. To provide a large-scale empirical test of the validity of SD scales, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 41; N = 8980) on the relation between SD scale scores and prosocial behavior in economic games (where acting in a prosocial manner is highly socially desirable). If SD scales measure what they are supposed to (namely, SD bias), they should be negatively linked to prosocial behavior; if SD scales measure socially desirable traits, they should be positively linked to prosocial behavior. Unlike both possibilities, the meta-analytic correlation between SD scores and prosocial behavior was close to zero, suggesting that SD scales neither clearly measure bias nor substantive traits. This conclusion was also supported by moderation analyses considering differences in the implementation of games and the SD scales used. The results further question the validity of SD scales with the implication that scholars and practitioners should refrain from using them.

How Can Men Convicted of Violence Against Women Feel Moral While Holding Sexist and Violent Attitudes? A Homeostatic Moral Model Based on Self-Deception

A moral model is proposed to understand how men convicted of violence against the partner can feel moral in spite of their past violent behavior and their current violent and sexist attitudes. Because of its appeal to the role of self-deception and its relationship to psychological well-being, it was hypothesized that a rigid conception about what is right and wrong (moral absolutism) is associated with ambivalent outcomes that keep their psychological system in homeostasis. The relationships were specified a priori and tested using path analysis. Several fit indices supported the adequacy of the model and showed that moral absolutism was indirectly related to both psychological well-being and a good moral self-conceptualization through self-deception. At the same time, moral absolutism was related to sexist and violent attitudes and a poor moral self-conceptualization. Future interventions could include strategies to reduce the resistances to change based on the reduction of moral absolutism and self-deception.

The Morality of Men Convicted of Domestic Violence: How It Supports the Maintenance of the Moral Self-Concept

The phenomenon of abuse toward women is a prevalent social problem in most societies. In the present work, we take into consideration the abusive man's point of view with particular reference to the sphere of their morality and set as aims: (a) to show that high levels of self-deception are mediating between an extreme moral worldview, called moral absolutism, and a functional high moral self-concept, (b) to analyze the relation of the five moral foundations (Harm, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority, and Purity) with this moral absolutism, and (c) to test a comprehensive model of the relationships between the individuated variables in the preceding hypotheses. Participants are 264 men convicted of domestic violence offenses, who, having begun court-mandated psychological treatment lasting 12 weeks, have filled out a self-report questionnaire during the second meeting. The results reveal that (a) self-deception is as a full mediator between moral absolutism and moral self-concept in men convicted of domestic violence and in such a way that the more they felt right about their moral beliefs, the more they deceived themselves, and the more they felt good about themselves, (b) the moral foundations could be explaining moral absolutism understood as a rigid moral vision of the world, and (c) the tested model produces satisfying fit indices. Finally, we discuss the applied implications, for example, a key role can be played by the family and the school: Moral socialization begins within the family and there finds the first push that will accompany it the rest of life.