No abstract

Although it is estimated that domestic abuse is as common in gay male and lesbian intimate relationships as in heterosexual relationships, the legal system often fails to recognize or respond to same-gender cases. Empirical research examining the impact of sexual orientation on perceptions of abuse is virtually nonexistent. Undergraduates (N = 252) read a summary of a domestic abuse incident in which victims and perpetrators varied by gender and, by implication, sexual orientation. Victim and respondent gender, rather than the couple's sexual orientation, primarily affected responses to domestic abuse. Domestic abuse perpetrated against women was perceived to be more serious and in need of intervention than abuse against men. Women were more likely than men to believe the victim and to recommend criminal justice system interventions. Because they are inconsistent with gender role stereotypes, domestic abuse cases involving male victims or female perpetrators may not receive equitable treatment within the criminal justice system.

Male and female university students (N = 171) read scenarios describing a domestic abuse incident that systematically varied the sex of victim and perpetrator to produce four between-participants conditions. Results were consistent with and extended previous findings about perceptions of heterosexual domestic abuse to include gay and lesbian domestic abuse. Findings suggest that participant perceptions of abuse in same-sex and heterosexual relationships are similar. Where they differ, the differences have significant implications: (a) participants considered male against female abuse to be more serious than same-sex domestic abuse, (b) participants were more likely to recommend that the victim press charges in male against female abuse than in same-sex domestic abuse, (c) participants perceived same-sex victims to be less believable than heterosexual victims, and (d) victim believability was correlated with sentencing recommendations. Implications for criminal justice and mental health intervention are considered. Directions for future research are outlined.

Background: Ethics committees typically apply the common principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to research proposals but with variable weighting and interpretation. This paper reports a comparison of ethical requirements in an international crosscultural study and discusses their implications.