It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) and femicide (intimate partner femicide, IPF), as a worldwide phenomenon, cannot be explained in a simple way. From an ecological point of view, there are individual factors contemplated. In the current studies, we consider personality as an individual factor to clarify what differentiates a non-lethal IPVAW situation from a femicide. Study 1 was designed to investigate the accuracy with which trained interviewers judged the personality of a group of IPVAW perpetrators during an interview. The target sample of study 1 was composed of 293 males who after being interviewed completed a measure of personality assessing the “Big Three” model of personality. The interviewers performed fairly accurate judgements about the personality of the target participants. Study 2 shows the differences in personality, using Eysenck’s personality model, between the IPF and IPVAW perpetrators and their victims. The total sample study 2 was formed of 551 participants distributed among IPF perpetrators, IPVAW perpetrators, and the victims of both groups. Differences in proportions were observed between both groups of perpetrators as well as between each group and their respective victims. With these findings, we propose personality as a femicide risk factor that should be taken into consideration by police officers and other practitioners when receiving an IPVAW report.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details






1 Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Avda. de La Universidad, Forensic Psychology Unit, S/N. Edf. AltamiraElche, Spain (GRID:grid.26811.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0586 4893)
2 Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Avda. de La Universidad, Forensic Psychology Unit, S/N. Edf. AltamiraElche, Spain (GRID:grid.26811.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0586 4893); Catholic University of Murcia, Psychology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Guadalupe de Maciascoque, Murcia, Spain (GRID:grid.10586.3a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2287 8496)
3 Institute for Forensic and Security Sciences (ICFS) of the Autonomous University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria Cantoblanco, C/ Francisco Tomás y Valiente, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.5515.4) (ISNI:0000 0001 1957 8126)
4 University Research Institute of Criminology and Criminal Science, School of Law, University of Valencia, Central Departmental Building/Office 1P03, Valencia, Spain (GRID:grid.5338.d) (ISNI:0000 0001 2173 938X)
5 Secretaría de Estado de Seguridad, Dirección General de Coordinación y Estudios, Madrid, Spain (GRID:grid.5338.d)