Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar 2;15(3):294.
doi: 10.3390/bs15030294.

Religiosity, Sexual Double Standard, and Intimate Partner Coercive Victimization in Dating Relationships: An Explanatory Model and Psychometric Evidence

Alhena L Alfaro-Urquiola  1 , Beatriz Pérez  1   2 , Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Díaz  1 , Francisco Javier Herrero Diez  1
Affiliations

Religiosity, Sexual Double Standard, and Intimate Partner Coercive Victimization in Dating Relationships: An Explanatory Model and Psychometric Evidence

Alhena L Alfaro-Urquiola et al. Behav Sci (Basel). .

Abstract

The literature identifies coercive violence in dating relationships as one of the most prevalent forms of violence and a precursor to more severe types of abuse. While the relationship between the sexual double standard (SDS) and religion with intimate partner violence has been studied, there is a lack of research exploring the direct and indirect influence of religiosity through the promotion of the SDS. This gap is particularly evident when considering measurement invariance by gender, despite these variables being shaped by gender norms. Using a sample of Chilean university students, this study examined the structure and factorial invariance by gender of the Sexual Double Standard Scale (DSS) (N = 909) and the Relationship Control Factor Subscale (RCFS) (N = 855). Additionally, the study analyzed, for each gender, the impact of religiosity on experiences of coercive victimization within relationships, considering the mediating role of the SDS (N = 781). Both instruments revealed different structures by gender, leading to the development of independent models for men (N = 278) and women (N = 500). Religiosity emerged as a risk factor for victimization in both study groups. However, it also exhibited a protective effect specifically for women.

Keywords: coercive victimization; dating violence; factorial invariance by gender; religiosity; sexual double standard.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proposed structural equation model.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Standardized coefficients of the male model with control variables. Rel.ID = Religious Identification; Ext.Rel = Extrinsic Religiosity; Int.Rel = Intrinsic Religiosity; DSS = Double Standard Scale; EFS = Expectations about Female Sexuality; EMS = Expectations about Male Sexuality; RCFS = Relationship Control Factor Subscale; PRS = Perceived Relational Submission; IC = Imposition of the Couple; RRC = Restrictive Relational Control; S.Area = Study Area; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Standardized coefficients of the female model with control variables. Rel.ID = Religious Identification; Ext.Rel = Extrinsic Religiosity; Int.Rel = Intrinsic Religiosity; DSS = Double Standard Scale; SDS = Sexual Double Standard; RCFS = Relationship Control Factor Subscale; PRS = Perceived Relational Submission; IC = Imposition of the Couple; MCSS = Male Coercion in Negotiating Safe Sex; S.Area = Study Area; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Alexander E. F., Backes B. L., Johnson M. D. Evaluating measures of intimate partner violence using consensus-based standards of validity. Trauma Violence, & Abuse. 2022;23(5):1549–1567. doi: 10.1177/15248380211013413. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alfaro-Urquiola A. L., Burgos-Benavides L., Ramírez A., Herrero F. J., Rodríguez-Díaz F. J. Assessing face-to-face dating violence in ibero-america: Systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement instruments. RevLatPsi (in press)
    1. Allsop D. B., Leavitt C. E., Clarke R. W., Driggs S. M., Gurr J. B., Marks L. D., Dollahite D. C. Perspectives from highly religious families on boundaries and rules about sex. Journal of Religion and Health. 2021;60(3):1576–1599. doi: 10.1007/s10943-020-01171-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alonso-Ferres M., Serrano-Montilla C., Valor-Segura I., Expósito F. The Spanish adaptation of the relationship power inventory. Current Psychology. 2023;42(23):19808–19823. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03072-4. - DOI
    1. American Educational Research Association. American Psychological Association. National Council on Measurement in Education Estándares para pruebas educativas y psicológicas. Ventas de publicaciones de AERA. 2014. [(accessed on 28 February 2025)]. Available online: https://www.aera.net/Standards14-Spanish.

LinkOut - more resources