1. Introduction

Dating violence (DV), defined as “any type of intentional aggression by one partner against another” (^{Rubio-Garay et al., 2017}, p. 135), is a public health issue and a violation of human rights (^{Santoro et al., 2018}). Internationally, the systematic review performed by ^{Rubio-Garay et al. (2017)}, based on 113 publications, shows a great variability in the numbers on the prevalence of the victimization. In Chile, the numbers vary between 41% and 85% for psychological violence, and between 16.1% and 37.9% for physical violence (^{Lehrer et al., 2009}; ^{Saldivia & Vizcarra, 2012}; ^{Vivanco et al., 2015}; ^{Vizcarra & Póo, 2011}).

These differences among studies denote a lack of consensus among researchers in conceptualizing and measuring DV, which promotes limitations and controversies on our knowledge of and approach to the phenomenon (F. ^{Rubio-Garay et al., 2015}).

Most of the research on DV frames the violence in the physical, psychological-emotional, and sexual categories. Compared with this, the scientific community has noted deficiencies in the traditional grouping, particularly in the psychological dimension, as it pools dissimilar behaviors (^{Aizpitarte Gorrotxategi & Rojas-Solís, 2019}; F. J. ^{Rodríguez et al., 2017}).

Some authors recommend moving beyond the classic proposal by offering alternative categories such as (1) coercion, which groups behaviors that pressure someone by force of will; (2) humiliation, which refers to criticisms leveled at the persons self-esteem and respect, as behaviors like refusal of support; (3) and detachment, which groups behaviors of indifference and rudeness towards the partner and their feelings (F. J. ^{Rodríguez et al., 2017}). It is added to this difficulty that young people perceive some of these aggressions as normal practices and relative to the context or inherent to conflict resolution. Thus, the works that take the perception about suffering from DV as a reference do not reflect the true extent of the problem. Numerous studies have contributed empirical evidence about young people who do not consider themselves abused despite experiencing violence (^{Cortés-Ayala et al., 2014}; ^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}; ^{Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2012}).

This dissonance between reality and perception is relevant to the search for help: labeling the violent experience is the starting point to end the situation (^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}). ^{Vizcarra and Póo (2011)} determined in their study that more than half of the victimized participants never told anyone. In the study by ^{Lehrer et al. (2009)}, one third of women and 42.7% of men kept the secret. Those that speak out turn to a friend and to an institution as a last resort, but they never did to the police (^{Lehrer et al., 2009}; ^{Vizcarra & Póo, 2011}).

The literature indicates that preconceived notions of masculinity and femininity affect the understanding and perception of DV and the search for help. Female violence is perceived as less harmful and justified. The man as victim is inconceivable due to his position of power and the expectations of his physical and emotional infallibility. When he is recognized as a victim, he is ridiculed, so his search for help is impeded in order to maintain his male identity. As a result, the gender hierarchy has been favored in studies on DV: the tendency to assign the woman the role of victim and the man as the aggressor (^{Aizpitarte Gorrotxategi & Rojas-Solís, 2019}; ^{Ferrer-Pérez & Bosch-Fiol, 2019}; ^{Moreno et al., 2016}; ^{Pereda & Tamarit, 2019}; R. ^{Rodríguez et al., 2018}; ^{Rojas-Solís et al., 2019}; ^{Santoro et al., 2018}; ^{Savage et al., 2016}; ^{Scarduzio et al., 2016}; ^{Walker et al., 2018}; ^{Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019}).

Archer’s metaanalysis by 2000 drives the study of gender symmetry. This approach questions acts of aggression as being linked decisively to one sex and admits the existence of bidirectional violence, without detracting from the evidence on the higher rates of injury suffered by women. Currently, studies report the reciprocity of aggression in young couples. Some studies report that men admit to suffering a greater number of abusive behaviors than women, tolerate more female violence, and ask less for help. Studies with samples of Chilean young people also report this, although there are also studies in which women are more victimized, or there are no differences between sexes (^{Courtain & Glowacz, 2018}; ^{Lehrer et al., 2009}; ^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}; R. ^{Rodríguez et al., 2018}; ^{Rubio-Garay et al., 2017}; ^{Saldivia & Vizcarra, 2012}; ^{Vivanco et al., 2015}; ^{Vizcarra & Póo, 2011}). The results of the systematic review by ^{Rubio-Garay et al. (2017)} suggest a greater prevalence in the psychological and sexual victimization in women, although the women report victimizing their partners more psychologically.

From an ecological point of view, DV is the result of the interaction of risk factors on different levels: individual, close relations, community, and sociocultural. Based on these, explanatory models have been developed, founded on different theoretical approaches. Among them, the perspective of gender stands out, widely endorsed by the scientific community: it lends great weight to the patriarchal mechanisms that define the role of men and women in society, and defends gender as a central category of analysis in the explanation of violence (^{Ferrer-Pérez & Bosch-Fiol, 2019}; ^{Moreno et al., 2016}; ^{Santoro et al., 2018}; ^{Savage et al., 2016}; ^{Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019}). Other authors strongly question this conceptualization, considering it a biased approach that does not encompass the complexity of the phenomenon (^{Archer, 2000}; ^{Arnoso et al., 2017}; ^{Pereda & Tamarit, 2019}). Based on this heated debate, our interest focuses on the attitudes of young people regarding gender roles (GR) and their explanatory weight in DV.

Stereotypical attitudes -an unequal attribute of functions by sex in the public and private spheres, the conflict between the competences assigned to these spheres, and the segregation of functions in the couple- are identified among the factors of greatest relevance to explain violence. However, this variable is accompanied by a list of precipitating, facilitating, and modulating risk factors. Authors recommend analyzing it as a moderating variable of DV, or they report that it only explains DV weakly. Others determine that the stereotypical attitudes are related not only to DV in itself, but also to other related variables (^{Arnoso et al., 2017}; ^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Bringas-Molleda et al., 2017}; ^{García-Cueto et al., 2015}; ^{Ramiro-Sánchez et al., 2018}; ^{F. Rubio-Garay et al., 2015}). Conversely, young people with egalitarian attitudes/transcendent attitudes -assessment of the behavior transcending gender- perceive abusive behaviors more easily and tolerate violence less (^{Baber & Tucker, 2006}; ^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Bringas-Molleda et al., 2017}).

GR are part of cultural baggage and conveyed through their different forms of expression, such as religion, justifying or legitimizing direct or structural violence (^{Galtung, 2016}). ^{Roeser et al. (2008)} describe religious identity as the personal identification with a collective or group, characterized by a particular religious tradition and defined by a common worldview. In Chile, Christian spirituality is strong, because most of the population identifies with Catholic and evangelical groups. According to the traditional archetypes of femininity, these groups espouse values and moral rules on the family, impacting on the beliefs and expectations of gender and dating relationships, as well as promoting the tolerance of violence (^{Alcaino, 2017}; ^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Betancourt & Cartes, 2019}; ^{Jankowski et al., 2018}; ^{King & Boyatzis, 2015}; ^{Nelson, 2009}).

However, it has been estimated that the role of religion can be paradoxical. It also favors moral codes and expectations in favor of happiness, resilience, care of others, and respectful and decent treatment. Studies indicate that young people with less religious identification refer to suffering more types of abuse, and those who have greater intrinsic religiosity are less likely to be victims (^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Fernández-Ríos et al., 2018}; ^{Fernández-Ríos et al., 2015}; ^{King & Boyatzis, 2015}; ^{Tussey & Tyler, 2019}). For their part, ^{Berkel et al. (2004)} establish spirituality as a protective factor for the tolerance of DV, but they also concluded that intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity were not related to this variable.

^{Betancourt and Cartes (2019)} conducted a qualitative study with young Christian Chileans. At discourse level, they identify the Christian religion and the values it promotes as a protective factor. However, they consider that one way to prevent violence is to fulfill the GR valued in the Bible. They also recognize the church as a network of support against violence, while at the same time they admit they would not ask their community for help out of shame and fear of being judged as bad Christians.

According to the information reviewed, we hypothesize that men and women experience similar levels of violence, highlighting psychological violence as the most frequent; low levels of perception of victimization in general, although with men having to suffer a greater number of violent behaviors to be selfidentified as victims; finally, men and women preference for friends and relatives instead of specialized services when seeking help, although female sex is a determining variable to decide seeking help.

Additionally, we expect that the stereotypical attitudes to GR and spirituality will correlate positively, and that in turn these variables will be defined as predictor variables of the three types of behaviors indicated, although with low explanatory weight.

Finally, the aim of this study is to differentially determine by sex, in a sample of Chilean university students, the prevalence of victimization by DV, the selfperception of victimization, and the intention to seek help to end a problematic relationship, as well as to analyze whether the attitudes to GR and Christian spirituality contribute to explaining these variables.

2. Method

3. Results

4. Discussion

In this work, we endeavor to shed light on the complexity of DV by studying victimization by DV in a sample of Chilean university students, considering a broad range of types of violence and adopting the perspective of gender symmetry. We examine the prevalence of the victimization differentiated by sex, self-perception, and intention to seek help to end a problematic relationship, and analyzed the explanatory role of sex, attitudes to GR and identification with Christian groups on these variables.

The results obtained expose DV as a problem present in the sample. This is consistent with the national and international scientific literature, highlighting high numbers for violence by detachment, coercion, and humiliation. DV affects both male and female participants, with the former reporting greater violence by coercion and physical violence (^{Courtain & Glowacz, 2018}; ^{Lehrer et al., 2009}; ^{R. Rodríguez et al., 2018}; ^{Rubio-Garay et al., 2017}; ^{Saldivia & Vizcarra, 2012}; ^{Vivanco et al., 2015}; ^{Vizcarra & Póo, 2011}).

The literature has responded to these incongruities between the sexes on the basis of societies settling into traditional GR. The greater male victimization is attributed to a greater tolerance of female violence (^{Scarduzio et al., 2016}; ^{Walker et al., 2018}). Chilean adolescents identify female DV as reaffirmation of woman and as a tool to demand respect (^{Sanhueza & Geneviève, 2018}). For their part, ^{Courtain and Glowacz (2018)} state that men tolerate any type of violence more, and that female physical and sexual violence as well as male psychological violence are the most tolerated. However, the evidence suggests men and women have similar underlying motivations and factors for violence (^{Walker et al., 2018}). This points to the need to overcome the gender hierarchy and allows for bidirectional and reciprocal violence dynamics (^{Archer, 2000}; ^{Arnoso et al., 2017}; ^{Courtain & Glowacz, 2018}).

These results contrast with the low levels of self-perception as victims. This dissonance is indicative of a deep normalization of violent behaviors, especially the more subtle ones (^{Cortés-Ayala et al., 2014}; ^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}; ^{Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2012}). The literature refers to a tendency to not perceive violence due to a lack of serious injuries (^{Moreno et al., 2016}). However, those participants who perceive themselves as abused suffer any type of violence to a greater extent. Self-perception as a victim does not depend on the type of violence experienced -more or less serious-, but rather on the amount: the participants must experience an average of at least nine different types of violent behaviors to perceive themselves as abused. This number is repeated in similar studies (^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}; ^{Rodríguez-Franco et al., 2012}). It is confirmed in this study sample that friends are the ones preferred when seeking help, with the last being specialized resources. This points to young people not knowing about complaint procedures and the distrust of institutions (^{Lehrer et al., 2009}; ^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}; ^{Vizcarra & Póo, 2011}).

Finally, we analyzed the explanatory role of sex, attitudes to GR, and religion, considering the significant relation between the last variables. This result supports the role of religion as part of the symbolic sphere of culture that promotes and conveys traditional gender-based rules of behavior. The patterns of influence on victimization differ between sexes. This result is to be expected given that GR establish different rules of behavior for men and women, which is why they have a different meaning for each group (^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Betancourt & Cartes, 2019}; ^{Galtung, 2016}; ^{Jankowski et al., 2018}; ^{King & Boyatzis, 2015}; ^{Nelson, 2009}).

Women experience pressure to behave a certain way against their will, such as violence by coercion and emotional punishment; violence by detachment, when they accept the patriarchal rules about gender, stereotypical attitudes, and religion does not occupy an important part in their lives (religious identity and intrinsic religiosity). Stereotypical attitudes are definitely outlined as a risk factor in women (^{Ferrer-Pérez & Bosch-Fiol, 2019}; ^{Moreno et al., 2016}; ^{Santoro et al., 2018}; ^{Savage et al., 2016}; ^{Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019}). Religion has emerged as a protective factor, although this study is not sufficient to explain whether this is because it promotes values about respect, dignity and the care of others, or that it teaches women to behave in a relationship according to these traditional roles: men do not need to resort to violence to modify their behavior (^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Betancourt & Cartes, 2019}; ^{Fernández-Ríos et al., 2018}; Fernández-Ríos et al., 2015; ^{Tussey & Tyler, 2019}).

In addition, a greater distancing from traditional GR -transcendent attitudes- favor that women suffering less direct violence from their partner through humiliations and physical aggressions: transcendent attitudes are a useful tool to reduce tolerance of violence that is more easily labeled as such (^{Baber & Tucker, 2006}; ^{Bringas-Molleda et al., 2017}; ^{Galtung, 2016}).

It is paradoxical that men with Stereotypical Attitudes experience greater coercion, since their gender mandate does not allow them to tolerate female violence. In addition, those who frequently attend religious acts -extrinsic religiosity-, and therefore commonly interact with people who promote and reinforce traditional values, suffer greater violence by humiliation, although greater religious identification is a protective factor. We distinguished two possible explanations: (1) men do not draw attention to the woman as the aggressor, and interpret their aggressions as of little importance; (2) to reveal themselves means to accept their role as victim, so their pattern of masculinity is disrupted. Consequently, they end up tolerating more violence. Finally, an egalitarian view of gender protects them from sexual violence, whereas none of these variables influences violence by detachment or physical violence (^{Arnoso et al., 2017}; ^{Courtain & Glowacz, 2018}; ^{Moreno et al., 2016}; ^{Santoro et al., 2018}; ^{Savage et al., 2016}; ^{Scarduzio et al., 2016}).

Attitudes to GR are discarded as predictor variables of the perception of victimization. On the other hand, those who identify more with Christian spirituality do not perceive the violent behaviors they have experienced as abuse. This result is consistent with studies that attribute greater tolerance of violence to religion, although this tolerance is not unconditional, because the risky influence of religion disappears when victimization levels are elevated (^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{Jankowski et al., 2018}; ^{King & Boyatzis, 2015}; ^{Nelson, 2009}). Conversely, the weight of the variable sex for the group with HLV (31% of the variance) is very worrying: although men suffer the same levels of victimization, being a woman is determinant in self-defining as a victim of abuse. The literature indicates that they tolerate any type of DV more because being a man and a victim disrupts the pattern of masculinity. This leads the man to: (1) minimize female violence, and (2) struggle to reconcile victimization and gender role, evading the (private and public) recognition of the violent experience to avoid humiliation and the judgment of his fellow men (^{Courtain & Glowacz, 2018}; ^{Rojas-Solís et al., 2019}; ^{Savage et al., 2016}; ^{Walker et al., 2018}).

On the other hand, being a woman increases the likelihood that the participants classified with HLV will decide to seek help in general, from family and specialized resources. Again, man as victim does not fit in the pattern of masculinity, which entails little social support. The institutional assistance mechanisms are even oriented towards women -paradoxically reinforcing their traditional view as victims. Consequently, men prefer to keep the secret to avoid being ridiculed. However, the literature indicates that the feelings of shame, fear, and putting their credibility in doubt also paralyzes women (^{Arnoso et al., 2017}; ^{López-Cepero et al., 2015}; F. J. ^{Rodríguez et al., 2017}; R. Rodríguez et al., 2018; ^{Rojas-Solís et al., 2019}; ^{Vizcarra & Póo, 2011}; ^{Walker et al., 2018}).

Despite what has been discussed in the previous paragraphs, we cannot avoid the influence of these variables being restricted to certain types of violence and groups, and that these models, with a few exceptions, explain a smaller percentage of the variance. This leads us to question the weight afforded by the scientific community to patriarchal mechanisms to approach an ecological view of DV (^{Archer, 2000}; ^{Arnoso et al., 2017}; ^{Ferrer-Pérez Bosch-Fiol, 2019}; ^{Pereda & Tamarit, 2019}; ^{Rubio-Garay et al., 2017}; ^{Santoro et al., 2018}; ^{Savage et al., 2016}; ^{Wilchek-Aviad et al., 2019}). However, the literature indicates that the effect of patriarchy also operates from other variables not measured in this study (^{Berkel et al., 2004}; ^{García-Cueto et al., 2015}). The systematic review conducted by ^{Ramiro-Sánchez et al. (2018)} establishes that sexist attitudes are related to a series of variables, such as positive attitudes to violence, risky sexual behaviors or emotional dependency, which (^{F. Rubio-Garay et al., 2015)} identifies as precipitating, facilitating or modulating variables of the aggression suffered in DV. Consequently, we consider the analysis of the indirect and mediating effect of attitudes to GR on DV as well as the effect of patriarchal mechanisms from other related variables a future line of enquiry.

Finally, we conclude that this work is a theoretical contribution to the understanding of DV in Chilean society from gender symmetry, highlighting the impact that traditional GR have not only on woman, but also on male victimization, mens perception of violence, and seeking help. We consider that this is an element to orient DV prevention programs in schools and to encourage institutions to also consider men as possible victims.

Limitations here include the lack of representativeness of the sample, of information on the temporality of the dating relationships, and on the sexual orientation of the participants, as well as the intrinsic limitations to the self-reported measurement systems and the effects of social desirability, which have not been controlled.