Love and Order: How legal experts and laypersons assess accountability in Intimate Partner Violence cases

Love and Order: How legal experts and laypersons assess accountability in Intimate Partner Violence cases | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Love and Order: How legal experts and laypersons assess accountability in Intimate Partner Violence cases Kaja Glomb, Martyna Sekulak, Agata Augustyn This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7407431/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the influence of romantic narratives on the perception of intimate partner violence (IPV). A sample of legal professionals (N = 264) evaluated a case in which the offender’s motive was presented as romantic, non-romantic, or unspecified (control condition). Participants assessed IPV legitimization, operationalized as personal and legal accountability of the offender (male) and the victim (female). Contrary to previous findings in a layperson sample, where romantic motivation increased victim-blaming, the present study found no effect of motive on any measure of legitimization. These findings suggest that legal training may mitigate biases associated with cultural narratives and emphasize its potential applicability in domains requiring analytical reasoning and impartial decision-making. Psychology intimate partner violence legal decision-making perception of crime legal training legitimization Introduction Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been consistently identified as a critical health issue, a pervasive violation of fundamental human rights, and a substantial barrier to the achievement of gender equality. Defined as a recurrent pattern of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic abuse perpetrated within the context of an intimate relationship—whether marital, cohabiting, or dating—IPV transcends cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic boundaries (WHO, 2022 ). While extensive international efforts have focused on legal recognition and risk factors, recent years have revealed new dimensions of this globally persistent phenomenon. Empirical evidence indicates a significant decline in the societal acceptance of intimate partner violence over the past two decades. Longitudinal analysis recently published by Bergenfeld et al. ( 2025 ) demonstrates a consistent increase in attitudinal rejection of IPV, particularly among women, whose acceptance rates have declined by an average of 6.80% per year, compared to 3.79% among men. However, these attitudinal shifts are far from uniform across contexts. Reported levels of IPV acceptance vary dramatically—from as low as 2% to over 90%. Notably, in some regions, women have demonstrated higher levels of acceptance than men, both historically and in recent. This pronounced cross-national heterogeneity highlights the limitations of relying solely on aggregated estimates and underscores the need for more granular, context-sensitive analyses. Despite a documented decline in the societal acceptance of IPV, reporting remains low. Fewer than 40% of survivors seek help, and under 10% turn to formal institutions such as the police (United Nations, 2015). This gap stems from intersecting barriers, including fear of retaliation, economic dependence, and stigma. The persistence of underreporting highlights that attitudinal shifts alone are insufficient without parallel systemic reforms—such as enhancing survivors’ economic security, improving access to support services, and rebuilding institutional trust. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a stress test for institutional responses to intimate partner violence, exposing longstanding structural weaknesses and amplifying barriers to support. Lockdowns not only increased survivors’ exposure to abusers but also disrupted access to both formal and informal support systems. In many contexts, IPV services were already under-resourced and quickly became overwhelmed: shelters operated at reduced capacity, health systems deprioritized IPV screening, and courts suspended protective proceedings (Giwa et al., 2025 ). While some countries reported spikes in helpline calls, others—such as Italy and Portugal—saw marked declines in official reports, reflecting not a decrease in violence but heightened barriers to disclosure (Beek et al., 2021 ). Yet, beyond these pandemic-specific disruptions lies a broader, more enduring obstacle: survivors’ distrust in formal institutions. This mistrust is often rooted in the prevailing political and cultural climate, where IPV is minimized, privatized, or ideologically reframed, undermining institutional legitimacy and discouraging help-seeking. Qualitative studies from Spain highlight how stigma among judicial and law-enforcement professionals can deter disclosure (Murvartian et al., 2023 ) while research in rural communities shows that social isolation, fear of reputational harm, and local power dynamics further suppress reporting—even in severe cases (Randa et al., 2023 ). These dynamics are further exacerbated in conservative political environments, which often shape societal perceptions of domestic violence by promoting traditional family roles and reinforcing male authority (Moshtagh et al., 2023 ). In such contexts, domestic violence is frequently reframed as a private or moral issue, rather than a structural or legal concern, while formal interventions are portrayed as ideologically driven or unnecessary (e.g., Wright & Tillyer Skubak, 2017 ). In recent years, such patterns have been observed in Poland —the country in which the present study was conducted. Intimate Partner Violence in Poland Poland represents a particularly informative case for examining the legitimization of intimate partner violence due to its unique socio-political and legal context. Despite ratifying the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention in 2015, Poland’s subsequent political trajectory has been marked by contested commitments to comprehensive IPV prevention and response frameworks (GREVIO, 2021 ). In 2020, the government’s formal request to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention signaled a growing ambivalence towards international standards on gender-based violence, reflecting broader conservative political agendas that emphasize traditional family values and gender roles. This political climate has shaped public and institutional discourses surrounding IPV, often framing it narrowly as “family violence” or a private domestic issue rather than as a manifestation of systemic gender inequality and power imbalance. These discursive patterns are reflected in national statistics, which reveal a significant gender disparity in IPV cases. In 2023, Polish police reported that 55,225 men were identified as perpetrators in domestic violence cases, accounting for 88% of all suspects, while 66% of the victims were women (Policja, 2025 ). This data underscores the gendered nature of the phenomenon and highlights concerns voiced by scholars that Polish public and policy discourses insufficiently address the critical role of gender dynamics in domestic and intimate partner violence (Grzymała, 2024 ; Zielińska-Poćwiardowska & Sosnowska-Buxton, 2023 ). Alongside national statistical data, reports issued by the Supreme Audit Office, highlight substantial systemic deficiencies across multiple levels of Poland’s response to intimate partner violence. These include a shortage of specialized support centers in many municipalities, chronic underfunding of support infrastructure, fragmented inter-agency coordination, and inadequate training for law enforcement and service providers. While legal instruments such as the “Blue Card” 1 procedure, eviction orders for perpetrators, and contact prohibitions are formally enshrined in Polish legislation, their implementation remains inconsistent and insufficient to ensure comprehensive protection for victims (Giryn-Boudy, 2025 ). These structural and institutional gaps raise important questions about how intimate partner violence is perceived, processed, and adjudicated within the Polish legal system. In contexts where legal frameworks are inconsistently enforced, support services are underdeveloped, and public discourse minimizes the role of gender in domestic violence, there is an increased risk that acts of IPV may be tacitly legitimized—even within formal justice institutions. Legitimization of IPV by legal professionals The legitimization of intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to processes by which violent behavior is normalized, excused, or rendered socially and legally acceptable. This may involve minimizing the severity of abuse, shifting blame onto victims, or interpreting violence as a reasonable reaction to provocation or emotional distress (Baldry et al., 2015 , Rollero, 2020 ). Such narratives not only shape public attitudes but may also infiltrate institutional settings, including the legal system. Legal professionals hold considerable influence over how IPV cases are processed, from evidence evaluation to sentencing. In principle, their judgments should reflect impartial legal standards. Yet research suggests that even legal actors are susceptible to implicit biases and prevailing social stereotypes, which can shape their perceptions of victim and perpetrator credibility, intent, and culpability (Tumonis, 2012 ). When IPV is framed as a relational dispute rather than a manifestation of structural gendered violence, it risks being dismissed or inadequately addressed—even within formal justice systems. Victims of IPV often face secondary victimization and negative or indifferent treatment from legal professionals (Rivera et al., 2012 ). In divorce mediation, custody evaluations, and legal proceedings, survivors have reported experiences such as having their abuse minimized, being disbelieved, or being discouraged from seeking protection and restrictions (Bell et al., 2011 ; Laing, 2017 ; Saunders et al., 2013 ). Moreover, in family courts, custody decisions are typically guided by the presumption that a child’s best interests are served by maintaining involvement with both parents (Shepard & Hagemeister, 2013 ). However, this approach can put survivors at risk by requiring continued contact and joint decision-making with their abusers (Khaw et al., 2021 ) An examination of court cases demonstrates that the legitimization of intimate partner violence by legal professionals is also a significant concern. For example, research conducted on behalf of the Center for Women's Rights, a Polish nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting women in crisis, reveals a prevailing belief among law enforcement officials and judges regarding the roots of IPV (Dominiczak et al., 2016 ). The research identified instances where legal professionals attribute domestic violence to the behavior of women. Women are often held accountable for crimes committed against them due to their failure to predict or avoid such situations. This bias undermines the accountability of the actual perpetrators and marginalizes the victim's voice during court proceedings. Romantic narratives on IPV and its legitimization The legitimization of IPV is often attributed to various factors, including individual, social, and cultural influences. One such factor may be stereotypical perceptions of love and, by extension, romantic relationships (Monckton-Smith, 2012 ). In narratives about IPV that reference the perpetrator's alleged feelings for the victim, love is often used to explain difficult-to-control anger in response to rejection. Narratives surrounding romantic love frequently serve to justify violence (Couture et al., 2023 ; Gius & Lalli, 2014 ;), while jealousy and possessiveness are considered evidence of devotion and love, rather than manifestations of violence (Chung, 2005 ; DeShong & Haynes, 2016 ). Integrating romantic themes into IPV narratives can blur the distinction between victim and perpetrator. For instance, in cases of unrequited love, the perpetrator may be assigned victim-like attributes (Herbst & Gez, 2012; Monckton-Smith, 2012 ). At the same time, IPV victims may experience feelings of guilt, shame, or isolation (Murray et al., 2018 ), which is compounded by diminished empathy toward them (Gracia, 2014 ). Victims are also expected to prove their status and worth (Meyer, 2016 ). Empirical evidence indicates that the stereotype of romantic love may contribute to victim-blaming, serve as a justification for offenders (Lelaurain et al., 2021 ) and diminish the perceived severity of violent behavior (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2021 ). This raises a critical question: to what extent does framing violence within a romantic narrative influence the legitimization of IPV? To explore this, we conducted an experimental study (Glomb et al., 2025 ), in which participants read a brief journal-style description of an act of IPV between former partners. The descriptions varied in terms of the stated motive for the violence—romantic (e.g., jealousy), non-romantic (e.g., financial), or no motive provided—while keeping all other details identical, including the nature of the act, the harm inflicted on the victim, and the potential legal consequences for the perpetrator. Our findings indicate that the inclusion of a romantic motive in the narrative influences perceptions of IPV. Specifically, when the act of violence was framed as romantically motivated, participants attributed greater accountability to the victim (compared to non-romantic and no-motive conditions), while simultaneously perceiving the perpetrator as less accountable and deserving of a shorter prison sentence (compared to the no-motive condition). While our previous research has shown that romantic narratives can shape laypersons’ perceptions of IPV, it remains unclear whether legal professionals—who are trained to evaluate cases in more objective manner—are similarly influenced. Current Study – Aims and Hypothesis Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether legal experts, like laypersons, are influenced by the information on the underlying motivations behind the act of the violence in their perceptions of IPV. Specifically, the study examines how the information on romantic motivation affects legal experts' assessments of victim and offender accountability, as well as the anticipated severity and length of punishment, compared to information on crimes with non-romantic or unspecified motives. Furthermore, by comparing these findings with our previous research, the study aims to explore potential similarities and/or differences in the perception of IPV between legal experts and laypersons. Specifically, we seek to determine whether legal experts assess personal and criminal accountability in cases of IPV in the same manner as laypersons, who lack formal legal training. Since this study replicates a previous experiment conducted on a sample of laypersons, we also aimed—exploratorily—to compare how narratives about the motive for violence affect the perception of IPV by legal experts versus non-experts. Specifically, we questioned whether the patterns of legitimization observed in the lay sample differ in a group of legal professionals. There is evidence suggesting that legal experts, like laypersons, may be shaped by stereotypes. Studies on gender ideology in judicial decision-making have shown that judges are affected by litigant gender and their own gender beliefs. In fact, expertise has sometimes been linked to an increase in bias rather than a reduction (Miller, 2019 ). This raises the possibility that legal professionals may be just as susceptible to the influence of romantic narratives in IPV cases as laypersons, despite their professional training. Thus, assuming that legal experts, like laypersons, are prone to legitimizing violence against an intimate partner, we hypothesize that, compared to non-romantic motivation, crimes motivated by romantic love will result in the following observations: [H1] lower perceived accountability of the offender for the violence; [H2] higher perceived accountability of the victim for the violence; [H3] lower anticipated prison sentence for the offender; and [H4] lower perceived severity of the punishment for the offender. [H5] We also expect no differences between legal professionals and laypersons on any of the measures of legitimization. Method Participants A total of 264 participants completed the study. Given the challenging nature of recruiting legal experts for psychological studies, participants were recruited using two methods: online community engagement and organizational collaboration. For online recruitment, we posted study invitations in relevant social media groups to reach legal experts. Additionally, we collaborated with legal organizations and professional associations, requesting them to share our study invitation with their members through their communication channels. This combined approach helped us gather a diverse sample for the study. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 78 years old, with an average age of 36.45 years (SD = 12.67). Their work experience varied from 0 years (students) to 48 years (M = 11.73; SD = 11.77). Study conditions did not differ significantly in terms of age ( F (2, 257) = .523, p = .592) or experience ( F (2, 223) = .926, p = .398). The sample consisted of 54.9% females and 42.4% males, with 4 participants (1.5%) selecting the "other" 2 gender option. The gender distribution did not differ significantly between conditions ( Χ ²(4, 145) = 4.752, p = .314). Table 1 presents job categories provided by participants. Materials and Procedure In this study, we used materials similar to those from our first study on how romantic narratives about crime influence perceptions of violence and their consequences in the case of intimate partner violence (Glomb et al., 2025 ). In the previous experiment, we used a set of three short journalistic pieces: one about a criminal incident and two non-criminal events, namely a sport competition and an archaeological discovery. Participants were instructed to read these pieces and respond to accompanying questions. In this study, however, we decided to omit the non-criminal decoy stories. This decision was influenced by the composition of our sample, which consisted of legal experts. Given their background and experience, the presence of criminal stories might have led them to suspect that we were primarily interested in their opinions about them, considering their expertise in law. Therefore, the decoys would not have served any real purpose. The criminal narratives were drawn from actual cases and involved a central scenario where a man assaulted his former lover. This violent incident included forcibly dragging the woman to a car, inflicting physical harm (a broken arm and multiple superficial wounds), and subsequently releasing her. The narratives were presented in three distinct motive conditions: (1) Romantic (where the attack stemmed from jealousy due to the woman's new relationship), (2) Non-romantic (where the motive was financial frustration related to a denied loan), and (3) a "No Information on motive" condition where the motive for the attack was not provided. After reading, participants answered a set of four questions in a predetermined sequence, designed to measure the legitimization of intimate partner violence. Legitimization was operationalized using two primary measures. First, participants were asked to assess (1) Personal Accountability for the situation described in the article. This involved rating the degree of accountability for both (a) the offender and (b) the victim on a scale from 0–100%. Second, we measured (2) Legal Accountability for the actions. This required participants to estimate (a) the anticipated length of the sentence the offender would face (ranging from six months to five years) and (b) the severity of the punishment they believed the offender should receive (on a scale from 1 – definitely not severe to 7 – definitely severe). The sentencing range was aligned with the current penal code in Poland. The procedure was positively reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Krakow before its application (decision dated 25.05.2023). Results In this study, we investigated whether legal experts' assessments of accountability and consequences of intimate partner violence are influenced by the information on motivation behind the act of violence incorporated into the narrative about IPV. Especially, we aimed to examine whether, consistently with the results from the previous study on laypersons, legal expert would consider the victim to be more accountable and the offender to be less accountable for the IPV when the narrative about the violence is centered on a romantic motive (namely, love from the offender). Therefore, our analytical strategy involved two steps. First, we conducted a between-subjects comparison of the two measures of IPV legitimization to examine whether the inclusion of motive information in the narrative influenced legal experts' perceptions of IPV. Then, we compared the measures obtained in this study (regarding legal experts) with those from our previous experiment (regarding laypersons), which used a similar methodology. Motive for IPV and Perceptions of Personal and Legal Accountability For the analysis of Personal Accountability, we excluded three participants who assessed the victim's accountability as higher than the offender's, suspecting that this might be due to an error. Before analyzing the data, we inspected correlations between the four measurements of legitimization—two per index. Table 2 presents the results. The correlation between components of Personal Accountability (victim and offender accountability) was strong and negative ( r = -0.563, p < .001), while the correlation between components of Legal Accountability (sentence length and severity of the punishment) was moderate and positive ( r = 0.298, p < .001). Given these relationships, a MANOVA was conducted separately for Personal and Legal Accountability to account for the shared variance within each index and avoid inflating Type I error rates (Huberty & Olejnik, 2007 ). MANOVA is particularly useful when dependent variables are correlated because it assesses their combined effect rather than treating them as independent, which aligns with our conceptual distinction between personal and legal judgments. [ Suggested place for Table 2 ] The analysis revealed no significant effect of information about the motive for IPV on perceived Personal Accountability (Wilks’ Lambda = .997, F (4, 520) = 0.21, p = .936). Regarding Legal Accountability, the analysis yielded a significant result for Roy’s Largest Root ( F (2, 255) = 3.43, p = .034), indicating that at least one of the dependent variables (sentence length or punishment severity) was affected by the experimental condition. Further analysis revealed that while punishment severity did not differ between conditions ( F (2, 259) = 0.52, p = .597), sentence length did ( F (2, 255) = 3.32, p = .038), confirming that the observed effect was driven by this specific component. To explore these differences further, we conducted a post-hoc analysis using the Tukey HSD test. The results indicated a significant difference in sentence length between the Romantic and No Information conditions ( p = .029). Specifically, when the narrative involved a romantic motive, the anticipated sentence length (M = 17.42, SD = 10.53) was shorter compared to when no information about the motive was provided (M = 22.12, SD = 14.37). In contrast, no significant differences were found between the Romantic and Non-romantic conditions (p = .591) or between the Non-romantic and No Information conditions (p = .257). Figure 1 illustrates this difference. Additionally, for exploratory purposes, we examined potential differences in the perception of Personal and Legal Accountability estimates across different job categories. Since the study conditions did not significantly impact these measures, we analyzed the sample as a whole. Figure 2 presents the results. As shown, differences between job categories were minimal concerning the perpetrator's accountability and the severity of the punishment. There was also no significant variation in sentence length, as confirmed by a one-way ANOVA ( F (5, 242) = 1.098, p = .362). However, we observed noticeable differences in victim accountability. To explore this further, we conducted a one-way ANOVA, focusing only on practitioners (excluding academics and other, unspecified jobs), as we believe that those actively involved in the judicial process have a distinct mindset and perspective on crime (Ristroph, 2021 ). The analysis revealed significant differences between job categories ( F (3, 207) = 2.844, p = .039), with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test indicating that judges perceived the victim as more accountable for the crime compared to defense attorneys ( p = .047). This was the only significant post-hoc finding. Comparison Between Legal Experts (Current Study) and Laypersons (Previous Study) Next, to compare the legitimization measures between legal experts (current study) and laypersons (previous study), we conducted single-sample t-tests, analyzing each measure separately across conditions. This approach was chosen to ensure a straightforward and interpretable comparison between the two groups while maintaining consistency in the analysis. By testing each measurement independently, we could directly assess how legal experts’ responses differed from those of laypersons without introducing additional complexity from multivariate interactions. This method allows for a clear, targeted examination of differences, making it easier to assess how each specific measure varies between the two groups. As shown in Table 3, which presents key statistics, significant differences were observed between the Romantic and Nonromantic conditions across all measures. [ Suggested place for Table 3 ] A closer examination of the data reveals that when the motive for the violence is provided, legal experts tend to assign less accountability to the victim compared to laypersons. In contrast, they are significantly more stringent in assessing the offender’s accountability. Overall, legal experts anticipated shorter sentences than laypersons, regardless of the study condition, while also perceiving the punishment as less severe. In the control condition (No Information), no significant differences were found between legal experts and laypersons in their assessments of victim and offender accountability. Discussion This study aimed to determine whether legal experts, like laypersons, are influenced by romantic narratives in their assessments of intimate partner violence. We found no evidence suggesting that an offender's claim of romantic motivation for the crime impacts legal experts' assessments of offender and victim accountability. The same holds true for the perceived severity of potential sentences. However, our results revealed that legal experts tend to anticipate shorter sentences when IPV is motivated by romantic love, compared to cases where no motivation is provided. Yet, there was no significant difference in sentence length between Romantic and Non-romantic motivations, nor between Non-romantic and No Information conditions, making these findings somewhat inconclusive. Furthermore, compared to laypersons, legal experts generally viewed victims as less accountable and offenders as more accountable, regardless of the narrative. Experts also anticipated shorter sentences and perceived potential punishments as less severe. Thus, we found no evidence supporting any of our hypotheses. In other words, compared to laypersons, legal experts are not so heavily influenced by the narrative of romantic love in their perception of IPV, thus, they are less prone to downplaying the perpetrator’s accountability and/or blaming the victim. These findings suggest that legal training and experience, potentially, can be considered as a factor mitigating legitimization of IPV and might foster a more objective and fair approach to evaluating cases of intimate partner violence. Thus, these findings align with the observations of Teichman et al., ( 2023 ), suggesting that legal education—at least in some cases—may serve as a safeguard against bias and stereotypical reasoning. Additionally, our findings support the notion that legal professionals are less influenced by their own cultural views (Kahan et al., 2016 ). A possible explanation for this is that legal experts undergo training that emphasizes objectivity, critical thinking, and adherence to legal principles, which may reduce the influence of emotional or culturally embedded narratives about romantic love. While laypersons may be more influenced by societal norms and cultural narratives, which can shape their assessments and introduce biases, legal professionals are trained to prioritize evidence and legal criteria over emotional narratives (Bergman Blix & Minissale, 2022 ), reinforcing a structured and rational approach to decision-making. This emphasis on rationality over emotion is deeply embedded in legal education and professional training. As Calder ( 2021 : 64–65) highlights, “ The prevailing pedagogy in Canadian law schools devalues emotion, the body, the subjective, the personal, the artistic in contrast with reason, the mind, the objective, and the neutral. ” This suggests that legal education not only fosters analytical thinking but also actively discourages emotional engagement, which may explain the differences observed between legal experts and laypersons in their responses to IPV cases. However, it is important to note that our study did not control for the emotions elicited or regulated by participants. Thus, it remains possible that emotional responses were present during the analysis of the narratives but varied in their labeling, intensity, cognitive impact, or the extent to which they influenced decision-making within the studied populations. Shifting from personal to criminal accountability, the factors underlying the shorter sentences anticipated by legal professionals warrant further consideration. Legal practitioners are thought to approach sentencing with specific reference points in mind. Their familiarity with sentencing in other cases constrains their decisions, as they are professionally committed to maintaining proportionality across cases. In contrast, laypersons, lacking such reference points, may find it more challenging to translate normative judgments into legal sentencing decisions. As a result, their decisions can be more easily influenced by irrelevant information (Teichman et al., 2023 ). Thus, our findings align with research suggesting that legal expertise can reduce or even eliminate biases that affect laypersons (Kahan et al., 2016 ) and that relevant knowledge helps mitigate the anchoring effect (Smith et al., 2013 ). The difference between legal professionals and laypersons in terms of sentence length and severity may also, to some extent, be influenced by the legislative landscape of the surveyed country. In Poland, where both studies took place, legal decisions and sentencing rely heavily on the expertise and discretion of trained legal professionals, rather than the collective judgment of a group of citizens. As a result, in this type of legal system, where legal decisions are made solely by judges and not by a jury, the general population may lack familiarity with legal terminology, principles, or sentencing guidelines. Consequently, this can lead to a reduced understanding or consideration of legal factors when individuals are asked to assess accountability or determine appropriate sentences. In countries with judge-only systems, the general population is less exposed to the intricacies of legal reasoning, which may result in lower overall legal literacy and understanding. In contrast, deliberative process of juries may foster civic engagement and enhances citizens' understanding of justice (Goldbach & Hans, 2014 ). This is corroborated by empirical studies and reports focusing on the Polish population. For instance, a report by the Foundation Court Watch Polska suggests that laypeople perceive Polish courts as excessively lenient in sentencing domestic violence perpetrators (Burdziej et al., 2022 ). Notably, 68% of respondents in the study expressed the view that laypeople should actively participate in adjudicating domestic violence cases, collaborating with professional judges in sentencing decisions. The report’s authors propose that greater citizen involvement in the justice system could enhance legal literacy and cultivate a more nuanced understanding of legal principles. Thus, it is plausible that these factors contribute to the consistently higher legitimization measures observed among laypeople compared to legal professionals. However, it is important to note that there is considerable variation in how the accountability of the victim of IPV is perceived when considering a specific job category of a participant. Judges, compared to defense attorneys, tend to hold the victim more accountable. Since no significant correlation was found between age (which may imply more traditional attitudes toward IPV) and this measure (r = .10, p = .873), a potential explanation for this difference could be the distinct role of judges in criminal proceedings. Studies indicate that individuals in the legal profession often approach issues differently based on their specific roles within the justice system. For instance, prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently display distinct decision-making patterns, shaped by their self-selection into opposing roles and the internalization of role-specific attitudes (Berryessa et al., 2023 ). They also appear to hold different normative perspectives—while prosecutors are generally more inclined toward conservative views, defense attorneys tend to adopt more progressive perspectives (Heinz et al., 2005 ). Judges and juries, unlike defense attorneys, must uphold strict objectivity when evaluating cases, considering all possible scenarios, including whether the victim played a role in escalating the crime (Kerrigan, 2014 ). While they also factor in potential appeals and how their rulings align with broader judicial reasoning (Partyk, 2023 ), this may explain why judges in our sample attributed greater accountability to the victim, perceiving her refusal—whether romantic or financial—as potential provocation. Moreover, as report on judicial errors highlights that the most frequent cause of such mistakes is either the absence of adequate evidence or a failure to conduct a thorough investigation of the evidence at hand, this may compel judges to exercise heightened caution, carefully scrutinizing every detail, including the victim’s behavior and the underlying motives behind the crime (Chojniak & Wiśniewski, 2012 ). Our study also revealed that legal experts tend to anticipate longer punishment for IPV when there is no information about the direct motive for the violence. This suggests that, in certain cases, judges may behave similarly to laypersons, whose tendency to impose more severe sentences increases when they have less information about a case (Burdziej et al., 2022 ). The absence of key contextual details may lead to a more critical assessment of the offender’s motive. Thus, we posit that a lack of adequate diagnosis of the perpetrator and insufficient knowledge of the entire case may reduce the likelihood of applying corrective and educational interventions compared to situations where a more detailed profile of the offender and the overall context is available. This inclination toward harsher judgments aligns with findings from other research, which indicate that in some domestic violence cases, judges have sought underlying motives for the perpetrator’s behavior as grounds for dismissing the case due to negligible harm. For instance, in one case, the offender’s jealousy toward the victim was cited as a mitigating factor in the sentencing decision (Nowakowska et al., 2009 ; Zielińska, 2017 ). Limitations and Future Research Although this study provides valuable insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the scenarios used in this study contained far less detail than legal experts typically encounter in real cases. As a result, participants may have felt frustrated when asked to assess an individual’s behavior and determine an appropriate sentence based solely on the limited information provided. Future research could enhance ecological validity by incorporating more detailed case descriptions to better replicate real legal proceedings and yield more nuanced findings. Additionally, the study did not focus on a specific subset of legal professionals. Our sample included judges, defense attorneys, trainees, and academic professionals. A more refined approach to distinguishing between these groups could provide valuable insights, particularly when comparing their responses. Moreover, we did not differentiate trainees based on their intended career paths. Those training to become judges or prosecutors may have distinct perspectives and emphasize different aspects of legal cases compared to those training as defense attorneys. A broader challenge in studying legal professionals is the difficulty of obtaining a truly representative sample. As mentioned earlier, we recruited participants through a widely distributed mailing list and social media groups. To maintain anonymity, we did not collect details about their institutional affiliation, educational background, or specific professional roles. However, different categories of legal professionals—such as national-level prosecutors versus local prosecutors or lawyers working in private firms versus public offices—may hold differing attitudes and approach cases in distinct ways. Conducting detailed comparisons across these subgroups presents significant methodological challenges, which future research should address. Moreover, while we argue that legal education fosters objectivity, the research does not directly test whether training causes reduced bias. Alternative explanations—such as self-selection (i.e., individuals predisposed to analytical thinking choosing legal careers)—remain plausible. Future studies using longitudinal designs could help determine whether legal training actively reduces bias or whether individuals who pursue legal careers already possess these cognitive tendencies. Despite these limitations, our findings highlight the potential role of legal training in fostering objectivity and reducing bias in the assessment of intimate partner violence cases. Compared to laypersons, legal professionals demonstrated greater consistency in evaluating offender accountability and victim blame, regardless of the narrative framing. This suggests that structured legal education and professional experience may serve as safeguards against cognitive biases that can shape public perceptions of IPV. These insights are particularly relevant for judicial training programs, which could incorporate evidence-based approaches to reinforce impartiality in case assessments. Furthermore, our findings underscore the need for public legal education initiatives to address common misconceptions about IPV, as lay perspectives may be influenced by cultural narratives rather than legal reasoning. By enhancing both professional and public understanding of IPV cases, the justice system can work toward more equitable and informed decision-making. These findings highlight the broader value of training that prioritizes critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and evidence-based decision-making. Beyond legal education, similar approaches could be beneficial in disciplines such as law enforcement, psychology, social work, and journalism, where professionals must navigate complex and sensitive issues while minimizing personal biases. By integrating these insights into professional training programs, institutions can enhance impartiality and improve decision-making processes across multiple fields, ensuring that subjective narratives do not unduly influence critical assessments. Declarations Acknowledgements We thank Natalia Michałkiewicz and Aleksandra Koszowska for their tireless work and dedication to the project. Declaration of Conflicting Interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this study. Funding statement The research is part of the project Legitimization of Intimate Partner Violence - Does Love Forgive All? and has been supported by a grant from the Faculty of Management and Social Communication under the Strategic Programme Excellence Initiative at Jagiellonian University. Ethical approval and informed consent statements The procedure was positively reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Kraków before its application (decision dated 25.05.2023). Data availability statement The data supporting this research are available on the Open Science Framework website (https://osf.io/uk3zq/ - Experiment 3) under a CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license. References Baldry AC, Pacilli MG, Pagliaro S (2015) She’s not a person.. She’s just a woman! Infra-humanization and Intimate Partner Violence. J interpers Violence 30(9):1567–1582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540801 Beek K, Brink J, Peters S, Cullen P (2021) Intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Western and Southern European countries. Eur J Public Health 31:1058–1063. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab093 Bell ME, Perez S, Goodman LA, Dutton MA (2011) Battered women’s perceptions of civil and criminal court helpfulness: The role of court outcome and process. Violence Against Women 17(1):71–88 Bergenfeld I, Nguyen V, Wiederkehr K, Hadd AR, Molina EP, Clark CJ, Richardson RA (2025) Global trends in men’s and women’s acceptance of intimate partner violence, 1999–2022: An analysis of population-based survey data from 83 countries. EClinicalMedicine 83:103199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103199 Bergman Blix S, Minissale A (2022) (Dis)passionate law stories: The emotional processes of encoding narratives in court. J Law Soc 49(2):245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12355 Berryessa CM, Dror IE, McCormack CJB (2023) Prosecuting from the bench? Examining sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges. Legal Criminological Psychol 28(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12226 Burdziej S, Branicka Z, Hofman D (2022) Wymiar sprawiedliwości wobec przemocy domowej. Raport z badań empirycznych [The justice system and domestic violence: A report from empirical research]. Court Watch Polska Calder G (2021) Whose body is this? On the role of emotion in teaching and learning law. In S. A. Banders, J. L. Madeira, K. D. Temple, & E. K. White (Eds.), Research Handbook on Law and Emotion (pp. 62–78) Chojniak Ł, Wiśniewski Ł (2012) Przyczyny niesłusznych skazań w Polsce [Causes of wrongful convictions in Poland]. Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju Chung D (2005) Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual relationships. Women’s Stud Int Forum 28(6):445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.09.005 Couture S, Lachapelle M, Fernet M, Hébert M (2023) It’s a feeling that makes you do anything: Youth’ narratives of love and experiences of victimization in their romantic relationships. J Adolesc Res 07435584231190653. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584231190653 DeShong HAF, Haynes T (2016) Intimate partner violence in the Caribbean: State, activist and media responses. Glob Public Health 11(1–2):82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2015.1012529 Dominiczak A, Nowakowska U, Sękowska-Kozłowska K (2016) Stereotypy w sądzie w sprawach dotyczących kobiet [Stereotypes in court in cases involving women]. Centrum Praw Kobiet Giryn-Boudy A (2025) Bezpieczeństwo kobiet w Polsce. Skuteczność działań państwa wobec ofiar przemocy domowej [Women’s Safety in Poland: Effectiveness of State Actions toward Victims of Domestic Violence]. Ius et Securitas, 1 Gius C, Lalli P (2014) I loved her so much, but I killed her. Romantic love as a representational frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in three Italian newspapers. SSACHESS-Journal Communication Stud 7:53–75 Giwa A, Kandemiri M, Tulli-Shah M, Sayadi G, Hurley N, Salami B (2025) Impacts of COVID-19 on Intimate Partner Violence Service Provision. Violence Against Women 31(10):2622–2641. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241257251 Glomb K, Sekulak M, Augustyn A, Michałkiewicz N (2025) Does love forgive all? The role of the romantic love narratives in the legitimization of intimate partner violence. Psychol Crime Law 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2025.2529443 Goldbach TS, Hans VP (2014) Juries, lay judges, and trials. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 2716–2727). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_39 Gracia E (2014) Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans. Bull World Health Organ 92(5):380–381. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.131391 GREVIO (2021) GREVIO’s (Baseline) Evaluation Report on legislative and other measures giving effect to the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) POLAND (5). Secretariat of the monitoring mechanism of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence Council of Europe. Grzymała J (2024) Czy przemoc domowa ma płeć? [Does domestic violence have gender?]. Przegląd Socjologiczny 73(1):171–194. https://doi.org/10.26485/PS/2024/73.1/7 Heinz J, Nelson RL, Sandefur RL, Laumann (2005) Urban lawyers: The new social structure of the bar. University of Chicago Press Herbst & Gez (2012) From Crime of passion to Love does not kill: The murder of Einav Rogel and the role of Na’amat Women’s Organization in the construction of violence against women in Israel. Isr Stud 17(2):129–155. https://doi.org/10.2979/israelstudies.17.2.129 Huberty CJ, Olejnik S (2007) Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis. Wiley Kahan DM, Hoffman D, Evans D, Devins N, Lucci E (2016) Ideology or Situation Sense? An experimental investigation of motivated reasoning and professional judgment. Univ Pa Law Rev 174:349–439 Kerrigan K (2014) Provocation: The fall (and rise) of objectivity. Int J Mental Health Capacity Law 1(14):44. https://doi.org/10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i14.188 Khaw L, Bermea AM, Hardesty JL, Saunders D, Whittaker AM (2021) The System Had Choked Me Too: Abused Mothers’ Perceptions of the Custody Determination Process That Resulted in Negative Custody Outcomes. J interpers Violence 36(9–10):4310–4334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791226 Laing L (2017) Secondary victimization: Domestic violence survivors navigating the family law system. Violence Against Women 23(11):1314–1335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216659942 Lelaurain S, Fonte D, Giger J-C, Guignard S, Lo Monaco G (2021) Legitimizing Intimate Partner Violence: The role of romantic love and the mediating effect of patriarchal ideologies. J interpers Violence 36(13–14):6351–6368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518818427 Meyer S (2016) Still blaming the victim of intimate partner violence? Women’s narratives of victim desistance and redemption when seeking support. Theoretical Criminol 20(1):75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615585399 Miller AL (2019) Expertise fails to attenuate gendered biases in judicial decision-making. Social Psychol Personality Sci 10(2):227–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617741181 Monckton-Smith J (2012) Murder, gender and the media. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137007735 Moshtagh M, Amiri R, Sharafi S, Arab-Zozani M (2023) Intimate Partner Violence in the Middle East Region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse 24(2):613–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211036060 Murray CE, Crowe A, Overstreet NM (2018) Sources and components of stigma experienced by survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. J interpers Violence 33(3):515–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515609565 Murvartian L, Saavedra-Macías FJ, de la Mata ML (2023) Public Stigmatization of Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence by Professionals Working in the Judicial System and Law Enforcement Agencies in Spain. J interpers Violence 38(19–20):10920–10946. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231176798 Nowakowska U, Dominiczak A, Jaworska E, Lorenc E, Dąbrowski S (2009) Prawo i płeć [Gender and Law]. Centrum Praw Kobiet Partyk A (2023) Czy sędziowie mają intuicję? Przyczynek do rozważań o sędziowskich mechanizmach decyzyjnych [Do judges have intuition? A contribution to considerations on judicial decision-making mechanisms]. Oficyna Wydawnicza Humanitas Policja P (2025) Przemoc domowa—Dane od 2023 roku [Domestic Violence—Data from 2023] . Statystyka. https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/wybrane-statystyki/przemoc-domowa/50867,Przemoc-domowa-dane-od-2023-roku.html Randa R, Bostrom SR, Brown W, Reyns BW, Fleming JC (2023) Variations in Victimization: The Relationship between Community Types, Violence against Women and Reporting Behaviors. Social Sci 12(9) Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090471 Ristroph A (2021) The Wages of Criminal Law Exceptionalism. Crim Law Philos 17:5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09613-5 Rivera EA, April ZM, Sullivan CM (2012) Abused mothers’ safety concerns and court mediators’ custody recommendations. J Family Violence 27:321–332. https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9426-4 Rollero C (2020) The social dimensions of Intimate Partner Violence: A qualitative study with male perpetrators. Sex Cult 24(3):749–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09661-z Ruiz-Palomino E, Ballester-Arnal R, Giménez-García C, Gil-Llario MD (2021) Influence of beliefs about romantic love on the justification of abusive behaviors among early adolescents. J Adolesc 92:126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.001 Saunders DG, Tolman RM, Faller KC (2013) Factors associated with child custody evaluators’ recommendations in cases of intimate partner violence. J Fam Psychol 27(3):473–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032164 Shepard MF, Hagemeister AK (2013) Perspectives of rural women: Custody and visitation with abusive ex-partners. Affilia: J Women Social Work 28(2):165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913490469 Smith AR, Windschitl PD, Bruchmann K (2013) Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. Eur J Social Psychol 43(1):97–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1921 Teichman D, Zamir E, Ritov I (2023) Biases in legal decision-making: Comparing prosecutors,defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons. J Empir Legal Stud 20(4):852–894 Tumonis V (2012) Legal realism & judicial decision-making. Urisprudencija = Jurisprudence: Res Papers 19(4):1361–1382 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015) The World’s Women 2015: Trends and Statistics. United Nations WHO (2022) Violence Info – Intimate partner violence . http://apps.who.int/violence-info/intimate-partner-violence Wright E, Tillyer Skubak M (2017) Neighborhoods and Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Direct and Interactive Effects of Social Ties and Collective Efficacy—Emily M. Wright, Marie Skubak Tillyer, 2020 . https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/ 10.1177/0886260517712276?casa_token=BIcaVtrwnGIAAAAA%3AxOZzcT7iNt0FdSM3jPp--L9e0WYhhWpnhtL5vQLLBeVHuLBAHHrWVa8zbcSRrjFUdL6QBsF9dDgP Zielińska E (2017) Mediacja w sprawach karnych o przemoc w rodzinie – skala i efektywność w praktyce polskiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości [Mediation in criminal cases of domestic violence – scale and effectiveness in the practice of the Polish justice system]. Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości Zielińska-Poćwiardowska I, Sosnowska-Buxton P (2023) Przemoc domowa w Polsce: Zaproszenie do podjęcia socjologicznej analizy zjawiska [Domestic Violence in Poland: An Invitation to Sociological Analysis of the Phenomenon]. Studia Socjologiczne. https://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2023.146172 Footnotes "The “Blue Card” procedure ( Procedura Niebieskiej Karty ) is a formal intervention and documentation process in Poland designed to respond to cases of domestic violence. It is initiated by authorized professionals (such as police officers, social workers, teachers, or healthcare staff) when they suspect or confirm violence in the family. It is regulated by The Act of 29 July 2005 on Counteracting Domestic Violence (Ustawa z dnia 29 lipca 2005 r. o przeciwdziałaniu przemocy domowej (t.j. Dz. U. z 2024 r. poz. 1673).) However, one participant in comment section below the ‘Other’ option opted to indicate their gender as “female” and, in a rather colorful manner, reminded us that there are only two genders… Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7407431","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":502496276,"identity":"ad452c0b-0e07-426a-8492-ccafeccd2f42","order_by":0,"name":"Kaja Glomb","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-0385","institution":"Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Krakow","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kaja","middleName":"","lastName":"Glomb","suffix":""},{"id":502496639,"identity":"b0d1832c-0b3d-43cb-97f1-713c3f742764","order_by":1,"name":"Martyna Sekulak","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8934-6160","institution":"Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Krakow","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Martyna","middleName":"","lastName":"Sekulak","suffix":""},{"id":502496640,"identity":"6d88156c-d8a7-4de4-9782-023dd3b13539","order_by":2,"name":"Agata Augustyn","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wrocław Bar Association of Attorneys-at-Law, Wrocław, Poland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Agata","middleName":"","lastName":"Augustyn","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-19 10:21:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7407431/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7407431/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89475527,"identity":"3c96eb37-448e-4fc2-b1f0-acb642c52616","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-20 10:27:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":616252,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7407431/v1/b944e934-7794-4e5c-804f-e48463f255ad.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLove and Order: How legal experts and laypersons assess accountability in Intimate Partner Violence cases\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntimate partner violence (IPV) has been consistently identified as a critical health issue, a pervasive violation of fundamental human rights, and a substantial barrier to the achievement of gender equality. Defined as a recurrent pattern of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic abuse perpetrated within the context of an intimate relationship\u0026mdash;whether marital, cohabiting, or dating\u0026mdash;IPV transcends cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic boundaries (WHO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). While extensive international efforts have focused on legal recognition and risk factors, recent years have revealed new dimensions of this globally persistent phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence indicates a significant decline in the societal acceptance of intimate partner violence over the past two decades. Longitudinal analysis recently published by Bergenfeld et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrates a consistent increase in attitudinal rejection of IPV, particularly among women, whose acceptance rates have declined by an average of 6.80% per year, compared to 3.79% among men. However, these attitudinal shifts are far from uniform across contexts. Reported levels of IPV acceptance vary dramatically\u0026mdash;from as low as 2% to over 90%. Notably, in some regions, women have demonstrated higher levels of acceptance than men, both historically and in recent. This pronounced cross-national heterogeneity highlights the limitations of relying solely on aggregated estimates and underscores the need for more granular, context-sensitive analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite a documented decline in the societal acceptance of IPV, reporting remains low. Fewer than 40% of survivors seek help, and under 10% turn to formal institutions such as the police (United Nations, 2015). This gap stems from intersecting barriers, including fear of retaliation, economic dependence, and stigma. The persistence of underreporting highlights that attitudinal shifts alone are insufficient without parallel systemic reforms\u0026mdash;such as enhancing survivors\u0026rsquo; economic security, improving access to support services, and rebuilding institutional trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe COVID-19 pandemic served as a stress test for institutional responses to intimate partner violence, exposing longstanding structural weaknesses and amplifying barriers to support. Lockdowns not only increased survivors\u0026rsquo; exposure to abusers but also disrupted access to both formal and informal support systems. In many contexts, IPV services were already under-resourced and quickly became overwhelmed: shelters operated at reduced capacity, health systems deprioritized IPV screening, and courts suspended protective proceedings (Giwa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). While some countries reported spikes in helpline calls, others\u0026mdash;such as Italy and Portugal\u0026mdash;saw marked declines in official reports, reflecting not a decrease in violence but heightened barriers to disclosure (Beek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, beyond these pandemic-specific disruptions lies a broader, more enduring obstacle: survivors\u0026rsquo; distrust in formal institutions. This mistrust is often rooted in the prevailing political and cultural climate, where IPV is minimized, privatized, or ideologically reframed, undermining institutional legitimacy and discouraging help-seeking. Qualitative studies from Spain highlight how stigma among judicial and law-enforcement professionals can deter disclosure (Murvartian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) while research in rural communities shows that social isolation, fear of reputational harm, and local power dynamics further suppress reporting\u0026mdash;even in severe cases (Randa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese dynamics are further exacerbated in conservative political environments, which often shape societal perceptions of domestic violence by promoting traditional family roles and reinforcing male authority (Moshtagh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In such contexts, domestic violence is frequently reframed as a private or moral issue, rather than a structural or legal concern, while formal interventions are portrayed as ideologically driven or unnecessary (e.g., Wright \u0026amp; Tillyer Skubak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In recent years, such patterns have been observed in Poland \u0026mdash;the country in which the present study was conducted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIntimate Partner Violence in Poland\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePoland represents a particularly informative case for examining the legitimization of intimate partner violence due to its unique socio-political and legal context. Despite ratifying the Council of Europe\u0026rsquo;s Istanbul Convention in 2015, Poland\u0026rsquo;s subsequent political trajectory has been marked by contested commitments to comprehensive IPV prevention and response frameworks (GREVIO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In 2020, the government\u0026rsquo;s formal request to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention signaled a growing ambivalence towards international standards on gender-based violence, reflecting broader conservative political agendas that emphasize traditional family values and gender roles. This political climate has shaped public and institutional discourses surrounding IPV, often framing it narrowly as \u0026ldquo;family violence\u0026rdquo; or a private domestic issue rather than as a manifestation of systemic gender inequality and power imbalance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese discursive patterns are reflected in national statistics, which reveal a significant gender disparity in IPV cases. In 2023, Polish police reported that 55,225 men were identified as perpetrators in domestic violence cases, accounting for 88% of all suspects, while 66% of the victims were women (Policja, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This data underscores the gendered nature of the phenomenon and highlights concerns voiced by scholars that Polish public and policy discourses insufficiently address the critical role of gender dynamics in domestic and intimate partner violence (Grzymała, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zielińska-Poćwiardowska \u0026amp; Sosnowska-Buxton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlongside national statistical data, reports issued by the Supreme Audit Office, highlight substantial systemic deficiencies across multiple levels of Poland\u0026rsquo;s response to intimate partner violence. These include a shortage of specialized support centers in many municipalities, chronic underfunding of support infrastructure, fragmented inter-agency coordination, and inadequate training for law enforcement and service providers. While legal instruments such as the \u0026ldquo;Blue Card\u0026rdquo;\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e procedure, eviction orders for perpetrators, and contact prohibitions are formally enshrined in Polish legislation, their implementation remains inconsistent and insufficient to ensure comprehensive protection for victims (Giryn-Boudy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese structural and institutional gaps raise important questions about how intimate partner violence is perceived, processed, and adjudicated within the Polish legal system. In contexts where legal frameworks are inconsistently enforced, support services are underdeveloped, and public discourse minimizes the role of gender in domestic violence, there is an increased risk that acts of IPV may be tacitly legitimized\u0026mdash;even within formal justice institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLegitimization of IPV by legal professionals\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The legitimization of intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to processes by which violent behavior is normalized, excused, or rendered socially and legally acceptable. This may involve minimizing the severity of abuse, shifting blame onto victims, or interpreting violence as a reasonable reaction to provocation or emotional distress (Baldry et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, Rollero, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Such narratives not only shape public attitudes but may also infiltrate institutional settings, including the legal system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal professionals hold considerable influence over how IPV cases are processed, from evidence evaluation to sentencing. In principle, their judgments should reflect impartial legal standards. Yet research suggests that even legal actors are susceptible to implicit biases and prevailing social stereotypes, which can shape their perceptions of victim and perpetrator credibility, intent, and culpability (Tumonis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). When IPV is framed as a relational dispute rather than a manifestation of structural gendered violence, it risks being dismissed or inadequately addressed\u0026mdash;even within formal justice systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVictims of IPV often face secondary victimization and negative or indifferent treatment from legal professionals (Rivera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In divorce mediation, custody evaluations, and legal proceedings, survivors have reported experiences such as having their abuse minimized, being disbelieved, or being discouraged from seeking protection and restrictions (Bell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Laing, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Saunders et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, in family courts, custody decisions are typically guided by the presumption that a child\u0026rsquo;s best interests are served by maintaining involvement with both parents (Shepard \u0026amp; Hagemeister, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). However, this approach can put survivors at risk by requiring continued contact and joint decision-making with their abusers (Khaw et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn examination of court cases demonstrates that the legitimization of intimate partner violence by legal professionals is also a significant concern. For example, research conducted on behalf of the Center for Women's Rights, a Polish nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting women in crisis, reveals a prevailing belief among law enforcement officials and judges regarding the roots of IPV (Dominiczak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The research identified instances where legal professionals attribute domestic violence to the behavior of women. Women are often held accountable for crimes committed against them due to their failure to predict or avoid such situations. This bias undermines the accountability of the actual perpetrators and marginalizes the victim's voice during court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRomantic narratives on IPV and its legitimization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe legitimization of IPV is often attributed to various factors, including individual, social, and cultural influences. One such factor may be stereotypical perceptions of love and, by extension, romantic relationships (Monckton-Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In narratives about IPV that reference the perpetrator's alleged feelings for the victim, love is often used to explain difficult-to-control anger in response to rejection. Narratives surrounding romantic love frequently serve to justify violence (Couture et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Gius \u0026amp; Lalli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e;), while jealousy and possessiveness are considered evidence of devotion and love, rather than manifestations of violence (Chung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; DeShong \u0026amp; Haynes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntegrating romantic themes into IPV narratives can blur the distinction between victim and perpetrator. For instance, in cases of unrequited love, the perpetrator may be assigned victim-like attributes (Herbst \u0026amp; Gez, 2012; Monckton-Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, IPV victims may experience feelings of guilt, shame, or isolation (Murray et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), which is compounded by diminished empathy toward them (Gracia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Victims are also expected to prove their status and worth (Meyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence indicates that the stereotype of romantic love may contribute to victim-blaming, serve as a justification for offenders (Lelaurain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and diminish the perceived severity of violent behavior (Ruiz-Palomino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This raises a critical question: to what extent does framing violence within a romantic narrative influence the legitimization of IPV?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore this, we conducted an experimental study (Glomb et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), in which participants read a brief journal-style description of an act of IPV between former partners. The descriptions varied in terms of the stated motive for the violence\u0026mdash;romantic (e.g., jealousy), non-romantic (e.g., financial), or no motive provided\u0026mdash;while keeping all other details identical, including the nature of the act, the harm inflicted on the victim, and the potential legal consequences for the perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings indicate that the inclusion of a romantic motive in the narrative influences perceptions of IPV. Specifically, when the act of violence was framed as romantically motivated, participants attributed greater accountability to the victim (compared to non-romantic and no-motive conditions), while simultaneously perceiving the perpetrator as less accountable and deserving of a shorter prison sentence (compared to the no-motive condition).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile our previous research has shown that romantic narratives can shape laypersons\u0026rsquo; perceptions of IPV, it remains unclear whether legal professionals\u0026mdash;who are trained to evaluate cases in more objective manner\u0026mdash;are similarly influenced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCurrent Study – Aims and Hypothesis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether legal experts, like laypersons, are influenced by the information on the underlying motivations behind the act of the violence in their perceptions of IPV. Specifically, the study examines how the information on romantic motivation affects legal experts' assessments of victim and offender accountability, as well as the anticipated severity and length of punishment, compared to information on crimes with non-romantic or unspecified motives. Furthermore, by comparing these findings with our previous research, the study aims to explore potential similarities and/or differences in the perception of IPV between legal experts and laypersons. Specifically, we seek to determine whether legal experts assess personal and criminal accountability in cases of IPV in the same manner as laypersons, who lack formal legal training.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince this study replicates a previous experiment conducted on a sample of laypersons, we also aimed\u0026mdash;exploratorily\u0026mdash;to compare how narratives about the motive for violence affect the perception of IPV by legal experts versus non-experts. Specifically, we questioned whether the patterns of legitimization observed in the lay sample differ in a group of legal professionals. There is evidence suggesting that legal experts, like laypersons, may be shaped by stereotypes. Studies on gender ideology in judicial decision-making have shown that judges are affected by litigant gender and their own gender beliefs. In fact, expertise has sometimes been linked to an increase in bias rather than a reduction (Miller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This raises the possibility that legal professionals may be just as susceptible to the influence of romantic narratives in IPV cases as laypersons, despite their professional training.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, assuming that legal experts, like laypersons, are prone to legitimizing violence against an intimate partner, we hypothesize that, compared to non-romantic motivation, crimes motivated by romantic love will result in the following observations: [H1] lower perceived accountability of the offender for the violence; [H2] higher perceived accountability of the victim for the violence; [H3] lower anticipated prison sentence for the offender; and [H4] lower perceived severity of the punishment for the offender. [H5] We also expect no differences between legal professionals and laypersons on any of the measures of legitimization.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 264 participants completed the study. Given the challenging nature of recruiting legal experts for psychological studies, participants were recruited using two methods: online community engagement and organizational collaboration. For online recruitment, we posted study invitations in relevant social media groups to reach legal experts. Additionally, we collaborated with legal organizations and professional associations, requesting them to share our study invitation with their members through their communication channels. This combined approach helped us gather a diverse sample for the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants ranged in age from 18 to 78 years old, with an average age of 36.45 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.67). Their work experience varied from 0 years (students) to 48 years (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.73; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.77). Study conditions did not differ significantly in terms of age (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 257)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.523, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.592) or experience (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 223)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.926, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.398). The sample consisted of 54.9% females and 42.4% males, with 4 participants (1.5%) selecting the \"other\"\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e gender option. The gender distribution did not differ significantly between conditions (\u003cem\u003e\u0026Chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2;(4, 145)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.752, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.314). Table\u0026nbsp;1 presents job categories provided by participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMaterials and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we used materials similar to those from our first study on how romantic narratives about crime influence perceptions of violence and their consequences in the case of intimate partner violence (Glomb et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In the previous experiment, we used a set of three short journalistic pieces: one about a criminal incident and two non-criminal events, namely a sport competition and an archaeological discovery. Participants were instructed to read these pieces and respond to accompanying questions. In this study, however, we decided to omit the non-criminal decoy stories. This decision was influenced by the composition of our sample, which consisted of legal experts. Given their background and experience, the presence of criminal stories might have led them to suspect that we were primarily interested in their opinions about them, considering their expertise in law. Therefore, the decoys would not have served any real purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe criminal narratives were drawn from actual cases and involved a central scenario where a man assaulted his former lover. This violent incident included forcibly dragging the woman to a car, inflicting physical harm (a broken arm and multiple superficial wounds), and subsequently releasing her. The narratives were presented in three distinct motive conditions: (1) Romantic (where the attack stemmed from jealousy due to the woman's new relationship), (2) Non-romantic (where the motive was financial frustration related to a denied loan), and (3) a \"No Information on motive\" condition where the motive for the attack was not provided.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter reading, participants answered a set of four questions in a predetermined sequence, designed to measure the legitimization of intimate partner violence. Legitimization was operationalized using two primary measures. First, participants were asked to assess (1) Personal Accountability for the situation described in the article. This involved rating the degree of accountability for both (a) the offender and (b) the victim on a scale from 0\u0026ndash;100%. Second, we measured (2) Legal Accountability for the actions. This required participants to estimate (a) the anticipated length of the sentence the offender would face (ranging from six months to five years) and (b) the severity of the punishment they believed the offender should receive (on a scale from 1 \u0026ndash; definitely not severe to 7 \u0026ndash; definitely severe). The sentencing range was aligned with the current penal code in Poland.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe procedure was positively reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Krakow before its application (decision dated 25.05.2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we investigated whether legal experts' assessments of accountability and consequences of intimate partner violence are influenced by the information on motivation behind the act of violence incorporated into the narrative about IPV. Especially, we aimed to examine whether, consistently with the results from the previous study on laypersons, legal expert would consider the victim to be more accountable and the offender to be less accountable for the IPV when the narrative about the violence is centered on a romantic motive (namely, love from the offender).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, our analytical strategy involved two steps. First, we conducted a between-subjects comparison of the two measures of IPV legitimization to examine whether the inclusion of motive information in the narrative influenced legal experts' perceptions of IPV. Then, we compared the measures obtained in this study (regarding legal experts) with those from our previous experiment (regarding laypersons), which used a similar methodology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMotive for IPV and Perceptions of Personal and Legal Accountability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the analysis of Personal Accountability, we excluded three participants who assessed the victim's accountability as higher than the offender's, suspecting that this might be due to an error.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore analyzing the data, we inspected correlations between the four measurements of legitimization\u0026mdash;two per index. Table\u0026nbsp;2 presents the results. The correlation between components of Personal Accountability (victim and offender accountability) was strong and negative (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = -0.563, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), while the correlation between components of Legal Accountability (sentence length and severity of the punishment) was moderate and positive (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.298, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Given these relationships, a MANOVA was conducted separately for Personal and Legal Accountability to account for the shared variance within each index and avoid inflating Type I error rates (Huberty \u0026amp; Olejnik, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). MANOVA is particularly useful when dependent variables are correlated because it assesses their combined effect rather than treating them as independent, which aligns with our conceptual distinction between personal and legal judgments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cem\u003eSuggested place for Table\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/em\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed no significant effect of information about the motive for IPV on perceived Personal Accountability (Wilks\u0026rsquo; Lambda\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.997, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 520)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.936). Regarding Legal Accountability, the analysis yielded a significant result for Roy\u0026rsquo;s Largest Root (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 255)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.034), indicating that at least one of the dependent variables (sentence length or punishment severity) was affected by the experimental condition. Further analysis revealed that while punishment severity did not differ between conditions (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 259)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.597), sentence length did (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 255)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.038), confirming that the observed effect was driven by this specific component.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explore these differences further, we conducted a post-hoc analysis using the Tukey HSD test. The results indicated a significant difference in sentence length between the Romantic and No Information conditions (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.029). Specifically, when the narrative involved a romantic motive, the anticipated sentence length (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.42, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.53) was shorter compared to when no information about the motive was provided (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22.12, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.37). In contrast, no significant differences were found between the Romantic and Non-romantic conditions (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.591) or between the Non-romantic and No Information conditions (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.257). Figure\u0026nbsp;1 illustrates this difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, for exploratory purposes, we examined potential differences in the perception of Personal and Legal Accountability estimates across different job categories. Since the study conditions did not significantly impact these measures, we analyzed the sample as a whole. Figure\u0026nbsp;2 presents the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown, differences between job categories were minimal concerning the perpetrator's accountability and the severity of the punishment. There was also no significant variation in sentence length, as confirmed by a one-way ANOVA (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(5, 242)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.098, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.362). However, we observed noticeable differences in victim accountability. To explore this further, we conducted a one-way ANOVA, focusing only on practitioners (excluding academics and other, unspecified jobs), as we believe that those actively involved in the judicial process have a distinct mindset and perspective on crime (Ristroph, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The analysis revealed significant differences between job categories (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 207)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.844, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.039), with Tukey's HSD post-hoc test indicating that judges perceived the victim as more accountable for the crime compared to defense attorneys (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.047). This was the only significant post-hoc finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eComparison Between Legal Experts (Current Study) and Laypersons (Previous Study)\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNext, to compare the legitimization measures between legal experts (current study) and laypersons (previous study), we conducted single-sample t-tests, analyzing each measure separately across conditions. This approach was chosen to ensure a straightforward and interpretable comparison between the two groups while maintaining consistency in the analysis. By testing each measurement independently, we could directly assess how legal experts\u0026rsquo; responses differed from those of laypersons without introducing additional complexity from multivariate interactions. This method allows for a clear, targeted examination of differences, making it easier to assess how each specific measure varies between the two groups. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;3, which presents key statistics, significant differences were observed between the Romantic and Nonromantic conditions across all measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003cem\u003eSuggested place for Table\u0026nbsp;3\u003c/em\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA closer examination of the data reveals that when the motive for the violence is provided, legal experts tend to assign less accountability to the victim compared to laypersons. In contrast, they are significantly more stringent in assessing the offender\u0026rsquo;s accountability. Overall, legal experts anticipated shorter sentences than laypersons, regardless of the study condition, while also perceiving the punishment as less severe. In the control condition (No Information), no significant differences were found between legal experts and laypersons in their assessments of victim and offender accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to determine whether legal experts, like laypersons, are influenced by romantic narratives in their assessments of intimate partner violence. We found no evidence suggesting that an offender's claim of romantic motivation for the crime impacts legal experts' assessments of offender and victim accountability. The same holds true for the perceived severity of potential sentences. However, our results revealed that legal experts tend to anticipate shorter sentences when IPV is motivated by romantic love, compared to cases where no motivation is provided. Yet, there was no significant difference in sentence length between Romantic and Non-romantic motivations, nor between Non-romantic and No Information conditions, making these findings somewhat inconclusive. Furthermore, compared to laypersons, legal experts generally viewed victims as less accountable and offenders as more accountable, regardless of the narrative. Experts also anticipated shorter sentences and perceived potential punishments as less severe. Thus, we found no evidence supporting any of our hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn other words, compared to laypersons, legal experts are not so heavily influenced by the narrative of romantic love in their perception of IPV, thus, they are less prone to downplaying the perpetrator\u0026rsquo;s accountability and/or blaming the victim. These findings suggest that legal training and experience, potentially, can be considered as a factor mitigating legitimization of IPV and might foster a more objective and fair approach to evaluating cases of intimate partner violence. Thus, these findings align with the observations of Teichman et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that legal education\u0026mdash;at least in some cases\u0026mdash;may serve as a safeguard against bias and stereotypical reasoning. Additionally, our findings support the notion that legal professionals are less influenced by their own cultural views (Kahan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA possible explanation for this is that legal experts undergo training that emphasizes objectivity, critical thinking, and adherence to legal principles, which may reduce the influence of emotional or culturally embedded narratives about romantic love. While laypersons may be more influenced by societal norms and cultural narratives, which can shape their assessments and introduce biases, legal professionals are trained to prioritize evidence and legal criteria over emotional narratives (Bergman Blix \u0026amp; Minissale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), reinforcing a structured and rational approach to decision-making. This emphasis on rationality over emotion is deeply embedded in legal education and professional training. As Calder (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e: 64\u0026ndash;65) highlights, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe prevailing pedagogy in Canadian law schools devalues emotion, the body, the subjective, the personal, the artistic in contrast with reason, the mind, the objective, and the neutral.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; This suggests that legal education not only fosters analytical thinking but also actively discourages emotional engagement, which may explain the differences observed between legal experts and laypersons in their responses to IPV cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, it is important to note that our study did not control for the emotions elicited or regulated by participants. Thus, it remains possible that emotional responses were present during the analysis of the narratives but varied in their labeling, intensity, cognitive impact, or the extent to which they influenced decision-making within the studied populations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShifting from personal to criminal accountability, the factors underlying the shorter sentences anticipated by legal professionals warrant further consideration. Legal practitioners are thought to approach sentencing with specific reference points in mind. Their familiarity with sentencing in other cases constrains their decisions, as they are professionally committed to maintaining proportionality across cases. In contrast, laypersons, lacking such reference points, may find it more challenging to translate normative judgments into legal sentencing decisions. As a result, their decisions can be more easily influenced by irrelevant information (Teichman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, our findings align with research suggesting that legal expertise can reduce or even eliminate biases that affect laypersons (Kahan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and that relevant knowledge helps mitigate the anchoring effect (Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe difference between legal professionals and laypersons in terms of sentence length and severity may also, to some extent, be influenced by the legislative landscape of the surveyed country. In Poland, where both studies took place, legal decisions and sentencing rely heavily on the expertise and discretion of trained legal professionals, rather than the collective judgment of a group of citizens. As a result, in this type of legal system, where legal decisions are made solely by judges and not by a jury, the general population may lack familiarity with legal terminology, principles, or sentencing guidelines. Consequently, this can lead to a reduced understanding or consideration of legal factors when individuals are asked to assess accountability or determine appropriate sentences. In countries with judge-only systems, the general population is less exposed to the intricacies of legal reasoning, which may result in lower overall legal literacy and understanding. In contrast, deliberative process of juries may foster civic engagement and enhances citizens' understanding of justice (Goldbach \u0026amp; Hans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is corroborated by empirical studies and reports focusing on the Polish population. For instance, a report by the Foundation Court Watch Polska suggests that laypeople perceive Polish courts as excessively lenient in sentencing domestic violence perpetrators (Burdziej et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, 68% of respondents in the study expressed the view that laypeople should actively participate in adjudicating domestic violence cases, collaborating with professional judges in sentencing decisions. The report\u0026rsquo;s authors propose that greater citizen involvement in the justice system could enhance legal literacy and cultivate a more nuanced understanding of legal principles. Thus, it is plausible that these factors contribute to the consistently higher legitimization measures observed among laypeople compared to legal professionals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, it is important to note that there is considerable variation in how the accountability of the victim of IPV is perceived when considering a specific job category of a participant. Judges, compared to defense attorneys, tend to hold the victim more accountable. Since no significant correlation was found between age (which may imply more traditional attitudes toward IPV) and this measure (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.873), a potential explanation for this difference could be the distinct role of judges in criminal proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies indicate that individuals in the legal profession often approach issues differently based on their specific roles within the justice system. For instance, prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently display distinct decision-making patterns, shaped by their self-selection into opposing roles and the internalization of role-specific attitudes (Berryessa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). They also appear to hold different normative perspectives\u0026mdash;while prosecutors are generally more inclined toward conservative views, defense attorneys tend to adopt more progressive perspectives (Heinz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJudges and juries, unlike defense attorneys, must uphold strict objectivity when evaluating cases, considering all possible scenarios, including whether the victim played a role in escalating the crime (Kerrigan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). While they also factor in potential appeals and how their rulings align with broader judicial reasoning (Partyk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), this may explain why judges in our sample attributed greater accountability to the victim, perceiving her refusal\u0026mdash;whether romantic or financial\u0026mdash;as potential provocation. Moreover, as report on judicial errors highlights that the most frequent cause of such mistakes is either the absence of adequate evidence or a failure to conduct a thorough investigation of the evidence at hand, this may compel judges to exercise heightened caution, carefully scrutinizing every detail, including the victim\u0026rsquo;s behavior and the underlying motives behind the crime (Chojniak \u0026amp; Wiśniewski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur study also revealed that legal experts tend to anticipate longer punishment for IPV when there is no information about the direct motive for the violence. This suggests that, in certain cases, judges may behave similarly to laypersons, whose tendency to impose more severe sentences increases when they have less information about a case (Burdziej et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The absence of key contextual details may lead to a more critical assessment of the offender\u0026rsquo;s motive. Thus, we posit that a lack of adequate diagnosis of the perpetrator and insufficient knowledge of the entire case may reduce the likelihood of applying corrective and educational interventions compared to situations where a more detailed profile of the offender and the overall context is available. This inclination toward harsher judgments aligns with findings from other research, which indicate that in some domestic violence cases, judges have sought underlying motives for the perpetrator\u0026rsquo;s behavior as grounds for dismissing the case due to negligible harm. For instance, in one case, the offender\u0026rsquo;s jealousy toward the victim was cited as a mitigating factor in the sentencing decision (Nowakowska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Zielińska, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study provides valuable insights, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the scenarios used in this study contained far less detail than legal experts typically encounter in real cases. As a result, participants may have felt frustrated when asked to assess an individual\u0026rsquo;s behavior and determine an appropriate sentence based solely on the limited information provided. Future research could enhance ecological validity by incorporating more detailed case descriptions to better replicate real legal proceedings and yield more nuanced findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the study did not focus on a specific subset of legal professionals. Our sample included judges, defense attorneys, trainees, and academic professionals. A more refined approach to distinguishing between these groups could provide valuable insights, particularly when comparing their responses. Moreover, we did not differentiate trainees based on their intended career paths. Those training to become judges or prosecutors may have distinct perspectives and emphasize different aspects of legal cases compared to those training as defense attorneys.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA broader challenge in studying legal professionals is the difficulty of obtaining a truly representative sample. As mentioned earlier, we recruited participants through a widely distributed mailing list and social media groups. To maintain anonymity, we did not collect details about their institutional affiliation, educational background, or specific professional roles. However, different categories of legal professionals\u0026mdash;such as national-level prosecutors versus local prosecutors or lawyers working in private firms versus public offices\u0026mdash;may hold differing attitudes and approach cases in distinct ways. Conducting detailed comparisons across these subgroups presents significant methodological challenges, which future research should address.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, while we argue that legal education fosters objectivity, the research does not directly test whether training causes reduced bias. Alternative explanations\u0026mdash;such as self-selection (i.e., individuals predisposed to analytical thinking choosing legal careers)\u0026mdash;remain plausible. Future studies using longitudinal designs could help determine whether legal training actively reduces bias or whether individuals who pursue legal careers already possess these cognitive tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, our findings highlight the potential role of legal training in fostering objectivity and reducing bias in the assessment of intimate partner violence cases. Compared to laypersons, legal professionals demonstrated greater consistency in evaluating offender accountability and victim blame, regardless of the narrative framing. This suggests that structured legal education and professional experience may serve as safeguards against cognitive biases that can shape public perceptions of IPV. These insights are particularly relevant for judicial training programs, which could incorporate evidence-based approaches to reinforce impartiality in case assessments. Furthermore, our findings underscore the need for public legal education initiatives to address common misconceptions about IPV, as lay perspectives may be influenced by cultural narratives rather than legal reasoning. By enhancing both professional and public understanding of IPV cases, the justice system can work toward more equitable and informed decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings highlight the broader value of training that prioritizes critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and evidence-based decision-making. Beyond legal education, similar approaches could be beneficial in disciplines such as law enforcement, psychology, social work, and journalism, where professionals must navigate complex and sensitive issues while minimizing personal biases. By integrating these insights into professional training programs, institutions can enhance impartiality and improve decision-making processes across multiple fields, ensuring that subjective narratives do not unduly influence critical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank Natalia Michałkiewicz and Aleksandra Koszowska for their tireless work and dedication to the project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Conflicting Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research is part of the project \u003cem\u003eLegitimization of Intimate Partner Violence - Does Love Forgive All?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand has been supported by a grant from the Faculty of Management and Social Communication under the Strategic Programme\u0026nbsp;Excellence Initiative at Jagiellonian University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval and informed consent statements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe procedure was positively reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Jagiellonian University in Krak\u0026oacute;w before its application (decision dated 25.05.2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting this research are available on the Open Science Framework website (https://osf.io/uk3zq/ - Experiment 3) under a CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaldry AC, Pacilli MG, Pagliaro S (2015) She\u0026rsquo;s not a person.. She\u0026rsquo;s just a woman! Infra-humanization and Intimate Partner Violence. J interpers Violence 30(9):1567\u0026ndash;1582. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540801\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886260514540801\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeek K, Brink J, Peters S, Cullen P (2021) Intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic in Western and Southern European countries. Eur J Public Health 31:1058\u0026ndash;1063. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckab093\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/eurpub/ckab093\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBell ME, Perez S, Goodman LA, Dutton MA (2011) Battered women\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of civil and criminal court helpfulness: The role of court outcome and process. Violence Against Women 17(1):71\u0026ndash;88\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergenfeld I, Nguyen V, Wiederkehr K, Hadd AR, Molina EP, Clark CJ, Richardson RA (2025) Global trends in men\u0026rsquo;s and women\u0026rsquo;s acceptance of intimate partner violence, 1999\u0026ndash;2022: An analysis of population-based survey data from 83 countries. EClinicalMedicine 83:103199. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103199\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103199\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergman Blix S, Minissale A (2022) (Dis)passionate law stories: The emotional processes of encoding narratives in court. J Law Soc 49(2):245\u0026ndash;262. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12355\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jols.12355\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerryessa CM, Dror IE, McCormack CJB (2023) Prosecuting from the bench? Examining sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges. Legal Criminological Psychol 28(1):1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12226\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/lcrp.12226\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurdziej S, Branicka Z, Hofman D (2022) Wymiar sprawiedliwości wobec przemocy domowej. Raport z badań empirycznych [The justice system and domestic violence: A report from empirical research]. Court Watch Polska\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCalder G (2021) Whose body is this? On the role of emotion in teaching and learning law. In S. A. Banders, J. L. Madeira, K. D. Temple, \u0026amp; E. K. White (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eResearch Handbook on Law and Emotion\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 62\u0026ndash;78)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChojniak Ł, Wiśniewski Ł (2012) Przyczyny niesłusznych skazań w Polsce [Causes of wrongful convictions in Poland]. Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChung D (2005) Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual relationships. Women\u0026rsquo;s Stud Int Forum 28(6):445\u0026ndash;455. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.09.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.wsif.2005.09.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouture S, Lachapelle M, Fernet M, H\u0026eacute;bert M (2023) It\u0026rsquo;s a feeling that makes you do anything: Youth\u0026rsquo; narratives of love and experiences of victimization in their romantic relationships. J Adolesc Res 07435584231190653. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/07435584231190653\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/07435584231190653\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeShong HAF, Haynes T (2016) Intimate partner violence in the Caribbean: State, activist and media responses. Glob Public Health 11(1\u0026ndash;2):82\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2015.1012529\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17441692.2015.1012529\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDominiczak A, Nowakowska U, Sękowska-Kozłowska K (2016) Stereotypy w sądzie w sprawach dotyczących kobiet [Stereotypes in court in cases involving women]. Centrum Praw Kobiet\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiryn-Boudy A (2025) Bezpieczeństwo kobiet w Polsce. Skuteczność działań państwa wobec ofiar przemocy domowej [Women\u0026rsquo;s Safety in Poland: Effectiveness of State Actions toward Victims of Domestic Violence]. Ius et Securitas, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGius C, Lalli P (2014) I loved her so much, but I killed her. Romantic love as a representational frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in three Italian newspapers. SSACHESS-Journal Communication Stud 7:53\u0026ndash;75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiwa A, Kandemiri M, Tulli-Shah M, Sayadi G, Hurley N, Salami B (2025) Impacts of COVID-19 on Intimate Partner Violence Service Provision. Violence Against Women 31(10):2622\u0026ndash;2641. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241257251\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10778012241257251\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlomb K, Sekulak M, Augustyn A, Michałkiewicz N (2025) Does love forgive all? The role of the romantic love narratives in the legitimization of intimate partner violence. Psychol Crime Law 1\u0026ndash;32. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2025.2529443\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1068316x.2025.2529443\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoldbach TS, Hans VP (2014) Juries, lay judges, and trials. In G. Bruinsma \u0026amp; D. Weisburd (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 2716\u0026ndash;2727). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_39\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_39\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGracia E (2014) Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans. Bull World Health Organ 92(5):380\u0026ndash;381. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.13.131391\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2471/BLT.13.131391\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGREVIO (2021) \u003cem\u003eGREVIO\u0026rsquo;s (Baseline) Evaluation Report on legislative and other measures giving effect to the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) POLAND\u003c/em\u003e (5). Secretariat of the monitoring mechanism of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence Council of Europe. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.coe.int/conventionviolence\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrzymała J (2024) Czy przemoc domowa ma płeć? [Does domestic violence have gender?]. Przegląd Socjologiczny 73(1):171\u0026ndash;194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.26485/PS/2024/73.1/7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26485/PS/2024/73.1/7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeinz J, Nelson RL, Sandefur RL, Laumann (2005) Urban lawyers: The new social structure of the bar. University of Chicago Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerbst \u0026amp; Gez (2012) From Crime of passion to Love does not kill: The murder of Einav Rogel and the role of Na\u0026rsquo;amat Women\u0026rsquo;s Organization in the construction of violence against women in Israel. Isr Stud 17(2):129\u0026ndash;155. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2979/israelstudies.17.2.129\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2979/israelstudies.17.2.129\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuberty CJ, Olejnik S (2007) Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis. Wiley\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKahan DM, Hoffman D, Evans D, Devins N, Lucci E (2016) Ideology or Situation Sense? An experimental investigation of motivated reasoning and professional judgment. Univ Pa Law Rev 174:349\u0026ndash;439\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerrigan K (2014) Provocation: The fall (and rise) of objectivity. Int J Mental Health Capacity Law 1(14):44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i14.188\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i14.188\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhaw L, Bermea AM, Hardesty JL, Saunders D, Whittaker AM (2021) The System Had Choked Me Too: Abused Mothers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of the Custody Determination Process That Resulted in Negative Custody Outcomes. J interpers Violence 36(9\u0026ndash;10):4310\u0026ndash;4334. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791226\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886260518791226\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaing L (2017) Secondary victimization: Domestic violence survivors navigating the family law system. Violence Against Women 23(11):1314\u0026ndash;1335. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216659942\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1077801216659942\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLelaurain S, Fonte D, Giger J-C, Guignard S, Lo Monaco G (2021) Legitimizing Intimate Partner Violence: The role of romantic love and the mediating effect of patriarchal ideologies. J interpers Violence 36(13\u0026ndash;14):6351\u0026ndash;6368. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518818427\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886260518818427\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeyer S (2016) Still blaming the victim of intimate partner violence? Women\u0026rsquo;s narratives of victim desistance and redemption when seeking support. Theoretical Criminol 20(1):75\u0026ndash;90. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615585399\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1362480615585399\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiller AL (2019) Expertise fails to attenuate gendered biases in judicial decision-making. Social Psychol Personality Sci 10(2):227\u0026ndash;234. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617741181\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1948550617741181\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMonckton-Smith J (2012) Murder, gender and the media. Palgrave Macmillan UK. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/9781137007735\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/9781137007735\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoshtagh M, Amiri R, Sharafi S, Arab-Zozani M (2023) Intimate Partner Violence in the Middle East Region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse 24(2):613\u0026ndash;631. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211036060\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/15248380211036060\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurray CE, Crowe A, Overstreet NM (2018) Sources and components of stigma experienced by survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. J interpers Violence 33(3):515\u0026ndash;536. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515609565\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886260515609565\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMurvartian L, Saavedra-Mac\u0026iacute;as FJ, de la Mata ML (2023) Public Stigmatization of Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence by Professionals Working in the Judicial System and Law Enforcement Agencies in Spain. J interpers Violence 38(19\u0026ndash;20):10920\u0026ndash;10946. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231176798\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/08862605231176798\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNowakowska U, Dominiczak A, Jaworska E, Lorenc E, Dąbrowski S (2009) Prawo i płeć [Gender and Law]. Centrum Praw Kobiet\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePartyk A (2023) Czy sędziowie mają intuicję? Przyczynek do rozważań o sędziowskich mechanizmach decyzyjnych [Do judges have intuition? A contribution to considerations on judicial decision-making mechanisms]. Oficyna Wydawnicza Humanitas\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePolicja P (2025) \u003cem\u003ePrzemoc domowa\u0026mdash;Dane od 2023 roku [Domestic Violence\u0026mdash;Data from 2023]\u003c/em\u003e. Statystyka. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://statystyka.policja.pl/st/wybrane-statystyki/przemoc-domowa/50867,Przemoc-domowa-dane-od-2023-roku.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/wybrane-statystyki/przemoc-domowa/50867,Przemoc-domowa-dane-od-2023-roku.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRanda R, Bostrom SR, Brown W, Reyns BW, Fleming JC (2023) Variations in Victimization: The Relationship between Community Types, Violence against Women and Reporting Behaviors. Social Sci 12(9) Article 9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090471\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/socsci12090471\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRistroph A (2021) The Wages of Criminal Law Exceptionalism. Crim Law Philos 17:5\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09613-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11572-021-09613-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRivera EA, April ZM, Sullivan CM (2012) Abused mothers\u0026rsquo; safety concerns and court mediators\u0026rsquo; custody recommendations. J Family Violence 27:321\u0026ndash;332. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9426-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9426-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRollero C (2020) The social dimensions of Intimate Partner Violence: A qualitative study with male perpetrators. Sex Cult 24(3):749\u0026ndash;763. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09661-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12119-019-09661-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuiz-Palomino E, Ballester-Arnal R, Gim\u0026eacute;nez-Garc\u0026iacute;a C, Gil-Llario MD (2021) Influence of beliefs about romantic love on the justification of abusive behaviors among early adolescents. J Adolesc 92:126\u0026ndash;136. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.09.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaunders DG, Tolman RM, Faller KC (2013) Factors associated with child custody evaluators\u0026rsquo; recommendations in cases of intimate partner violence. J Fam Psychol 27(3):473\u0026ndash;483. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0032164\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0032164\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShepard MF, Hagemeister AK (2013) Perspectives of rural women: Custody and visitation with abusive ex-partners. Affilia: J Women Social Work 28(2):165\u0026ndash;176. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913490469\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886109913490469\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith AR, Windschitl PD, Bruchmann K (2013) Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. Eur J Social Psychol 43(1):97\u0026ndash;108. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1921\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/ejsp.1921\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeichman D, Zamir E, Ritov I (2023) Biases in legal decision-making: Comparing prosecutors,defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons. J Empir Legal Stud 20(4):852\u0026ndash;894\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTumonis V (2012) Legal realism \u0026amp; judicial decision-making. Urisprudencija = Jurisprudence: Res Papers 19(4):1361\u0026ndash;1382\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015) The World\u0026rsquo;s Women 2015: Trends and Statistics. United Nations\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWHO (2022) \u003cem\u003eViolence Info \u0026ndash; Intimate partner violence\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://apps.who.int/violence-info/intimate-partner-violence\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://apps.who.int/violence-info/intimate-partner-violence\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWright E, Tillyer Skubak M (2017) \u003cem\u003eNeighborhoods and Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: The Direct and Interactive Effects of Social Ties and Collective Efficacy\u0026mdash;Emily M. Wright, Marie Skubak Tillyer, 2020\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0886260517712276?casa_token=BIcaVtrwnGIAAAAA%3AxOZzcT7iNt0FdSM3jPp--L9e0WYhhWpnhtL5vQLLBeVHuLBAHHrWVa8zbcSRrjFUdL6QBsF9dDgP\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886260517712276?casa_token=BIcaVtrwnGIAAAAA%3AxOZzcT7iNt0FdSM3jPp--L9e0WYhhWpnhtL5vQLLBeVHuLBAHHrWVa8zbcSRrjFUdL6QBsF9dDgP\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZielińska E (2017) Mediacja w sprawach karnych o przemoc w rodzinie \u0026ndash; skala i efektywność w praktyce polskiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości [Mediation in criminal cases of domestic violence \u0026ndash; scale and effectiveness in the practice of the Polish justice system]. Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZielińska-Poćwiardowska I, Sosnowska-Buxton P (2023) Przemoc domowa w Polsce: Zaproszenie do podjęcia socjologicznej analizy zjawiska [Domestic Violence in Poland: An Invitation to Sociological Analysis of the Phenomenon]. Studia Socjologiczne. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2023.146172\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24425/sts.2023.146172\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \"The \u0026ldquo;Blue Card\u0026rdquo; procedure (\u003cem\u003eProcedura Niebieskiej Karty\u003c/em\u003e) is a formal intervention and documentation process in Poland designed to respond to cases of domestic violence. It is initiated by authorized professionals (such as police officers, social workers, teachers, or healthcare staff) when they suspect or confirm violence in the family. It is regulated by The Act of 29 July 2005 on Counteracting Domestic Violence (Ustawa z dnia 29 lipca 2005 r. o przeciwdziałaniu przemocy domowej (t.j. Dz. U. z 2024 r. poz. 1673).)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e However, one participant in comment section below the \u0026lsquo;Other\u0026rsquo; option opted to indicate their gender as \u0026ldquo;female\u0026rdquo; and, in a rather colorful manner, reminded us that there are only two genders\u0026hellip;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Jagiellonian University in Krakow","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"intimate partner violence, legal decision-making, perception of crime, legal training, legitimization","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7407431/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7407431/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the influence of romantic narratives on the perception of intimate partner violence (IPV). A sample of legal professionals (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;264) evaluated a case in which the offender\u0026rsquo;s motive was presented as romantic, non-romantic, or unspecified (control condition). Participants assessed IPV legitimization, operationalized as personal and legal accountability of the offender (male) and the victim (female). Contrary to previous findings in a layperson sample, where romantic motivation increased victim-blaming, the present study found no effect of motive on any measure of legitimization. These findings suggest that legal training may mitigate biases associated with cultural narratives and emphasize its potential applicability in domains requiring analytical reasoning and impartial decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Love and Order: How legal experts and laypersons assess accountability in Intimate Partner Violence cases","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-20 10:11:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7407431/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7203c067-f35b-41b4-ab8d-805284bb3df2","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":53378036,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-20T10:11:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-20 10:11:40","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7407431","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7407431","identity":"rs-7407431","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}