Does gender perception influence the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students?

Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to examine the association between gender perception and the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 628 students enrolled in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a public university in Türkiye. Data were collected using the Descriptive Information Form, the Gender Perception Scale (GPS), and the Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS). Descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis were performed.

Results

The mean total GPS score was 104.38 ± 15.32 and the mean total DVMS score was 18.08 ± 7.42. A moderate negative correlation was observed between GPS and DVMS scores (r = − 0.438, p < 0.001). In regression analysis, higher GPS scores were associated with lower DVMS scores (β = − 0.254, p < 0.001). Male students showed higher DVMS scores than female students (β = 0.315, p < 0.001), and class level was weakly associated with DVMS scores (β = − 0.083, p = 0.026). The model accounted for 25.8% of the variance in DVMS scores (Adjusted R² = 0.258).

Conclusions

Gender perception was associated with acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students. These findings suggest that educational approaches addressing gender equality and awareness may be relevant for university settings; however, causal inferences cannot be drawn due to the cross-sectional design.

Introduction

Intimate partner violence and dating violence are considered major public health and human rights issues due to their increasing prevalence among adolescents and university students. Particularly in the context of dating relationships, violent behaviors have been reported to extend beyond physical violence to include psychological, emotional, and sexual dimensions, resulting in long-term negative effects on individuals’ mental well-being, academic functioning, and future relationships [1]. Data from the World Health Organization indicate that intimate partner violence remains a significant health risk worldwide, especially for young women, and that such violence often begins in early romantic relationships. In addition, international studies demonstrate that dating violence is common among young adults and is closely associated not only with individual characteristics but also with social and cultural belief systems [2].

Gender perception and sexist attitudes occupy a central position in understanding intimate partner violence and dating violence. It has been emphasized that gender roles reproduce historically constructed unequal power relations between women and men, and that these inequalities create a foundation for attitudes that legitimize violence [1]. Studies conducted particularly among university students have shown that traditional and unequal gender perceptions are associated with more tolerant and normalizing attitudes toward dating violence [3].

Sexism, in this context, has a more complex structure that is not limited to overt and hostile attitudes. Within the framework of ambivalent sexism theory, hostile sexism includes beliefs that demean women and legitimize male dominance, whereas benevolent sexism encompasses attitudes that portray women as fragile, in need of protection, and dependent on men-attitudes that appear positive but ultimately reproduce inequality. Empirical studies conducted with health sciences and nursing students have revealed that hostile sexism, in particular, is one of the strongest predictors of beliefs that legitimize intimate partner violence and dating violence [2, 3].

Another important construct that fuels dating violence alongside gender perception is romantic love myths [4]. Romantic love myths are described as unrealistic and often harmful beliefs, such as the idea that love can solve all problems, that jealousy is a sign of love, or that true love requires suffering and sacrifice. These myths are reported to romanticize controlling and oppressive behaviors, thereby making violence more difficult to recognize [4–6]. Systematic review and meta-analysis studies conducted in Spain have also shown that romantic love myths are widely endorsed among young people and constitute a significant risk factor for gender-based violence [6].

The relationship between romantic love myths and sexism has been notably emphasized in the literature. Benevolent sexism has been reported to be associated with myths that idealize love, whereas hostile sexism is linked to more dangerous myths that associate love with mistreatment [7, 8]. This situation demonstrates that dating violence is reproduced not only through individual behaviors but also through culturally internalized understandings of love and relationships [6].

Health sciences students are of particular importance with regard to this issue. It has been stated that the attitudes of future health professionals-who will work in direct contact with individuals-toward dating violence and intimate partner violence affect not only their personal lives but also their professional practices and approaches to cases of violence. Multicenter studies reveal that sexist attitudes and experiences of dating violence are more prevalent among health sciences students than commonly assumed, and that male students hold violence-legitimizing beliefs to a greater extent than female students [1, 2, 9]. However, the literature indicates that studies simultaneously examining the relationship between gender perception and the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students are limited. Most existing studies address violence experience, sexism, or romantic love myths as isolated variables, and relatively few studies examine the interaction of these constructs within a holistic framework [3, 6, 10].

In this context, examining the effect of gender perception on the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students is important both for addressing a significant gap in the literature and for contributing to the development of education and intervention programs aimed at preventing violence. This study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the social and cultural origins of violence by examining the relationship between health sciences students’ gender perceptions and their levels of acceptance of dating violence myths.

Materials and methods

Study design

This study was conducted using a descriptive and cross-sectional research design to examine the relationship between gender perceptions and the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students.

Study population

The study population consisted of a total of 800 students who were actively enrolled in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Sinop University during the spring semester of the 2023–2024 academic year.

Sample and sampling method

The sample size was calculated using Epi Info 2000 software. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a 99% confidence level, and a 5% margin of error for a known population, the minimum required sample size was determined to be 363 students.

The study population consisted of 800 students enrolled in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Sinop University during the spring semester of the 2023–2024 academic year. A non-probability sampling method (convenience sampling) was used, and all students who met the inclusion criteria and agreed to participate were invited to the study. The final sample comprised 628 students (78.5% of the population).

Data were collected face-to-face in classroom settings during scheduled class hours after obtaining institutional and ethical approvals. Students were informed about the aim of the study, and participation was voluntary and anonymous. The researchers were present during administration to provide clarification when necessary, and completed questionnaires were returned immediately after completion.

Students who declined participation or submitted incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the analysis. Because participation was voluntary and conducted in classroom settings, the possibility of non-response bias cannot be completely excluded.

Inclusion criteria

The study included students who:

• Were between 18 and 25 years of age,

• Were single,

• Were enrolled as students at the Faculty of Health Sciences of Sinop University,

• Were able to read, write, and speak Turkish,

• Voluntarily agreed to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Individuals who:

• Were older than 25 years,

• Were married,

• Were not students of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Sinop University,

• Were unable to read, write, or speak Turkish,

• Did not volunteer to participate in the study were excluded from the research.

Data collection instruments

The study data were collected using the Personal Information Form, the Gender Perception Scale (GPS), and the Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS).

Personal information form

The Personal Information Form consisted of 12 questions designed by the researchers in line with the relevant literature to determine the sociodemographic characteristics of the students and their parents [1, 2, 9].

Gender perception scale (GPS)

The Gender Perception Scale was developed by Altınova and Duyan [11] to assess individuals’ gender perceptions. The scale consists of 25 items and is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). It has a unidimensional structure.

Total scores on the scale range from 25 to 125, with higher scores indicating a more egalitarian and positive gender perception. In the original study, the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was reported as 0.87. In the present study, items 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, and 25 were reverse coded [11].

Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS)

The Dating Violence Myths Scale was developed by Toplu-Demirtaş et al. [12] to assess dating violence myths. The scale consists of 9 items and has a three-factor structure:

• Factor 1: Myths related to the victim of violence (Items 1–3).

• Factor 2: Myths related to dating relationships (Items 4–6).

• Factor 3: Myths related to sexual dating violence (Items 7–9).

There are no reverse-coded items in the scale. Total scores range from 9 to 54, with higher scores indicating greater acceptance of dating violence myths. In the original study, the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was reported as 0.71 [12].

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 25.0. Descriptive statistics were presented as numbers, percentages, means, and standard deviations. The normality of continuous variables was evaluated using skewness and kurtosis statistics, with values between − 1.5 and + 1.5 considered acceptable [13]. In addition, boxplots and standardized residual values were examined to identify potential outliers. For group comparisons, independent samples t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used under the assumption of normal distribution. Relationships between scale scores were examined using Pearson correlation analysis.

Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to examine factors associated with the total Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS) score. The department variable was entered into the model as a categorical predictor using dummy coding, with Nursing specified as the reference category. Regression assumptions were evaluated by examining standardized residual histograms, normal P–P plots, scatterplots of standardized residuals versus predicted values, and Cook’s distance statistics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 628 health sciences students were included in the analyses, of whom 74.8% were female. Comparisons of the Gender Perception Scale (GPS) and Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS) scores according to students’ individual and academic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of Gender Perception Scale (GPS) and Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS) scores according to students’ individual and academic characteristics

Variable	n (%)	GPS (Mean ± SD)	p	DVMS (Mean ± SD)	p
Gender
Female	470 (74.8)	109.51 ± 11.25	< 0.001ᵃ	16.09 ± 6.05	< 0.001ᵃ
Male	158 (25.2)	89.11 ± 15.67		24.01 ± 7.95
Class level
1st year	269 (42.8)	104.99 ± 13.92	0.032ᵇ	18.73 ± 7.77	0.096ᵇ
2nd year	130 (20.7)	104.23 ± 17.00		17.09 ± 6.57
3rd year	86 (13.7)	107.41 ± 14.33		17.03 ± 7.89
4th year	143 (22.8)	101.53 ± 16.43		18.39 ± 7.07
Department
Occupational Health and Safety	72 (11.5)	97.97 ± 16.26	< 0.001ᵇ	20.55 ± 7.65	< 0.001ᵇ
Social Work	132 (21.0)	108.97 ± 13.09		16.61 ± 6.53
Midwifery	112 (17.8)	110.14 ± 10.06		16.24 ± 6.01
Nursing	312 (49.7)	101.84 ± 16.35		18.79 ± 7.91

GPS Gender Perception Scale, DVMS Dating Violence Myths Scale

ᵃ Independent samples t-test, ᵇ One-way ANOVA (GLM-Univariate)

Female students had significantly higher GPS scores than male students (109.51 ± 11.25 vs. 89.11 ± 15.67; p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 1.63). Male students also had significantly higher DVMS scores than female students (24.01 ± 7.95 vs. 16.09 ± 6.05; p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 1.20) (Table 1).

GPS scores differed significantly across class levels (one-way ANOVA, p = 0.032), whereas DVMS scores did not differ significantly (p = 0.096).

A significant difference in GPS scores was observed across academic departments (F(3,624) = 17.58, p < 0.001, partial η²=0.078), indicating a moderate effect size. The department variable explained approximately 7.8% of the variance in GPS scores. Midwifery students had the highest mean GPS score (110.14 ± 10.06), followed by Social Work students (108.97 ± 13.09), whereas Occupational Health and Safety students had lower GPS scores (97.97 ± 16.26).

DVMS scores also differed significantly by department (F(3,624) = 7.90, p < 0.001, partial η²=0.037), indicating a small-to-moderate effect size and explaining approximately 3.7% of the variance in DVMS scores. Occupational Health and Safety students had the highest DVMS scores (20.55 ± 7.65), whereas Midwifery (16.24 ± 6.01) and Social Work (16.61 ± 6.53) students had lower scores. Nursing students showed intermediate values (18.79 ± 7.91).

Although Levene’s test indicated heterogeneity of variances for both scales (p < 0.001), ANOVA results were interpreted given the robustness of the test in large samples.

Comparisons of GPS and DVMS scores according to family structure and socioeconomic characteristics are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Comparison of GPS and DVMS scores according to family and socioeconomic characteristics

Variable	n (%)	GPS (Mean ± SD)	p	DVMS (Mean ± SD)	p
Family type
Nuclear	498 (79.3)	105.18 ± 14.81	0.019ᵇ	17.93 ± 7.44	0.638ᵇ
Extended	112 (17.8)	100.68 ± 16.88		18.65 ± 7.36
Divided	18 (2.9)	105.00 ± 16.31		18.50 ± 7.37
Mother’s education
Primary-secondary	459 (73.1)	103.63 ± 15.86	0.015ᵇ	18.41 ± 7.66	0.130ᵇ
High school	126 (20.1)	107.84 ± 13.15		17.44 ± 6.75
Higher education	43 (6.8)	102.20 ± 14.10		16.39 ± 6.30
Mother’s employment status
Employed	151 (24.0)	106.82 ± 13.98	0.018ᵃ	16.84 ± 6.28	0.009ᵃ
Unemployed	477 (76.0)	103.60 ± 15.65		18.47 ± 7.71

Abbreviations: GPS, Gender Perception Scale, DVMS Dating Violence Myths Scale, SD standard deviation

ᵃ Independent samples t-test, ᵇ One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

GPS scores differed significantly according to family type (p = 0.019), with students from nuclear families showing higher mean scores than those from extended families. DVMS scores did not differ significantly by family type (p = 0.638).

A significant difference in GPS scores was observed across maternal education levels (p = 0.015), whereas paternal education level was not associated with differences in either GPS or DVMS scores (p > 0.05).

Students with employed mothers had significantly different scores on both scales, with higher GPS scores (p = 0.018) and lower DVMS scores (p = 0.009) compared with students whose mothers were unemployed.

No significant differences in GPS or DVMS scores were observed according to place of residence, father’s employment status, or perceived family income (all p > 0.05).

The mean total GPS score was 104.38 ± 15.32 (range: 58–125), and the mean total DVMS score was 18.08 ± 7.42 (range: 9–48). Internal consistency analyses demonstrated good reliability for the GPS (Cronbach’s α = 0.88) and acceptable reliability for the DVMS (Cronbach’s α = 0.77), both exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 [14] (Table 3).

Table 3.

Total scores and internal consistency coefficients of the Gender Perception Scale (GPS) and Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS)

Scale	Mean ± SD	Range	Cronbach’s α
GPS total	104.38 ± 15.32	58–125	0.880
DVMS total	18.08 ± 7.42	9–48	0.769

GPS Gender Perception Scale, DVMS Dating Violence Myths Scale

A statistically significant negative correlation was observed between the total GPS and DVMS scores (r = − 0.438, p < 0.001). Higher GPS scores were associated with lower DVMS scores. Pearson correlation analyses between the total GPS score and DVMS subscales showed significant negative associations across all subscales (all p < 0.01). Correlations between the total DVMS score and its subscales were positive and strong. Correlation coefficients between GPS, DVMS total, and subscale scores are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Pearson correlations between Gender Perception Scale (GPS) and Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS) total and subscale scores

Variable	GPS	DVMS-F1	DVMS-F2	DVMS-F3	DVMS Total
GPS	1	–0.427**	–0.337**	–0.276**	–0.438**
DVMS-F1	–0.427**	1	0.449**	0.415**	0.769**
DVMS-F2	–0.337**	0.449**	1	0.421**	0.831**
DVMS-F3	–0.276**	0.415**	0.421**	1	0.755**
DVMS Total	–0.438**	0.769**	0.831**	0.755**	1

** p < 0.01

Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to examine factors associated with DVMS scores. The overall model was statistically significant (F(7,620) = 32.15, p < 0.001) and accounted for 25.8% of the variance in DVMS scores (Adjusted R² = 0.258).

The total GPS score was significantly associated with DVMS scores (β = − 0.254, p < 0.001). Gender was also significantly associated with DVMS scores (β = 0.315, p < 0.001), with male students showing higher DVMS scores than female students. Class level showed a small negative association with DVMS scores (β = − 0.083, p = 0.026).

Department was entered into the model using dummy coding with Nursing as the reference category. None of the department categories differed significantly from the reference group (all p > 0.05). Mother’s employment status was also not significantly associated with DVMS scores (p = 0.306) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Multiple linear regression analysis of factors associated with Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS) scores

Variable	B	SE	β	t	p	VIF
Constant	30.765	2.329	–	13.207	< 0.001	–
GPS (total)	–0.123	0.021	–0.254	–5.992	< 0.001	1.518
Gender	5.382	0.750	0.315	7.172	< 0.001	1.630
Department: OHS vs. Nursing	0.526	0.843	0.023	0.624	0.533	1.108
Department: Social Work vs. Nursing	0.072	0.684	0.004	0.105	0.917	1.194
Department: Midwifery vs. Nursing	–0.137	0.778	–0.007	–0.176	0.861	1.363
Class level	–0.508	0.228	–0.083	–2.232	0.026	1.155
Mother’s employment status	–0.619	0.604	–0.036	–1.025	0.306	1.025

Model statistics: R = 0.516, Adjusted R² = 0.258, F(7,620) = 32.15, p < 0.001

Durbin–Watson: 1.83

Dependent variable: DVMS total score. Gender: 0 = Female, 1 = Male. Department variables were entered using dummy coding with Nursing as the reference category. Mother’s employment status: 0 = Unemployed, 1 = Employed. Class level was treated as a continuous variable (1–4). VIF values ranged between 1.02 and 1.63

Regression assumptions were evaluated. Inspection of standardized residual histograms and normal P–P plots indicated approximate normality of residuals, scatterplots suggested homoscedasticity, and Cook’s distance values indicated no influential observations. The Durbin–Watson statistic (1.83) indicated no autocorrelation, and VIF values (1.02–1.63) indicated no multicollinearity.

Discussion

The findings of the present study indicate a significant association between gender perception and the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students. Students with more egalitarian gender perceptions tended to report lower DVMS scores, whereas students with more traditional gender perceptions reported higher levels of myth acceptance. These findings suggest that beliefs related to dating violence myths may be closely linked to broader gender-related belief systems rather than being explained solely by individual attitudes.

The moderate and negative correlation observed between the total Gender Perception Scale (GPS) score and the total Dating Violence Myths Scale (DVMS) score in this study (r = − 0.438) indicates that students with more egalitarian gender perceptions tended to report lower levels of acceptance of dating violence myths. This pattern suggests that gender-related belief systems may be closely linked to the ways in which students interpret cultural narratives that normalize power, control, and violence in romantic relationships [15].

The regression analysis further showed that gender perception remained significantly associated with DVMS scores after adjusting for variables such as gender and class level. These findings are consistent with previous studies. For example, Kul Uçtu and Karahan reported that higher levels of gender perception were associated with lower tendencies toward violence among health school students [10]. Similarly, Güvenç et al. [16] found that more egalitarian gender attitudes among university students were associated with more critical attitudes toward dating violence [16]. Studies conducted in different sociocultural contexts have also reported associations between gender perception, sexist attitudes, and beliefs that legitimize dating violence [1, 2]. In this respect, the findings of the present study are consistent with the existing literature suggesting that gender perception may be an important factor related to the acceptance of dating violence myths.

The regression model was statistically significant (F = 32.15, p < 0.001) and accounted for approximately one-quarter of the variance in DVMS scores (Adjusted R² = 0.258). This level of explained variance indicates a moderate explanatory capacity, suggesting that although gender perception and gender are relevant factors, other variables not examined in this study may also contribute to students’ acceptance of dating violence myths. Considering that attitudes and beliefs related to dating violence are shaped by multiple social and cultural influences, the observed associations should be interpreted with caution [17, 18].

In the present study, male students reported higher levels of acceptance of dating violence myths than female students. This pattern is consistent with findings from both national and international studies. Research conducted with university students in Türkiye has shown that male students tend to express more tolerant attitudes toward dating violence and are more likely to endorse discourses that normalize violence [4, 16]. Similarly, international studies among health sciences students have reported that male students tend to report higher levels of acceptance of beliefs that legitimize dating violence and intimate partner violence [1, 2, 19].

This finding can be interpreted within the broader context of gender-related social norms and cultural expectations. Previous literature has emphasized that traditional gender roles, in which masculinity is associated with power, control, and authority, may be related to more tolerant attitudes toward violence within intimate relationships [1, 2]. Turan and Duy [20], for example, reported that avoidant and anxious attachment styles were associated with the control and abuse dimensions of dating violence and that self-esteem was related to controlling attitudes in romantic relationships [20]. In this context, interpretations of behaviors such as jealousy, possessiveness, and control as indicators of love may also be linked to the acceptance of dating violence myths among some students [6].

In the present study, male students reported higher DVMS scores than female students, and this association remained significant even after gender perception was included in the regression model. This finding suggests that factors beyond gender perception may also be related to the acceptance of dating violence myths. Socially and culturally learned gender norms may contribute to these attitudes, highlighting the potential importance of gender-sensitive educational approaches when addressing dating violence in university settings.

The regression analysis showed a small but statistically significant negative association between class level and DVMS scores. This pattern may indicate that students in higher academic years report slightly lower levels of acceptance of dating violence myths. One possible explanation is that university education and increased exposure to discussions on gender equality and violence awareness may be related to more critical evaluations of beliefs that legitimize dating violence. Consistent with this interpretation, Kaya et al. reported that students who received gender education showed lower tendencies toward violence and more egalitarian gender perceptions [9]. However, previous studies have also shown that the relationship between educational level and attitudes toward dating violence is not always consistent. For example, Miroğlu and Yeral reported that although gender education improves gender perception levels, it does not always lead to significant changes in attitudes toward dating violence [21]. These findings suggest that not only the duration of education but also the content and pedagogical approach of gender-related training may be important in shaping students’ evaluations of dating violence myths. In this context, integrating structured educational components—such as gender equality modules, awareness programs, and discussion-based workshops—into health sciences curricula may be relevant for addressing dating violence myths in university settings.

The regression analysis did not show a significant association between academic department and the acceptance of dating violence myths. This finding suggests that differences in students’ fields of study alone may not adequately explain variations in DVMS scores. Nevertheless, descriptive analyses indicated that midwifery and social work students reported higher gender perception scores and lower levels of dating violence myth acceptance. These patterns may reflect differences in curricular emphases across departments, particularly the inclusion of women-centered, equality-oriented, and social justice perspectives in certain programs. Previous research has similarly reported that gender perception among health sciences students may vary across departments [10], and that such differences may be more closely related to individuals’ gender-related values and life experiences rather than to professional identity alone [22].

Similarly, maternal employment status was not significantly associated with DVMS scores in the regression model. However, descriptive findings indicated that students whose mothers were employed reported more egalitarian gender perceptions and lower levels of dating violence myth acceptance. These patterns may suggest that family-related experiences and parental role models are linked to the development of gender-related attitudes. For example, Balcı et al. [22] reported that family roles and parental models observed during childhood may be related to individuals’ later attitudes toward violence [22]. In this context, maternal employment status may be interpreted as one of several contextual factors that could be related to gender perception and attitudes toward dating violence myths.

The findings of this study indicate that gender perception is significantly associated with the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students, and that this relationship should be considered within a broader context that includes sociodemographic and educational characteristics. Although the results are largely consistent with national and international studies, the present study contributes to the literature by examining these relationships through multivariable analyses among health sciences students. These findings highlight the potential relevance of educational approaches addressing gender equality and critical awareness of dating violence myths in university settings.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This study has several strengths and limitations. The relatively large sample size and the inclusion of students from multiple departments within the health sciences faculty strengthen the descriptive scope of the findings. In addition, examining the relationship between gender perception and dating violence myths not only through descriptive analyses but also using a multiple linear regression model allowed the associations between variables to be evaluated in a multivariable framework.

However, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, due to the cross-sectional design of the study, causal inferences cannot be made regarding the relationships between the variables. Second, data were collected using self-report scales, which may increase the possibility of social desirability bias. Third, because the study was conducted at a single university, the generalizability of the findings to students from other universities or cultural contexts may be limited.

Despite these limitations, the study contributes to the existing literature by examining the association between gender perception and the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students. Future longitudinal and multicenter studies conducted with diverse student populations may provide a more comprehensive understanding of these relationships.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicate that gender perception is significantly associated with the acceptance of dating violence myths among health sciences students. Students with more egalitarian gender perceptions tended to report lower levels of endorsement of myths that legitimize dating violence, whereas higher levels of myth acceptance were observed among students with more traditional gender perceptions. These findings suggest that attitudes toward dating violence myths may be related to broader gender-based belief systems rather than being explained solely by individual attitudes.

The regression analysis further showed that gender perception remained significantly associated with the acceptance of dating violence myths after adjustment for variables such as gender and class level. However, the model demonstrated a moderate explanatory capacity, indicating that additional social, cultural, and educational factors may also contribute to students’ acceptance of dating violence myths.

From a public health perspective, these findings are particularly relevant because health sciences students will become future health professionals who interact directly with individuals and communities. Beliefs that normalize or legitimize dating violence may influence how future professionals recognize and respond to situations involving interpersonal violence.

In this context, educational initiatives within health sciences curricula that promote gender equality and encourage critical reflection on dating violence myths may be relevant for improving awareness and attitudes toward dating violence. Future educational and preventive programs addressing gender-related beliefs may contribute to reducing the acceptance of such myths among university students.

Abbreviations

GPS

Gender Perception Scale

DVMS

Dating Violence Myths Scale

Authors’ contributions

ÖG and ST conceptualized the study and designed the methodology. ÖG performed the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. ST supervised the research process. BK and İT contributed to data collection and assisted with data analysis. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) under the 2209-A Research Projects Support Program for Undergraduate Students. The funding body had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

Data availability

The dataset used in this research is available from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Sinop University Local Ethics Committee for Human Research (Session date: 28 March 2024; Session number: 3; Decision no: 2024/42–78). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.