High-Impact Attitudes: Companion brief

Most Victorians rejected overtly violence-supportive and gender-inequitable statements. Some specific beliefs were nevertheless comparatively common or showed meaningful differences between respondents.

Sexual violence myths and scepticism about the credibility of people who have experienced violence were among the strongest markers of broader violence-supportive attitudes. Some false-accusation narratives were also endorsed by around one-third of Victorians.

Around one-third of Victorians agreed that women exaggerate inequality, misinterpret innocent behaviour as sexist, or do not appreciate what men do for them. Men were consistently more likely to agree.

Beliefs that men make better bosses, community leaders or political leaders, or should control households, were among the strongest markers of broader gender-inequality attitudes, although most Victorians rejected them.

Most Victorians recognised economic abuse, technology-facilitated monitoring, social isolation and identity-based control as violence. Recognition was less consistent for some specific behaviours and was lower among men on several items.

Relatively common narratives may be suitable for broad communication and community norm-setting. Less common but strongly aligned marker beliefs may require more intensive, settings-based work and further testing.

Address disbelief, false-accusation and victim-blaming narratives directly. Use clear counter-framing that does not inadvertently repeat or legitimise the myth.

Address claims that inequality is exaggerated or sexism is being misinterpreted. Their comparatively broad reach makes these narratives relevant to public communication and community norm-setting.

Use focused work in workplaces, leadership settings, community organisations, households and relationships to examine entitlement, decision-making and expectations of male authority.

Clarify how economic abuse, technological monitoring, religious control, social isolation and identity-based coercion operate in practice.

Reinforce existing commitments to prevention infrastructure, including gender equality policy, campaigns, and education initiatives. Maintain focus on reducing violence-supportive attitudes across multiple domains.

Gender differences in attitudes, with men more likely to hold violence-supportive views, highlight the value of strategies that directly engage men and boys. These findings validate current approaches aimed at men and boys and can inform further targeted efforts to challenge harmful beliefs within this cohort.

Develop policy responses that anticipate polarisation. Support consistent, layered gender-sensitive policy approaches that work to mitigate resistance and backlash to violence prevention efforts among some groups, whilst fortifying support. Protecting progress in attitudes, norms and behaviours requires targeted approaches at the individual, community, and systems level to disrupt polarisation.

Bolster efforts to address victim-blaming attitudes and the minimisation of sexual violence, particularly among men, through policies and campaigns that build recognition and understanding of underacknowledged forms of violence against women.

Explore more tailored ways to assess community attitudes to inform and evaluate policy responses. Studies that are designed to measure drivers of gendered violence at state and sub-state levels could look beyond state-level averages of community attitudes to violence against women to better capture both progressive shifts and entrenched resistance within specific segments of the population.

Homophobia and transphobia, along with the minimisation of violence against LGBTIQA+ people, are inextricably linked to cis men’s violence against cis women. Policy responses that seek to address these prejudices and that recognise the unique ways violence is experienced by marginalised groups — who are at higher risk of being blamed or disbelieved — offer an opportunity to deliver more inclusive, equitable prevention responses that also challenge deeply rooted beliefs that underpin gendered violence more broadly.

Raising awareness of violence against women remains essential — especially underrecognised non-physical forms of violence such as coercive control and digital harassment. This includes increasing awareness of the unique ways violence is experienced by marginalised groups.

Gender differences in attitudes validate current efforts to engage men and boys in order to challenge harmful beliefs that inform violence-supportive attitudes. Reinforcing progressive messaging across different spheres could help to address polarisation in attitudes, particularly among those more likely to hold violence-supportive views.
 

Navigating the many layers of influence that shape social norms and individual attitudes remains a major challenge. The socioecological framework continues to provide a valuable guide for designing interventions that respond to interconnected influences that create, shape, and maintain attitudes to violence.

Shifting deeply held attitudes such as victim-blaming and the minimisation of sexual violence is both an opportunity and a challenge. These attitudes remain prevalent in some parts of the community and may require more intensive or consistent efforts to shift. A focus on these high-impact attitudes could strengthen, not replace, ongoing efforts to target all drivers of violence against women.

Challenging rigid gender stereotypes remains an important focus, particularly those that reinforce traditional beliefs that emphasise male authority. These deeply rooted gender norms underpin attitudes that minimise or condone violence against women, making them a critical area for ongoing attention in prevention efforts.

The ‘moveable middle’ holds nuanced and sometimes conflicting views, yet many are open to progressive ideas. This group is critical to long-term change, and significant primary prevention opportunities lie in continuing to build issue salience and a sense of personal relevance among this cohort to support attitudinal shifts.

In a polarised attitudinal landscape, tailoring strategies to different population segments may improve the effectiveness of primary prevention. A targeted approach creates opportunities to address resistance to change, build issue salience among the less engaged, and sustain momentum among those who already hold progressive views.

Attitudes shift at different paces and in different directions, which is a challenge for those developing primary prevention strategies. Primary prevention efforts may benefit from flexible strategies that reflect this complexity, adapting approaches to meet people where they’re at, be it open to change or resistant.

Attitudes denying or minimising gender inequality are the strongest predictors of violence-supportive attitudes.

This confirms the importance of robust research exploring how inequality-endorsing attitudes are formed and sustained, and evaluating which levers are most effective in disrupting those pathways.

The relationship between individual attitudes, social norms, and institutional influences is complex. Researchers could examine how feedback from across these levels impacts the formation and evolution of attitudes, and whether interventions targeting multiple levels of influence are more effective in driving long-term change.

To strengthen prevention efforts, further research could explore how shifts in individual attitudes influence behaviour change and when behaviour change itself drives shifts in attitude. This includes exploring which pathways to change are most effective.

Research that develops, tests, and refines pathways to change plays a critical role in strengthening primary prevention. Ongoing research delivers the evidence base that informs how primary prevention is understood and implemented.

The socioecological model of violence against women predicts that attitudes will not change in a linear and homogenous trend towards progress. The growing divide between progressive and resistant attitudes presents rich opportunities for further research. Researchers could further explore the intersecting factors driving this polarisation and identify prevention strategies accordingly shifts and entrenched resistance within specific segments of the population.

Further research could examine how shifts in high-impact attitudes translate into broader social norm changes. Mapping these attitude-specific pathways could enhance understanding of how and why these attitudes evolve over time.