The research analyzed the cognitive styles, sexist attitudes and social competencies that hinder gender equality in secondary education students. It identified sexist attitudes, cognitive styles and social skills that hinder change towards gender equality; explored significant differences in sexist attitudes and cognitive strategies and social attitudes by age; studied the relationship between sexist attitudes and cognitive and social strategies that perpetuate gender inequality; and analyzed how age may predict the use of these strategies. A total of 1034 students aged 11 to 18 participated in a cross-sectional study. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for Adolescents and the Questionnaire of Attitudes and Cognitive Social Strategies were administered. The results indicate that young people exhibit moderate levels of cognitive and social strategies that hinder the change in sexist behaviors. At ages 12–14, the acceptance of ambivalent and benevolent attitudes such as paternalism and heterosexual intimacy increases. We found greater aggressiveness–stubbornness, apathy–withdrawal, impulsivity, and rigidity of thought at ages 15–17. Age explains a small proportion of the variance in sexist attitudes, cognitive styles, and social competencies that hinder gender equality. The study highlights the need for coeducational measures that ensure equal cognitive and socio-emotional development in women and men.

Background: Psychological violence is the most common form of aggression in intimate partner relationships. The lack of agreed theoretical explanations and instruments to identify its multiple manifestations hinders early detection and effective intervention against psychological violence. Therefore, the present study aims to design and validate an instrument for measuring psychological violence in relationships and to determine its psychometric properties. Methods: The study was carried out with 684 university students, 389 females and 295 males, aged between 17 and 23 years (M = 19.8; SD = 2.58). Different sources of validity for The Questionnaire on Psychological Violence in Intimate Partner Relationships (CVPPar) were analysed. Results: First, the factor structure was determined. The results of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported the 46-item, seven-factor structure for CVPPar. This structure accounted for 83.39% of the variance explained. Furthermore, reliability was examined showing a high internal consistency (α = 0.955; ω = 0.957). Finally, CVPPar scores were found to correlate with the CTS-2 and BSI-18. Conclusions: The study concludes that CVPPar has optimal and robust psychometric properties for the assessment of manifestations of psychological violence in intimate partner relationships.

Psychological violence is the most frequent form of aggression in intimate partner relationships. It is characterised by its subtle nature, which hinders detection and intervention. Understanding this phenomenon requires examining attitudes toward love, as they influence how violent behaviours are perceived and legitimised. The aim of this study was to identify manifestations of psychological violence and love attitudes among university students, to analyse the relationship between these variables, and to determine the contribution of love attitudes in explaining the variability in psychological violence. An observational cross-sectional study included 1118 university students aged 17–23 years (M = 20.17; SD = 1.66). The Questionnaire on Psychological Violence in Intimate Partner Relationships (CVPPar) and the Short Love Attitudes Scale (LAS) were administered. The findings revealed variability in both psychological violence and love attitudes, as well as significant associations between the two. In particular, the Eros, Ludus, and Mania styles showed the strongest associations with most of the manifestations examined. Regression analyses indicated that love attitudes significantly contributed to explaining variance in psychological violence, with explained variance ranging from 34% to 43%, indicating moderate explanatory power. This study concludes that attitudes towards love are associated with psychological violence, emphasising the importance of early psychoeducational interventions.

Background/Objectives: Subclinical psychopathy is a relevant construct for the study of dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics and has been associated with different forms of violence in intimate relationships. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the available observational evidence on the association between psychopathic traits and psychological violence in intimate relationships, considering different psychopathy dimensions, manifestations of psychological violence, sources of information, and methodological characteristics of the studies. Methods: A literature search was conducted for studies published in English between January 2015 and March 2026 in Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Eight publications reporting nine independent studies, comprising a total of 2890 participants, were included. This aggregate figure represents the sum of the reported sample sizes and does not constitute a common analytical sample across studies. Data extraction covered sample characteristics, assessment instruments, psychopathy dimensions, manifestations of psychological violence, and main findings; methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale adapted for analytical cross-sectional studies (NOS-xs). Given the heterogeneity of measures, samples, and operationalisations, the findings were synthesised narratively. The reviewed studies showed variable associations between psychopathic traits and different manifestations of psychological violence, with differences according to the dimension assessed, sample type, source of information, and instrument used. In studies specifically examining Factor 1, affective–interpersonal traits were associated with some forms of psychological violence involving control, manipulation, and intimidation; other studies using global measures of psychopathy also identified associations with emotional–verbal abuse and dominance–isolation. Findings regarding Factor 2 were more heterogeneous across studies. Furthermore, some studies identified associations between psychopathy and psychological violence based on perpetrator self-reports, whereas others incorporated reports from victims or partners. Conclusions: Overall, the findings suggest an association between psychopathic traits and psychological violence in intimate relationships. However, the heterogeneity of the included studies and their exclusively cross-sectional design preclude causal inferences and warrant cautious interpretation of the observed associations. These findings may help inform hypotheses for future longitudinal and intervention research.