Raising Awareness of Gender-Based Violence Through Messages Based on Ethical Witnessing: A Spain-Based Study

Abstract

This study takes the perspective of the theory of ethical witnessing. We analyse whether there is a difference in a discourse transmitted in a frame of reference based on ethical witnessing versus a discourse transmitted in the frame of hegemonic discourse based on the hierarchical testimony. This study tests the hypothesis that discourses diverging from the communication hierarchy and, consequently, from the interpretation frame established about gender-based violence, transform the elaboration, comprehension, and structure of questioning the victim’s suffering. The sample comprised 300 individuals, 85 identifying as male and 215 identifying as female. This study adopted a two-factorial (2 × 2) design comparing the testimony of gender-based violence (ethical witnessing vs. hierarchical testimony) and familiarity with the victim’s testimony (Yes vs. No). The results show that communications based on the ethical witnessing format are more effective in transforming the perception of gender-based violence than those using a hierarchical format. This study adopts the framework of ethical witnessing to examine whether discourse differs when conveyed through this lens, compared to discourse shaped by a hegemonic, hierarchical testimony. We test the hypothesis that narratives which deviate from traditional communication hierarchies—and thus from dominant interpretative frameworks surrounding gender-based violence—significantly influence how the victim’s suffering is processed, understood, and questioned. The global resonance of the #MeToo movement exemplifies the transformative potential of ethical testimony, as it amplified the voices of survivors while challenging traditional hierarchies of credibility and authority in public discourse.

1. Introduction

Raising awareness to eradicate gender-based violence requires narratives that activate stable commitments and do not divert attention towards peripheral elements (Pinazo & Nos Aldás, 2016). Both the witness and the victim play a part in all narratives about the truth of a social cause. The #MeToo movement exemplifies how ethical testimony can galvanise public consciousness and reinforce long-term engagement. It underscores the importance of truth-telling that respects the dignity of the victim while fostering social responsibility among witnesses. The media, as witnesses, have prioritised attention to aspects of women’s victimisation and, in the worst-case scenario, blame them for the violence they are subjected to (Gámez-Fuentes, 2013; Gámez et al., 2020; Meyers, 1997). In this context, an alternative communication model is proposed, based on ethical witnessing. Ethical witnessing is defined as a communication practice that seeks to recognise a victim of violence within a frame of reference distinct from the hegemonic discourse (Kaplan, 2005; Oliver, 2001, 2004; Wessels, 2010). The central hypothesis of this approach is that the hegemonic frame of recognition can be broken down (Butler, 2009). As this frame is essentially based on the victim/witness hierarchy and the figure of the agency-less victim, dismantling it can transform the way we understand the social cause being defended (e.g., efforts to eradicate gender-based violence) and focus attention on the problem, not on the credibility of the victim or the broadcaster.

The ethical witnessing paradigm has been applied to the discourse analysis of narratives from popular culture, the traditional media, and social media, revealing communicative discourses, narratives, and initiatives that attempt to break away from the established narrative framework (Gámez-Fuentes, 2021; Gámez et al., 2020; Gámez-Fuentes & Maseda-García, 2018; Maseda-García et al., 2020). However, the impact of these narratives in helping audiences come closer to the reality through a non-hegemonic lens has yet to be tested.

This is especially relevant in Spain. Although the country has been a pioneer and a benchmark in the fight against gender-based violence since the enactment of Organic Law 1/2004 of 28 December on Comprehensive Protection Measures against Gender-Based Violence, further progress is needed towards developing, implementing, and ensuring measures and actions that strengthen the institutional response to violence against women, which must be understood as a continuum that manifests itself in multiple and inter-related forms. In this regard, Gómez Nicolau’s (2016) research underscores the critical role of Spanish journalists specialising in gender violence cases, demonstrating how their reporting practices shape public discourse on this issue by differentiating between ‘good’ victims—those who adhere to the institutional path to recovery—and those who take more autonomous or alternative approaches. She expands this critique by examining how Spanish public policies marginalise prostitutes, lesbians, and so-called ‘bad’ women, excluding them from access to social rights and protections in the fight against gender violence. In doing so, these policies oversimplify the complexity of the issue within the social context (Gómez Nicolau, 2018). In this context, the ethical testimony model becomes especially relevant. Its application in the communication of cases of gender-based violence not only amplifies the voices of victims, but also promotes a more nuanced understanding of violence and its effects on a social and psychological level.

Effective attitude formation regarding social causes—such as preventing gender-based violence—by raising awareness about the reasons it occurs is required for attitudes to form about this content (Greenwald, 1968; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Briñol & Petty, 2012). The ethical witnessing hypothesis critiques the current situation in which the credibility of the victim’s account is questioned, thus shifting attention away from the problem of the abuse to characteristics related to the victim. This perspective claims that awareness about the cause of the abuse is generated by the victim’s direct testimony, not by the hegemonic model (mediated by broadcasters representing the dominant culture) which focuses reporting on suffering and trauma (Gámez et al., 2020; Maseda-García & Gómez-Nicolau, 2018). This concern has been approached from various perspectives, such as addressing the way victims are turned into mere objects (Gámez et al., 2020) or the eroticisation of violence (Jacobs, 2008). In contrast, the ethical witnessing perspective offers the possibility to create a narrative about suffering that compels the witness to position themselves (Kaplan, 2005; Oliver, 2001, 2004). The cause has its own direct witnesses, but the audience can only begin to understand the injustice being denounced through the intermediating agent, either when it allows the victim to give her own direct testimony or when it acts as a corporate witness to her testimony (indirect testimony).

Any subject can bear witness and give testimony simultaneously through social media. However, there is no guarantee that the testimony will capture the audience’s attention, and even less so, that the message will be elaborated; that is, the testimony may not be elaborated as a social problem because it might continue to focus exclusively on the individual case. However, in the ethical witnessing paradigm, the debate prioritises the responsibility of the corporate witness to actively recognise the victim by determining her credibility, with or without her own voice, before a secondary witness or audience (Fassin & Rechtman, 2009). This reveals the importance of the witness’s own ideological position and the risk of it being transferred to the social cause (Pinazo-Calatayud et al., 2020).

The ethical witnessing paradigm defends communication that does not focus on the victim’s suffering (Kaplan, 2005; Oliver, 2001, 2004); by putting to one side the suffering involved in an individual case, the audience can focus its attention on the structural violence that underpins that suffering. However, this can only happen if, from the outset, the victim’s testimony is not questioned and they are allowed to convince, to persuade. The first step to make a message persuasive is to capture the audience’s attention and then ensure that its content, whether emotional or informative, is elaborated (e.g., Briñol & Petty, 2015). Attention favours elaboration, but it does not guarantee it (Eveland, 2001; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Commitment to social causes, beyond the automatic reaction to the message, requires attention, a deliberative response that helps the understanding of the message, and also evaluative engagement (Pinazo & Nos Aldás, 2016). The responsibility of the media, or of any agent acting as a facilitator of trauma expression, is to present a narrative that does not question the victim’s account, that encourages an understanding of the problem beyond the familiar sites of interpretation, and that allows the victim to present herself as a subject with agency, regardless of whether (or not) her actions can be easily assimilated in the frame of hegemonic interpretation (Gámez-Fuentes, 2021).

This study is based on the theory of ethical witnessing that allows one to analyse and compare the effect of a hierarchical testimony that questions the victim’s narrative with a direct testimony that does not. We analyse whether there is a difference in the way a message about gender-based violence is received according to the reference framework adopted: a discourse transmitted in a frame of reference based on ethical witnessing versus a discourse transmitted in the frame of hegemonic discourse based on the hierarchical testimony.

We hypothesise that messages framed as a non-hierarchical narrative about lived gender-based violence have significant transformative effects on the cause. These effects will be seen in persuasive aspects of the message, such as their greater capacity to direct attention to structural violence and to induce the feeling that the problem is understood, aspects that are associated with the motivation to evaluate the message (Briñol & Petty, 2015). We expect to detect effects that confirm the ethical witnessing paradigm. In particular, we want to analyse the capacity of messages with ethical witnessing characteristics to de-individualise the problem, generate more elaboration of the information, and break away from the stereotype of the agency-less victim.

2. Method

This study tests the hypothesis that discourses diverging from the communication hierarchy and, consequently, from the interpretation frame established about gender-based violence, transform the elaboration, comprehension, and structure of questioning the victim’s suffering. This effect would be independent of whether or not the audience knows the victim’s full version, because attention would be focused on the social cause and not the broadcaster.

3. Participants

This study was carried out on a sample of university students from different disciplines. The sample comprised 300 individuals, 85 identifying as male with an average age of 21.8 years (SD = 4.85), and 215 identifying as female with an average age of 20.7 years (SD = 2.69).

4. Design and Procedure

This study adopted a two-factorial (2 × 2) design comparing the testimony of gender-based violence (ethical witnessing vs. hierarchical testimony) and familiarity with the victim’s testimony (Yes vs. No). Potential participants were informed that the task was for university research and was voluntary; those who took part would receive credits related to the subject. The students who agreed to participate were sent a link where they could carry out the task online; the responses received were anonymised.

All participants were asked to declare any previous or current psychological or medical condition or treatment, and all signed a written informed consent form. The research was approved by the university’s institutional review board and conducted according to an approved protocol and informed consent process. The confidentiality of personally identifiable information was guaranteed to safeguard privacy.

The link opened a pre-questionnaire where participants confirmed they accepted voluntary participation and provided basic demographic data. The link also contained a video and a set of questions that assessed their reaction to it.

Participants were then asked to respond (yes or no) to a question on whether or not they had seen or heard any discussions about the documentary on the person (we did not disclose the person’s name here, although it was stated in the question). This question sought to assess participants’ familiarity with the documentary. They were then shown the video and given the questionnaire that assessed their reaction to it. The participants were stratified based on their familiarity with the victim’s testimony (familiar vs. not familiar) and then randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (ethical witnessing vs. hierarchical testimony), resulting in four groups of 75 each. Of the 300 participants, 150 were invited to watch a video based on ethical witnessing; among them, 75 were ‘not familiar with’ and 75 were ‘familiar with’ the testimony of the victim delivering the message. The other 150 participants were invited to watch a video representing a narrative complying with the hierarchical communication model; the participants were randomly split into two groups of 75 according to whether they were familiar with the victim’s testimony.

5. Variables

5.1. Independent Variable

We used two eight-minute videos with a relevant media content to test the effect of ethical witnessing. These were extracts from longer items, however. The first video, (https://www.telecinco.es/rocio-contar-la-verdad-para-seguir-viva/rocio-carrasco-mensaje-mujeres-maltratadas_18_3144495411.html, accessed on 3 April 2022), is part of a documentary series starring a Spanish celebrity, Rocío Carrasco, who talks about the gender-based violence she was subjected to for more than 20 years at the hand of her ex-husband, and her repeated re-victimisation by the media and legal–social agencies. The series was chosen because of its media impact. At the time of this study, it had been watched by 3.7 million viewers and had a 33.2% audience share. Its media impact raised awareness of abuse that was reflected in a record month-to-month increase of 61% in calls to official domestic abuse helplines. In the week after the first episode was aired, these calls increased by 41.9% and WhatsApp consultations rose from 31 to 485. The documentary as a whole met the communication criteria that define ethical witnessing. Although the selected piece was taken from the documentary and reflects the departure from the communication hierarchy seen throughout the series, we cannot guarantee that the extract would be perceived as entirely representative of an ethical witnessing discourse. To overcome this difficulty, we considered a new variable: familiarity with the documentary.

The remaining 150 participants were invited to watch a video representing a narrative complying with the hierarchical communication model, presented by Albert Domènech, editor in chief of the newspaper La Vanguardia. In this extract, Domènech questioned, in a purportedly informative message, the victim’s version of her suffering (hierarchical testimony, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv_rr_x5JA0, accessed on 3 April 2022).

5.2. Dependent Variables

In the ethical witnessing paradigm, the victim’s discourse is expected to generate the higher elaboration of the information, de-individualise the narrative, shift the focus of attention away from the characteristics and credibility of the victim, and stimulate an evaluation of the gender-based violence message. To assess these aspects, the participants were asked to write down their thoughts while they watched the video.

Elaboration of the information. The level of cognitive elaboration of the content in the videos was assessed according to the number of thoughts elaborated (M = 3.77; SD = 1.93).

De-individualisation of the narrative. The elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty & Briñol, 2015) states that attitude changes will only persist if the discourse is followed through the central route, in which the information is elaborated from the message and attention is shifted away from peripheral aspects such as the broadcaster, which is attributed with an intentionality that contaminates the credibility of the message. The ethical witnessing paradigm holds that the social awareness of the victim’s suffering increases during the reception of the message when attention is focused on the message, not the person; when the receiver of the message wants to attribute intentions unconnected with the content of the message, attention is focused on the person (Gámez-Fuentes, 2013). We define the de-individualisation of the narrative as the process of message elaboration in which the receiver does not attribute intentionality in the content of the message to the source (individual or media), which is valid in itself. To assess this aspect, we carried out a content analysis of the elaborated information using inter-judge validation. Three of the paper’s authors assessed each of the thoughts reported by the participants and classified them into three previously agreed categories related to de-individualisation, namely, 0: does not question the victim’s credibility (N = 109); 1: questions the credibility of the media, but not the victim (N = 89); 2: questions the victim’s narrative (N = 81). Each judge reached their conclusions independently of the other two. Finally, the participants whose elaboration matched one of the three categories were labelled in that category, if two or three of the judges had concluded that they belonged in that category. If only one of the judges classified a participant’s thoughts in a category, the response was excluded; 21 of the participants were eliminated in this way, leaving a total of 279 participants allocated to one of the three categories.

Victimisation. We understand victimisation to be present in the participants’ thoughts when they express an interest in judging the victim (0), rather than assessing or judging the message of violence she tells (1). The participants were classified into these two categories using the same inter-judge validation process as for the previous variable. A total of 96 participants fell into category 0 and 186 into category 1; 18 participants’ elaborations were excluded as the three judges concluded their content could not be labelled in either of the two categories.

Interest in the message. Interest in a message is a motivational factor that influences attention and understanding, although it is not a necessary condition (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). We assessed attention with two independent items on a scale of 1 to 9. For the first question, ‘Did you pay attention to the video?’, 1 represented ‘I didn’t pay attention to the video’ and 9 was ‘I paid close attention to the video’. Responses to the second question, ‘Did you pay attention to the message?’, ranged from 1, ‘I didn’t pay attention to the message’ to 9, ‘I paid close attention to the message’. A third question assessed the understanding of the message on a nine-point scale, where 1 represented ‘I didn’t understand the message at all’, and 9 was ‘I understood the message very well’. All three items had high internal consistency (α = 0.88). Given that the participants’ attention to the video was voluntary and they could choose whether or not to make an effort to understand it, we consider that the three items could be a factor reflecting interest in assessing the message of the media item (M = 7.2; SD = 1.64).

5.3. Sample

A non-probability convenience sampling procedure was used on a general population of university students. A minimum sample of 279 community-dwelling adult participants was required to detect a medium effect (f² 0.25) with a theoretical statistical power of 0.95. The predetermined alpha level used to assess statistical significance was = 0.05, for an ANOVA with four groups, using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2009). To have balanced groups we extended the recruitment up to 300 subjects.

5.4. Data Analysis

We used the statistical program SPSS 29.0 for the data analysis

6. Results

The χ² analysis reveals no differences in the type of video condition according to gender (χ² = 0.016; df = 1; p = 0.898).

Table 1. Correlations.

Variables	2	3	4
1. Elaboration	0.06	0.13 *	0.13 *
2. Attention to video	-	0.69 ***	0.66 ***
3. Attention to message	-	-	0.44 ***
4. Understanding	-	-	-

*** p ≤ 0.001, * p ≤ 0.05 (bilateral).

displays the correlation analysis of the non-dichotomous variables.

The MANOVA analysing the interaction between ethical witnessing and familiarity with the victim’s message (

Table 2. MANOVA testimony x familiarity on elaboration and interest.

	M	SD	F	p	η2
Elaboration Ethical witnessing Hierarchical testimony Interest Ethical witnessing Hierarchical testimony Elaboration Familiarity No familiarity Interest Familiarity No familiarity	4.26 3.29   7.94 6.46   3.84 3.71   7.31 7.10	1.90 1.85   1.24 1.66   1.85 2.02   1.57 1.71	20.11     75.77     0.38     1.26	<0.001     <0.001     0.539     0.213	0.064     0.204     0.001     0.005
Elaboration Ethical witnessing x Familiarity Ethical witnessing x No Familiarity Hierarchical testimony x Familiarity Hierarchical testimony x No Familiarity Interest Ethical witnessing x Familiarity Ethical witnessing x No Familiarity Hierarchical testimony x Familiarity Hierarchical testimony x No Familiarity	4.29   4.23   3.39   3.19     7.99   7.89   6.63   6.30	1.71   20.8   1.89   1.82     1.24   1.25   1.57   1.74	0.09                 0.45	0.759                 0.504	0.000                 0.002

) shows that the video had a significant effect (Wilks λ = 47.774; df = 295; p ≤ 0.001; ω2 = 0.245), but neither the effect of familiarity (Wilks λ = 0.963; df= 295; p = 0.383; ω2 = 0.006) nor the interaction between them (Wilks λ = 0.270; df = 295; p = 763; ω2 = 0.002) was significant. The Levene test for the equality of error variance is fulfilled for the variable ‘interest’ (p = 0.006), but not for the variable ‘elaboration’ (p = 0.347). In addition, Box’s M test indicates that the variance matrices of the dependent variables are different for each group (M = 17.850; p = −0.40).

The results show that familiarity with the documentary or the situation the protagonist denounces has no influence on the way in which the message is elaborated or the interest it generates. However, the discourse grounded in the ethical witnessing paradigm enhances interest in the message and increases the elaboration of the content of the message.

A nonparametric test was performed to analyse the influence of the testimony and familiarity on de-individualisation and victimisation. Familiarity was found to have no effect on either de-individualisation (χ² = 2.95; df = 2; p = 0.229) or victimisation (χ² = 0.0.61; df = 1; p = 0.806).

The χ² analysis shows that ethical witnessing has a positive effect on de-individualisation (χ² = 102.85; df = 2; p ≤ 0.001). Participants who watched the ethical witnessing-based video questioned the victim’s credibility to a lesser extent (z = 5.1) than those who watched the hierarchical testimony-based video (z = −5.2). Viewers of the hierarchical testimony were more likely to question the media (z = 5.0) or the victim (z = 0.8), compared to viewers of the ethical witnessing video, who tended not to question the victim (z = −0.8), and were less likely to question the media (z = −4.9).

The χ² analysis reveals a negative effect of ethical witnessing on victimisation (χ² = 70.37; df = 1; p ≤ 0.001). Those who watched the ethical witnessing video were less judgemental of the victim (z = 3.4) than those who watched the hierarchical testimony video (z = −3.5). Viewers of the hierarchical testimony judged the victim more frequently (z = 4.9) and tended not to focus on the message of violence (z = −3.5) compared to those who watched the ethical witnessing video.

7. Discussion

This study set out to analyse whether communication items produced according to the ethical witnessing paradigm generated significantly different effects to those created in line with the hierarchical testimony paradigm. The ethical witnessing paradigm holds that communications based on this model direct attention to the social cause, in this case, gender-based violence, and not the victim. To do this, the ethical discourse makes understanding the problem more complex; that is, it requires more elaboration from the person receiving the communication. The ethical witnessing paradigm also places less attention on the victim’s suffering—the de-individualisation of the person’s narrative—by separating their discourse from interests unconnected to the content, and increases motivation to understand and pay attention to it. According to this paradigm, these effects are not related to the recipient’s familiarity with the case analysed in this study, since what is relevant is the cause in itself, rather than the particular case.

The hierarchical testimony paradigm grants credibility to certain witnesses over others. The ethical testimony paradigm, on the other hand, involves the viewer in a more subjective process (Kenny, 2022; Puente et al., 2021). This greater participation by the viewer may explain why they are more interested in the message and need to elaborate on it. On the other hand, our results lend support to the ethical witnessing perspective as an alternative to communication based on hierarchical testimony, in line with previous studies defending the importance of communication from the perspective of the social cause itself (Pinazo & Nos Aldás, 2016). Our study reveals differences in aspects referring to the capacity to raise awareness about gender-based violence by elaborating the message from the premise of ethical witnessing. These effects are not due to prior familiarity with the audiovisual piece, which reinforces the possibility that ethical witnessing, compared to hierarchical testimony, is the stimulus that triggers greater interest and deeper thought processes about the message. Greater interest in the video and the increased elaboration of its message are linked to the capacity of a communication to favour a persistent change in attitude to the social issue addressed. From the ethical witnessing paradigm, both these aspects are among the conditions that bring about a greater awareness of the problem of gender-based violence.

Recent research shows that digital platforms can transform the way a testimony about sexual violence is delivered without the determinant of hierarchical structures (García-Mingo & Prieto Blanco, 2023). The results show indirectly, through interest and greater cognitive elaboration, that communications based on the ethical witnessing format are more able to transform the perception of gender-based violence than those using a hierarchical format. Thus, we suggest that messages designed to guide the communication towards the actual characteristics of the cause can help raise awareness about it (Pinazo & Nos Aldás, 2016) by following a persuasive format that motivates the recipient to pay attention and elaborate the message (Briñol & Petty, 2015). In this sense, we propose that the ethical witnessing paradigm offers an appropriate communication structure to dismantle the stereotype of the agency-less victim (Gámez-Fuentes, 2013).

The practical implications of these findings relate to the importance of bringing to light direct testimonies from victims of gender-based violence. By doing so, their unmediated discourse can reach the audience by emphasising the relevant aspects of this social problem. The importance of communicating from the social cause itself, moving the focus away from the victim, enables the audience to centre on the essence of the issue. The focus of attention is shifted away from the victim; her behaviour (i.e., what she did or did not do to avoid the gender-based violence) is no longer judged. The attribution of responsibility to the victim– that is, blaming her for the harm perpetrated—is one of the mechanisms of moral disengagement that can be used to fall into behaviours that contradict the values defended. Focusing the communication on the message rather than the victim will hinder moral disengagement in an audience facing the social drama of gender-based violence.

Future research could benefit from applying the ethical witnessing paradigm to other communications and other social issues. Although the communication format for demonstrating and raising awareness about these other social issues may require a different structure, this study shows that presenting causes as agents of their own communication, without mediators, encourages the transformation of how their content is interpreted. Future studies should assess whether this transformation also brings about significant attitude changes.

8. Study Limitations

The first limitation is the brevity of the communications studied. In the case of the ethical witnessing format, watching the entire documentary would have allowed for a broader and clearer reflection on the ethical witnessing communication format. However, presenting the whole documentary would have weakened the reliability of the experimental design. A second limitation is the lack of a second study replicating the first; to do this we would have needed a second documentary with similar characteristics, which we did not have at the time of this study.