Domestic violence is a phenomenon that affects people from all around the world. A multi-country study by Elsberg and his colleagues aimed to examine and describe consequences of such violence on people’s mental health. They found that domestic violence can severely impair people’s lives by inducing suicidal thoughts and attempts. It also influences daily activities because victims tend to suffer from pain, memory loss, dizziness and have difficulties with walking. However, little is known about male victims and the consequences of violence by female perpetrators is viewed as less serious than the one from males.
A special thanks to Petya Petrova and her paper: ''Domestic Violence: Leave or Stay?'' for both inspiring and giving insight for the present article.
The following article will include the following:
- Models making it hard to report abuse
- Why do victims stay?
- The gender stereotype in domestic violence
- Domestic violence victims and their defence in court
- Perceptions of domestic violence
- The turning point
Although the negative consequences of domestic violence are recently becoming more known, researchers have not concluded why exactly sometimes victims would choose to not report the crime and stay in the abusive environment. Some suggest that this is merely a complex thought-process (Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013) [2]. Others argue that internal and external factors play an important role. Cluss and colleagues’ (2006) [3] psychosocial readiness model says that victims’ decision to stay or leave a toxic relationship depends on: one’s level of self-efficacy (i.e. how much they believe that they are capable of leaving/reporting), on received support and on whether they perceive their partner’s behavior as abusive.
Related to external factors, Overstreet and Quinn’s (2013) [4] propose the IPV stigmatization model. This model stresses the importance of society. Stereotypes or strongly holding religious beliefs could also be an influence on victims’ decisions. Whilst the above-mentioned hypothesis might not individually explain the thought process of victims, it does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. It is possible that a unifying theory would be the best to explain this phenomenon. Further review on those underlying factors could facilitate psychologists’ ability to identify mechanisms used by the victims to explain their choice. Other implications could include raising awareness and promoting courage for people in the same situation.
Why do victims stay?
Strorer, Rodriguez, and Franklin (2018) [6] conducted an observational study in order to examine why victims of domestic violence would stay in their abusive environment. To obtain the data for their research, they used online posts from the social media platform Twitter that contained the hashtag #WhyIStayed. The results of the study yielded seven main reasons for staying:
- impact of abuse on well-being,
- lack of awareness about how abusive relationship look like and their consequences,
- thoughts regarding not fitting the stereotypical description of a victim,
- structural barriers like administrative obstacles or lack of support from authorities,
- thoughts that abuse is normal part of relationships,
- the fact that leaving takes time
- fear of being racially stereotyped held by African women specifically.
Another similar observational study was conducted by Craven, Whiting, and Aamar (2015) [7]. They performed a qualitative content analysis of again tweets that used the hashtag #WhyIStayed. Their analysis showed eight factors that influence a victim's decision: self-deception and distortion, view on self-worth, fear, taking the role of a savior, children, family expectations, financial matters and lack of social support.
The findings of both of those studies were from a website where data was just observed and interpreted. It was thought that because of this online, not so exposing environment, victims gave a more honest description of the experience they had with domestic violence. Although tweets were collected from all around the world, findings cannot be generalized since neither of the studies controlled for gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity and other descriptives.
The gender stereotype in domestic violence
The gender paradigm stereotype explains while violence on males caused by female perpetrators is taken less seriously [5]. In a study by Dutton and White (2013) it was reported that an emergency clinic in Philadelphia found that 12.6 percent of all male patients over a thirteen-week period (N=866) were victims of domestic violence. These patients reported having been kicked, bitten, punched, or choked by female intimate partners in 47 percent of cases, and in 37 percent of cases reported a weapon being used against them. The authors observe that the numbers would have been higher except they had to stop counting after midnight and screened out“major trauma” cases, which could have upped the proportion injured by female partners. Note that many emergency clinics ask women but not men about potential domestic violence origins for injuries. An emergency clinic study in Ohio found that 72 percent of men admitted with injuries from spousal violence had been stabbed. The authors report that burns obtained in intimate violence were as frequent for male victims as for female victims.
Domestic violence victims and their defence in court [5]
A specialized municipal domestic violence court includes: a domestic violence unit within the police department, a designated judge and prosecutor, and a victim services program that includes an advocate from an area domestic violence shelter to help enhance victims’ safety by acting as a liaison between the victim and the prosecutor to aid in prosecution. “No-drop” policies aided law enforcement to make the arrest and allowed the prosecution to decide whether to press charges, while taking the decision away from the victim. Effects of no-drop policies have included the increased use of legal factors such as offense seriousness, injury severity, and prior criminal history, regardless of what the victim wants. This is in direct contrast to sexual assault cases, wherein extralegal factors were found to form the basis of prosecutorial charging practices. By not allowing victims to be a part of the decision, some researchers have argued, these policies have disempowered victims. After friends and family, victims ranked advocates as the second most important group of supportive people to help encourage victims to pursue prosecution. Advocates provided outreach support for the victims within the courtroom and over the phone. These services influenced greater victim cooperation and in turn assisted prosecution efforts.
Perceptions of domestic violence [5]
Studies of lay persons and psychologists reveal that the stereotype created by the gender paradigm is pervasive; both groups view an identical action when committed by a man as more abusive and more likely to require police intervention. Male victimization is not viewed to be as serious as female victimization. Regardless of injuries sustained, or other negative outcomes, society views IPV perpetrated by a woman towards a man as less dangerous and less potentially harmful to the victim. A really interesting finding was that the same gender stereotypes concerning domestic violence were also held by psychologists, being independent of their gender. They rated male perpetrated behaviors as more abusive and severe than a female’s use of the same actions. Contextual factors (e.g., frequency/intent/perception of recipient) did not affect this tendency. This extends even to psychiatric evaluations sometimes, with women being under evaluated as dangerous while men being over evaluated. Both male victims and male perpetrators have a more difficult experience in the aftermath of IPV. Male perpetrators receive harsher legal penalties, and are judged as more capable of inflicting injury or instilling fear in their female partner. This is true even when they have been part of a bilateral IPV pattern. Male victims also fare worse when attempting to access services, as males are more likely to be labelled the aggressor and to be treated with suspicion and injuries they have sustained are likely to be minimized. Custody assessments are misdirected, focusing on the male as the sole source of threat to children for physical abuse. A major revision of our thinking is required, one that is empirically based and can alter an emotionally tinged stereotype.
The turning point
The study mentioned earlier by Craven, Whiting, and Aamar (2015) [7] further investigated what changed one’s mind and led him/her to leave their abusive partner. This time, their analysis included tweets with the hashtag #WhyILeft. The factors they found were personal growth, connection to support and protection of children. Those results once again stress the importance of raising awareness for IPV. Victims reported that after they have informed themselves more on how healthy relationships look like, they clearly saw that they are part of a dysfunctional one. This helped them admit that they needed help and the more support they received, the easier it was for them to change their situation. The decision was influenced by the fact that some also started to fear that their children will be the next victims of their partner. Victims reported that a clear turning point for them was when the abuser started severely threatening their life or when the abuse escalated from one form to another, for example psychological to physical. Some found their courage when friends or family opened their eyes about how wrong their relationship is functioning. Educating through books or intervention programs made the victims take action and terminate the relationship.
- Friendly reminder: In case you believe you know a person or people suffering from domestic violence always remember that you should not hesitate to call the national domestic violence hotline that differs per country and seek help, because the people suffering might not do it in time for themselves to be safe.
References
[1] Ellsberg, M., Jansen, H. A., Heise, L., Watts, C. H., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2008). Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: an observational study. The Lancet, 371(9619), 1165-1172. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60522-X
[2] Reisenhofer, S., & Taft, A. (2013). Women's journey to safety–The Transtheoretical model in clinical practice when working with women experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: A scientific review and clinical guidance. Patient Education and Counseling, 93(3), 536- 548. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.004
[3] Cluss, P. A., Chang, J. C., Hawker, L., Scholle, S. H., Dado, D., Buranosky, R., & Goldstrohm, S. (2006). The process of change for victims of intimate partner violence: support for a psychosocial readiness model. Women's Health Issues, 16, 262-274. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2006.06.006
[4] Overstreet, N. M., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 109-122.
doi: 10.1080/01973533.2012.746599
[5] Dutton, D.G., & White, K. R., (2013). Male domestic violence. New Male Studies, An International Journal, 2(1), 5-17.
[6] Storer, H. L., Rodriguez, M., & Franklin, R. (2018). “Leaving Was a Process, Not an Event”: The Lived Experience of Dating and Domestic Violence in 140 Characters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi: 10.1177/0886260518816325
[7] Cravens, J. D., Whiting, J. B., & Aamar, R. O. (2015). Why I stayed/left: An analysis of voices of intimate partner violence on social media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37(4), 372- 385. doi: 10.1007/s10591-015-9360-8