Breaking Apart Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse 1032010649, 9781032010649

Citation preview

Breaking Apart Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

Breaking Apart Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse provides a thorough examination of intimate partner violence and abuse, encompassing the nature, influences, and impact of its presence in interpersonal relationships. By “pulling together” representative studies and other evidence-​based analyses by researchers and interventionists, this comprehensive overview surveys the prevalence, patterns, and common risk factors among a number of demographics, including women, men, transpeople, partners in opposite-​and same-​sex relationships, teen dating partners, later-​life partners, and abused partners with disabilities. The authors also disentangle –​ that is, “break apart” –​the factors of race, class, gender, sexuality, gender expression, and culture by exploring their effects on experiences of intimate partner violence and abuse perpetration and victimization. Although less scrutinized in current literature on the topic, discourse and institutional barriers to abused women’s well-​being and safety are also delved into, particularly those exacerbated by rural isolation, non-​national status, and theologies. The authors supplement their in-​depth overview by highlighting protective measures and resources throughout, identifying treatments and public health approaches to violence and abuse intervention and prevention, as well as incorporating discussion exercises and illustrations that extend the book’s concepts into real-​life settings. In their exploration of the forms, causes, prevalence, and consequences of intimate partner violence and abuse among different groups, the authors address the problem with both nuance and scope. Combined with their evidence-based recommendations, the book offers valuable insight for students, researchers, and practitioners in the fields of domestic and family abuse and intimate partner violence. Shondrah Tarrezz Nash, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, Morehead State University.

Lisa Michele Shannon, Ph.D., MSW, Professor of Social Work, Morehead State University. Monica Himes, Ph.D., LCSW, Assistant Professor of Social Work, Morehead State University. Lynn Geurin, Ph.D., LCSW, Professor of Social Work, Morehead State University.

Breaking Apart Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Shondrah Tarrezz Nash, Ph.D. Lisa Michele Shannon, Ph.D., MSW Monica Himes, Ph.D, LCSW Lynn Geurin, Ph.D., LCSW

Designed cover image: Shutterstock First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Shondrah Tarrezz Nash, Lisa Michele Shannon, Monica Himes and Lynn Geurin The right of Shondrah Tarrezz Nash, Lisa Michele Shannon, Monica Himes and Lynn Geurin to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Nash, Shondrah Tarrezz, author. | Shannon, Lisa Michele, author. | Himes, Monica, author. | Geurin, Lynn, author. Title: Breaking apart intimate partner violence and abuse / Shondrah Tarrezz Nash, Lisa Michele Shannon, Monica Himes, Lynn Geurin. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “Breaking Apart Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse provides a thorough examination of intimate partner violence and abuse, encompassing the nature, incurring factors, and the impact of its presence in interpersonal relationships”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2023006403 (print) | LCCN 2023006404 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032010649 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032010632 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003176961 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Intimate partner violence. | Family violence. Classification: LCC HV6626 .N368 2024 (print) | LCC HV6626 (ebook) | DDC 362.82/92–dc23/eng/20230224 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023006403 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023006404 ISBN: 9781032010649 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032010632 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003176961 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781003176961 Typeset in Sabon by Newgen Publishing UK

Shondrah Tarrezz Nash –​To my warm, wonderful, and ever-​supportive family: my parents, Johnny and Glenda, my brothers, “Van” and Jason, and their special gift to all of us, my nieces Kennedy, Gabrielle, and Gianna. Lisa Michele Shannon –​To my parents, Lowell and Betty, and my husband and children, Ben, Elaina, and Luke, for always being loving and supportive. Monica Himes –​To my husband Kevin, my daughters Candace and Megan, and my parents John and Margie –​thank you for being my inspiration and an endless source of love, support, and encouragement. Lynn Geurin –​To my daughter Abbey, thanks for your contributions to the book. Your passion for social justice inspires me every day. I am blessed to be your mother, XO.

Contents

1 “Breaking Apart” Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships

1

2 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies

18

3 “Breaking Apart” Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

40

4 “Breaking Apart” Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

66

5 “Breaking Apart” Teen Dating Violence and Abuse

86

6 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse among Later-​Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities

111

7 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Women in Cultural Contexts

129

8 “Breaking Apart” Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave

150

viii  Contents

9 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention Appendix I: Domestic Violence Personalized Safety Plan Appendix II: Teen Safety Plan Template Index

166 185 192 197

Detailed Table of Contents

1 “Breaking Apart” Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships

1

Case History: #MeToo  1 “Breaking Apart” What Defines Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  3 “Breaking Apart” the Types of IPVA  4 Physical Violence  4 Psychological Abuse (Emotional Abuse)  4 Coercive Control  5 Gaslighting  5 Digital Abuse  6 Sexual Violence  6 Sexual Coercion  6 Reproductive Coercion  6 Rape  7 Stalking  7 Cyberstalking  8 Other Distinctions of IPVA  8 Situational Couple Violence  8 Intimate Terrorism  8 Violent Resistance  9 Mutual Violent Control  9 “Breaking Apart” the Beginnings: IPVA Resistance Histories  10 “Breaking Apart” the Controversies and Current Movements in IPVA Research  12 Intersectionality and IPVA  12 Gender Symmetry  12 IPVA against Men  13 IPVA and LGBTQ Couples  13 Chapter Summary  13

x  Detailed Table of Contents Recommended Resources  14 Discussion Questions  14

2 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies

18

3 “Breaking Apart” Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

40

Case History: Oregon Gubernatorial Debate  18 Scope of the Problem  18 “Breaking Apart” Theories Explaining IPVA  19 Psychiatric Models  19 Sociological Models  20 Social Exchange Theories  20 Resource Theories  21 Feminist Models  22 Patriarchal Theory  22 Intersectional Theory  22 Social-​Psychological Models  23 Social Learning Theory  23 Strain Theories  24 Minority Stress Perspective  25 “Breaking Apart” Cultural Factors Influencing IPVA  26 Media and Technology  26 Cultural Norms and Attitudes Regarding Gender  26 Gender Inequalities  27 “Breaking Apart” the Role of IPVA Research  27 IPVA Definitions and Theories  28 IPVA Sampling Methods  29 Probability-​Based Strategies  29 Non-​Probability-​Based Strategies  29 Analyzing IPVA  30 Quantitative Methods  30 Qualitative Methods  31 Mixed Methods  32 Research Instruments  33 NISVS  33 CTS  34 Chapter Summary  35 Recommended Resource  35 Discussion Questions  35

Case History: Gabby and Brian  40

Detailed Table of Contents  xi Scope of the Problem  40 Women and Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  41 “Breaking Apart” Physical IPVA  41 Prevalence  41 SES  42 Race/​Ethnicity  43 “Breaking Apart” Sexual IPVA  44 Prevalence  44 Marital Rape  45 Race/​Ethnicity  45 SES  45 “Breaking Apart” Psychological (Emotional) IPVA  46 Prevalence  46 Coercive Control  46 Race/​Ethnicity and SES  47 “Breaking Apart” Stalking IPVA  48 Prevalence  48 Race/​Ethnicity and SES  48 IPVA among Women in Same-​Sex Relationships and Transgender Women  49 Scope of the Problem  49 Lesbian Women  49 Bisexual Women  50 Transgender Women  50 “Breaking Apart” Barriers to IPVA Help-​Seeking  51 Regarding Women in Same-​Sex Relationships  51 Misconceptions about IPVA Experiences  51 External and Internalized Homophobia  51 Regarding Transwomen  52 Exclusionary Service Practices  52 External and Internalized Transphobia  52 “Breaking Apart” IPVA Risks, Consequences, and Protective Factors Regarding Women  53 Risk Factors for Female Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  53 Childhood Trauma  53 Pregnancy  53 Alcohol Use/​Dependency  53 Social Attitudes Regarding Gender  54 Consequences of Female Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  54 Health-​Related Outcomes  54 Homicide  55 Protective Factors of Female Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  55

xii  Detailed Table of Contents Education and SES  55 Social Support  56 Protective Resources and Strategies for Women Survivors of IPVA  56 Individualized Safety Plans  56 Clinical-​Based Interventions  57 Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy  57 Chapter Summary  58 Recommended Resources  58 Discussion Question  59

4 “Breaking Apart” Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

66

Case History: Andy and Linda  66 Scope of the Problem  67 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Men  67 “Breaking Apart” Physical IPVA  67 Prevalence  67 Experiences with Physical Victimization  68 “Breaking Apart” Sexual Violence  68 Prevalence  68 Experiences with Sexual Violence Victimization  68 “Breaking Apart” Psychological (Emotional) Abuse  69 Prevalence  69 Experiences with Psychological (Emotional) Victimization  69 “Breaking Apart” Stalking  70 Prevalence  70 Experiences with Stalking Victimization  70 “Breaking Apart” Race/​Ethnicity, SES, and Male IPVA Victimization  70 Race/​Ethnicity  70 SES  70 “Breaking Apart” Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  71 Scope of the Problem  71 Regarding Gay Men  71 Regarding Bisexual Men  72 Regarding Transgender Men  72 “Breaking Apart” Barriers to IPVA Help-​Seeking among Abused Men  73 Masculinity Archetypes  73

Detailed Table of Contents  xiii Attitudes toward Law Enforcement  73 Reception from Service Providers  74 Sexual/​Gender Minority Males and Heteronormative Biases in Supportive Services  74 Sexual/​Gender Minority Men and Fear of Outing  74 Sexual/​Gender Minority Men and Double Outing  74 Sexual/​Gender Minority Men and Marginalization by Service Providers  75 “Breaking Apart” IPVA Risks, Consequences, and Protective Factors and Resources Regarding Men  75 Risk Factors for Male Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  75 Alcohol and Substance Use/​Dependency  75 Childhood Trauma and Mental Health Factors  76 Consequences of Male Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  76 Physical and Mental Health Outcomes  76 Homicide  77 Protective Factors of Male Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  77 Social Support  77 Age  77 Protective Resources and Strategies for Abused Male Survivors of IPVA  78 Individualized Safety Plans  78 Clinical-​Based Interventions  78 Community-​Based Supportive Services  79 Chapter Summary  79 Recommended Resource  80 Discussion Question  80

5 “Breaking Apart” Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Case History: Mya and Samuel  86 Scope of the Problem  86 “Breaking Apart” Physical TDVA  87 Prevalence  87 Race/​Ethnicity and Gender  88 SES  89 “Breaking Apart” Sexual TDVA  90 Prevalence  90 Race/​Ethnicity and Gender  91 SES  91 “Breaking Apart” Psychological TDVA  91 Prevalence  91

86

xiv  Detailed Table of Contents Gender  92 Race/​Ethnicity  93 SES  93 “Breaking Apart” Stalking TDVA  94 Prevalence  94 Race/​Ethnicity, Gender, and SES  94 Other Distinctions of TDVA  95 Teen Digital Dating Abuse  95 Sextortion  95 Sexting  95 “Breaking Apart” Dating Violence and Abuse in LGBTQ Teen Relationships  96 Scope of the Problem  96 “Breaking Apart” Physical TDVA  97 Prevalence  97 Gender  97 Race/​Ethnicity  98 “Breaking Apart” Sexual TDVA  98 Prevalence  98 Gender  99 Race/​Ethnicity  99 “Breaking Apart” Psychological (Emotional) TDVA  99 Prevalence  99 Gender  100 “Breaking Apart” Stalking and Teen Digital Dating Abuse  100 “Breaking Apart” Teens’ Disclosure of IPVA  100 “Breaking Apart” the Risks, Consequences, and Protective Factors and Resources Regarding TDVA  101 Risk Factors of Teens Dating Violence and Abuse  101 Consequences of Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  101 Homicide  101 Health Issues  102 IPVA Continuation into Adulthood  102 Protective Factors Regarding Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  102 Protective Resources and Strategies for Teen Survivors of IPVA  102 Individualized Safety Planning  102 Clinical-​Based Interventions  103 Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy  103 Chapter Summary  104 Recommended Resource  104 Discussion Questions  105

Detailed Table of Contents  xv

6 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse among Later-​Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities

Case History: Ann and “L.S.”  111 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse among Later-​Life Adults  111 The Scope of the Problem  111 Prevalence  112 IPVA Victimization among Later-​Life Men  113 IPVA Victimization among Later-​Life Women  113 Barriers to Help-​seeking  114 “Breaking Apart” the Risk Factors and Protective Resources Regarding Abused Later-​Life Partners  115 Risk Factors Regarding Abused Later-​Life Partners  115 Gender, Race/​Ethnicity, and Age  115 Education and SES  116 Non-​Demographic Risk Factors  116 Protective Resources for Later-​Life Survivors of IPVA  116 Individualized Safety Plans  116 Clinical-​Based Interventions  117 Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy  117 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Persons with Disabilities  118 Scope of the Problem  118 “Breaking Apart” Prevalence  119 IPVA Victimization among Men with Disabilities  119 IPVA Victimization among Women with Disabilities  119 Barriers to Help-​seeking  120 Abusive Tactics against Persons with Disabilities  120 Risk Factors and Protective Resources for Abused Partners with Disabilities  121 Risk Factors Regarding Abused Partners with Disabilities  121 SES and Dependency  121 Social Isolation  121 Disability Type  122 Protective Resources for IPVA Survivors with Disabilities  122 Individualized Safety Plans  122 Clinical-​Based Interventions  122 Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy  123 Chapter Summary  123 Recommended Resources  124 Discussion Questions  124

111

xvi  Detailed Table of Contents

7 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Women in Cultural Contexts

129

Case History: Jessica and Demarrio  129 “Breaking Apart” IPVA Victimization of Women in Rural Cultures  130 Scope of the Problem  130 “Breaking Apart” Prevalence  131 “Breaking Apart” Risk Factors and Protective Resources Regarding Abused Women in Rural Regions  132 Risk Factors Regarding Abused Rural Women  132 Gender  132 SES and Education  132 Family and Marital Histories  133 Geographic Isolation as Risk  133 Isolation and Transportation Limitations  133 Isolation and Communication Technology Limitations  134 Privacy Concerns in Rural Areas  134 Increased Firearms  134 “Breaking Apart” the Protective Resources for Abused Rural Women Survivors  134 Individualized Safety Strategies  134 Clinical-​Based Interventions  135 Supportive and Community-​Based Services  135 “Breaking Apart” IPVA Victimization of Women in Immigrant and Refugee Cultures  136 Case History: Domenica  136 Scope of the Problem  136 “Breaking Apart” Prevalence  136 “Breaking Apart” Risk Factors and Protective Resources for Abused Immigrant and Refugee Women  137 Risk Factors Regarding Abused Immigrant and Refugee Women  137 Social Isolation  137 Language Proficiency  138 Country of Origin Norms  138 Economic Inequalities  138 Fear of Deportation  138 Fear of Law Enforcement  139 Protective Resources for Immigrant and Refugee Women Survivors  139 Violence against Women Act Protections  139 Culturally Competent Support Services  140

Detailed Table of Contents  xvii “Breaking Apart” IPVA Victimization of Women in Faith-Based Cultures  140 Scope of the Problem  141 “Breaking Apart” Risk Factors and Protective Resources for Abused Women in Faith-​Based Cultures  141 Risk Factors Regarding Abused Women in Faith-​Based Cultures  141 Faith-​Based Patriarchal Codes  141 Faith-​Based Responses to IPVA  142 Other Faith-​Based Traditions of Martial Conduct  143 Protective Resources for Abused Women of Faith  143 Religious and Secular-​Based Programmatic Collaboration  143 Chapter Summary  144 Recommended Resources  144 Discussion Questions  145

8 “Breaking Apart” Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave

Case History: Jim and Mary  150 Scope of the Problem  151 “Breaking Apart” Why They Abuse  151 Attitudes Regarding Gender, Power, and Control  151 Childhood Socialization  152 Alcohol  152 Sexual and Gender Minority-​Based Stressors  153 Self-​Defense  154 “Breaking Apart” Why They Stay  154 The Cycle of Abuse  154 Power and Control  156 Rationalizing Remaining  157 Concerns Regarding Children  158 Love  158 Fear  159 Cultural Archetypes and Social Norms  159 “Breaking Apart” How They Leave  160 Motivations to Leave  160 Fluctuating between Leaving and Staying  161 Leaving IPVA  161 Chapter Summary  162 Recommended Resource  162 Discussion Questions  162

150

newgenprepdf

xviii  Detailed Table of Contents

9 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention

“Breaking Apart” Interventions for Perpetrators of IPVA  166 Cognitive-​Behavioral Intervention  166 Group-​Based Intervention  167 Couples-​Based Intervention  168 Domestic Abuse Program Intervention  168 Risk Assessment-​Based Interventions  171 “Breaking Apart” Trauma-​Informed Care for Survivors of IPVA  171 Understanding Trauma  174 Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA  175 “Breaking Apart” the Public Health Preventative Approach against IPVA  175 Social Ecological Model  176 Individual-​Level Factors  177 Relationship-​Level Factors  177 Community-​Level Factors  177 Societal-​Level Factors  177 Other IPVA Prevention Initiatives  178 Youth-​Related IPVA Preventions  178 Gender-​Related Anti-​Violence Preventions  178 RESPECT  179 Relationship Skills Strengthened  179 Empowerment of Women  179 Services Ensured  179 Poverty Reduced  179 Environments Made Safe  179 Child and Adolescent Abuse Prevented  180 Transformed Attitudes, Beliefs, and Norms  180 Inclusive and General Population-​Based Anti-​Violence Prevention  180 Chapter Summary  180 Recommended Resource  181 Discussion Question  181

Appendix I: Domestic Violence Personalized Safety Plan Appendix II: Teen Safety Plan Template Index

166

185 192 197

1 “Breaking Apart” Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships

Case History: #MeToo On October 5, 2017, The New York Times published a landmark article alleging sexual assault and harassment by Harvey Weinstein, a once-​ powerful American film producer and Hollywood fixture. Weinstein issued an apology but disputed accusations of having harassed female employees for nearly 30 years. Less than a week later, The New Yorker magazine published a landmark expose’ of its own. In it, 13 women alleged sexual violence and/​or harassment by Weinstein, which he strongly denied (BBC, 2021). Before his 2020 conviction of criminal sexual acts, including rape, Weinstein’s list of accusers numbered in the dozens. Many alleged their careers were stalled or almost unsalvageable after refusing Weinstein’s sexual advances (The Guardian, 2018). The public’s reaction to allegations against Weinstein may be perceived just as astonishing. In 2006, Bronx native and community organizer, Tarana Burke, used the phrase, “Me Too,” to promote solidarity among survivors of sexual violence, especially women of color (Gill and Rahman-​ Jones, 2020). Eleven years later –​on October 15, 2017 –​Burke’s “Me Too” moniker reached its most visible phase when television/​movie actress Alyssa Milano requested of Twitter followers: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” Replies, comments, and retweets were in the thousands within 24 hours of Milano’s posting. The hashtag, “#MeToo,” would eventually be affixed to almost 2 million tweets, among them celebrities like Lady Gaga, Viola Davis, Evan Rachel Wood and, shedding light on harassment and assault in the sexual minority community, the actor Javier Muñoz. Tweets from women who were not household names went viral as well, some opening up about their experiences with rape or having to fend off aggressive co-​workers and losing jobs (Pflum, 2018). Fast forward to one year later. New York Times’ Sarah Mervosh (2018) revisits the #MeToo phenomenon during National Domestic Violence DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-1

2  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships Awareness Month. The reporter’s article features a 20-​ something university residence life coordinator, who received “overwhelmingly positive feedback” when posting about sexual assault via the hashtag, “#WhyIDidntReport” but only a “muted” response from friends when posting that she survived IPVA via the “#WhyIStayed” hashtag. “It’s totally different,” she explained. “People just don’t want to talk about it.” Mervosh entitled her article “Domestic Violence Awareness Hasn’t Caught Up With #MeToo….” That same year, although applauding #MeToo in coming upon the movement’s one-​year anniversary, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence’s website added that “domestic violence is more common than sexual violence but is discussed less now than even four years ago” (NCADV, 2018). Looking back, anti-​violence activists seem to concede that the viral sensation of #MeToo has been difficult to replicate in the context of violence and abuse by an intimate partner (Mervosh, 2018). So, when and how might physical and sexual violence and psychological abuse among domestic partners in intimate relationships have its own cultural reckoning? What would need to change to end partner violence and abuse? None of these are simple questions. The problem of intimate partner violence/​ abuse (IPVA) is of such proportion that the World Health Organization (WHO, 2021) declared violence against women a major public health problem and a violation of women’s human rights and that most of this violence takes place with intimate partner relationships. In the United States, a growing number of interventionists and researchers of IPVA against men, adolescent, the elderly, disabled persons, persons in sexual and gender minority communities, women in immigrant/​refugee communities, women in rural regions and women in religious groups continue to remind us that everyone deserves relationships free from violence/​ abuse. But despite the clear urgency of IPVA, the social stigma, threat of more violence/​abuse, and lack of knowledge regarding who or where to turn only deepen the secrecy of IPVA, making survival a lonely and often-​ uncertain ordeal. As this chapter title suggests, we “pull together” numerous publications by domestic violence researchers, organizations, and related resources and then disentangle or “break apart” not only the patterns, theories, and methodological debates explaining the prevalence of IPVA, but also the demographic factors, social beliefs, and cultural traditions that promote its misunderstanding. Throughout, we unpack the reactions to and consequences of IPVA and the factors that increase the risk of becoming a victim and perpetrator. We also give close attention to protective approaches in IPVA prevention, especially those reported among populations most vulnerable to relationship violence/​abuse. But we start at the very beginning: What is intimate partner violence and abuse?

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  3 “Breaking Apart” What Defines Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intimate partner violence and abuse involves acts and threats of physical violence, sexual violence, psychological aggression (including coercive tactics), and stalking, along with control over reproductive autonomy (i.e., reproductive control) and access to economic resources (i.e., financial abuse) that are perpetrated by an individual’s current or former intimate partner. An intimate partner can be a spouse by existing legal definitions or a “common law” relationship. An intimate partner also may be a cohabiting or non-​cohabitating boyfriend, girlfriend, sexual partner, or dating partner of the same as well as opposite sex (Breiding et al., 2015; US Office of Justice Programs, 2021). The terms domestic violence and IPVA appear synonymous. Both entail acts of threat, force, intimidation, and fear by one individual against another individual in a relationship, for example, and both are linked to long-​term, even serious psychological and physical health risks including death. However, both also manifest significant differences. The current use of the term, IPVA by researchers, interventionists, and advocates is a conceptual shift from the origins of the term, domestic violence, which once had characterized violent opposite-​sex domestic households and almost exclusively in the context of husband’s physical abuse of their wives. To the contrary, IPVA acknowledges that physical and sexual violence and psychological abuse exist in any form of intimate relationship despite partners’ marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or place of residence and that the roles of the abuser/​victim can be attributed to either sex or gender of partner (Wallace, 2015). A term closely related to IPVA but with notable differences is family violence: violence or abusive acts committed between members of a family or household (e.g., adult partner/​adult partner, adult/​elderly person, adult/​ children, sibling/​sibling) and, by some definitions, alternate kinships such as people related by marriage (e.g., in-​ laws, step-​ siblings), foster care, adoption, or other familial ties (NYC Mayor’s Office to End DV/​GBV, 2019). Although not within this textbook’s scope, this volume does recognize and explain the role of family in the IPVA experiences of abused youth and adults. Given the many iterations of how control and maltreatment in close, personal relationships have been identified over the decades, we limit to descriptors generally used in the current IPVA literature. The language and behaviors frequently classified as IPVA are used interchangeably with terms like partner, couple, or relationship violence/​abuse as well as domestic violence/​abuse involving intimates. We reserve the term psychological abuse, also identified as emotional abuse, when isolating non-​physical acts of maltreatment among intimates. Like other scholars in the field, we interchange

4  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships the term violence with that of aggression (Breiding et al., 2015) or assault. Terms like batterer, offender, perpetrator, and abuser are synonymous in this book. “Breaking Apart” the Types of IPVA IPVA is primarily “broken” into four primary types: physical violence, psychological (emotional) abuse, sexual violence, and, more recently, stalking. As you explore these categories, keep in mind that not all victims’ experiences are identical to what is explained and that multiple forms of IPVA may co-​exist within an abusive relationship or episode. For example, one intimate may suffer physical beatings, sexual violation, and verbal beratement by another intimate for decades. Another abused intimate may not survive. In fact, survivors of violent/​abusive relationships, especially women (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000), may be subjected to what is called polyvictimization: having experienced a cluster of different forms of victimization instead of multiple episodes of the same kind of victimization. Below, we “break apart” the four primary forms of IPVA. Physical Violence

Physical violence involves a partner’s intentional use of physical force against another partner and has the potential to cause death, disability, injury, or harm. Physical violence encompasses a range of tactile aggression including scratching, pushing, shoving, throwing, grabbing, biting, choking, shaking, hair-​pulling, slapping, punching, hitting, or burning as well as the use of a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or other object), and restraint or strength against another person to perpetrate threat or harm (Breiding et al., 2015). It may be that some view certain forms of physical victimization (e.g., being slapped or pushed) as minor compared to others (e.g., being choked or beaten up); however, serious injuries from minor physical assaults can and do occur. An individual pushed down the stairs could suffer a concussion or death, and a slap or hit can lead to a perforated eardrum or an eye injury (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). Psychological Abuse (Emotional Abuse)

Psychological abuse involves a partner’s use of verbal and non-​ verbal communication intended to mentally or emotionally harm and exert control over another partner. Psychologically abusive acts involve insults and intimidation (e.g., criticizing, bullying, or demeaning a partner) and verbal threats (e.g., speech/​language intended to incite fear of death, disability,

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  5 injury, or harm) but also may include ignoring a partner or cutting the individual off emotionally (i.e., neglect; Breiding et al., 2015). Physical IPVA may co-​exist with forms of psychological IPVA, the trauma of which is comparable to or worse than battering alone (Follingstad et al., 1990). We explore forms of psychological (emotional) abuse below, including digital abuse, gaslighting, and coercive control. Coercive Control

Coercive control is a psychological abuse subtype of significant interest to IPVA researchers and activists. It is a continuous pattern of emotional victimization that tightens the perpetrator’s control over a partner’s everyday behavior. Coercive control may or may not co-​occur with physical IPVA and is not identified by all IPVA researchers as violence. However, levels of controlling behaviors in intimate relationships have been argued to predict an assortment of adverse outcomes that are traditionally grouped with physical violence, including post-​separation violence and sexual assault (Stark and Hester, 2019). The toll of coercively controlling partners is infringing and powerful. Abusers may isolate the partner from friends or family to tighten their influence over the victim (e.g., “You don’t need to see your parents; you only need me.”); to scope out and regulate the partner’s whereabouts and interactions (e.g., “It’s a 10-​minute drive to your parents’ house; I’m ‘facetiming’ you in exactly 10 minutes to see if you’re there.”); to threaten harm upon themselves or the victim’s property, pets, or loved ones if demands are not met (e.g., “The next time I see you texting your parents, I will hurt them.”) or to obstruct the partner’s access to transportation or other resources (e.g., hiding the partner’s car keys). Another example is controlling a partner’s ability to acquire, use, or maintain financial resources or financial abuse (e.g., preventing the partner from visiting the parents by monitoring bank information or withholding transportation fare). Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a less direct, more disarming subtype of psychological abuse and is often perpetrated using charming or “joking” behaviors. Gaslighting tactics are experienced as a form of “mind gaming,” as the victim is manipulated into questioning their own memory or perception of a situation. An example would be for an abuser to punch an intimate partner and then generate doubt that physical IPVA had even occurred (Breiding et al., 2015).

6  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships Digital Abuse

Digital abuse among intimates is an online, electronic-​based aggression in which one intimate uses communication technology (e.g., smartphones, Internet, social media, emails/​ text messages, video-​ photo sharing) to stalk, isolate, harass, humiliate, spread rumors, threaten or otherwise psychologically harm and control another intimate. Behaviors in abusive relationships can range from frustrating but benign to damage of significant proportions. A perpetrator may maliciously distribute online sexual images of a partner without consent (i.e., “revenge porn”) or hack or non-​ consensually monitor a partner’s emails, instant messages to “checkup” on them or control a partner’s social media accounts (e.g., demand account passwords, determine who a partner can or cannot “Friend”) (Brem et al., 2019; Boethius et al., 2022; Love is Respect, n.d.; Ybarra, 2017). Sexual Violence

Sexual violence involves committing or attempting to commit a sexual act against a partner either without that individual’s freely given consent or when the individual is unable to consent to or refuse sexual contact. Sexual IPVA also occurs when a perpetrator forces or coerces a victim to engage in sexual acts with a third party. Other examples include forced or alcohol/​drug-​ facilitated penetration of a victim; forced or alcohol/​drug-​facilitated incidents in which the victim is made to penetrate a perpetrator or someone else; forced penetration through verbal pressure, intimidation, or use of authority; intentional unwanted touching that is sexual in nature and unwanted non-​contact sexual experiences (Breiding et al., 2015). Next, we discuss acts specific to sexual IPVA, including sexual coercion, reproductive coercion, and rape. Sexual Coercion

Sexual coercion involves unwanted sexual penetration occurring after a partner has been pressured in a nonphysical manner. Pressure may be imposed either by an abusive partner’s use of authority or by wearing down the victim via repeated requests for sexual intercourse, making promises to the victim that are factually untrue, threatening to end the relationship, and spreading rumors about the victim (Smith et al., 2018). Reproductive Coercion

Reproductive coercion involves tactics intended to interfere with a partner’s reproductive autonomy. Seemingly, one of the most studied forms of reproductive coercion perpetrated against women is for a male to compel

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  7 his female partner not to use contraception or to impair her method of birth control (birth control sabotage) by somehow interfering with its use (e.g., flushing birth control pills down the toilet, intentional breaking of condoms, removing contraceptive rings or patches). Conflicts involving threats of sexual violence against women, inhibiting a woman from making decisions about becoming pregnant or continuing a pregnancy, and preventing her from acquiring contraception may co-​occur (Rowlands and Walker, 2019). However, reproductive coercion also may take place through suggestive tactics like emotional blackmail (e.g., “If you really love me, you’d agreed to have my baby.”) and can be subjected upon both men and women. In the United States, for example, 9.7% of men and 8.4% of women experienced reproductive coercion by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. Men more commonly reported than women that a partner tried to get pregnant when the man did not want her to; women reported higher prevalence of partner condom refusal (Basil et al., 2021). Rape

Rape is the completed or attempted unwanted oral, anal, and vaginal penetration committed by a partner’s use of physical force (e.g., pinning down or striking the other partner) or threats of physical harm. Sexual victimization occurring when a partner is drunk, high, drugged, passed out, or otherwise unable to consent or refuse is still identified as rape (Smith et al., 2018). Female or female-​identified partners and partners who are men or identify as men may experience rape in their relationships, a fact we further explore in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. Stalking

Stalking involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats toward a specific person which lead to reasonable fear (National Institute of Justice, 2007). Stalking tactics include making harassing phone calls/​hang ups, following a partner from a distance, sneaking into a partner’s home or car, vandalizing a partner’s property and leaving unwanted messages, cards, flowers, and other objects in ways prompting fear and concern for safety. One intimate partner waiting for another partner outside their place of work or leaving sentimental gifts may not be experienced as a problem. In fact, the opposite may be true. But these strategies may be experienced as stalking abuse when part of a pattern of unwanted attention/​contact or if one partner’s actions cause the other partner to fear for their or another’s well-​being. Anti-​stalking laws have been passed in all 50 States and the District of Columbia (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998).

8  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking is persistent, unwanted contact from someone online. At first, a cyberstalker might pursue, harass, or contact a victim through the Internet or email. Later, the pursuit may spill over into online chat/​ postings, where they may flood a target’s inbox with obscene, hateful, or threatening messages/​images, assume the victim’s identity, post information (fictitious or not) about the victim, and solicit reactions from the cybercommunity (National Institute of Justice, 2007). The use of GPS technologies to monitor or checkup on an intimate’s physical location also has been reported in research on partners who had been arrested for IPVA (Brem et al., 2019). Other Distinctions of IPVA

The question of why IPVA occurs has been long pursued by domestic violence researchers, practitioners, and advocates. In Michael Johnson’s (2006) approach, the sociologist focuses on perpetrators’ control to understand how violence/​abuse might be used between intimates and why it might persist. We explore Johnson and colleagues’ concepts of intimate terrorism, mutual violent control, violent resistance, and situational couple violence below. Situational Couple Violence

In situational couple violence (SCV), the motive is to control a specific situation but not the intimate partner. Johnson describes SCV as a common but mostly isolated occurrence between couples, meaning the violence experienced is not associated with persistent coercive, controlling behaviors. At the same time, SCV might evolve as a recurring response to relationship conflict and its harm can range from minor injuries to homicide. Johnson theorizes that women are as likely to perpetrate SCV as would men. He argues that male perpetrators tend to inflict more serious harm on their female victims and that SCV produces violence that female victims are less likely to stop. The abuse sustained can be fearful enough for a victim to turn to service agencies, health systems, friends, or family for safety or intervention (Johnson, 2006, 2017). Intimate Terrorism

Intimate terrorism (IT), compared to SCV, is less frequent but more complex. Intimate terrorists establish complete control over their victims

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  9 or relationship through both violence and coercive tactics (e.g., threats, intimidation, financial abuse, isolation, blaming, and control using children). The result is that one partner is violent and controlling, an intimate terrorist, and the other partner is not. Another factor distinguishing IT is that Johnson situates the subtype within “patriarchal family traditions” and a “psychological makeup” (p. 158) characteristic of misogynistic male IPVA offenders. Johnson finds that males commit IT more than their female counterparts but adds that some violence/​abuse in same-​sex relationships might identify with the IT subtype (Johnson, 2006; Also see Johnson, 1995; Johnson, 2017; Johnson and Leone, 2005). Violent Resistance

In violent resistance (VR), the victim is violent but not controlling, and the victim’s partner is both violent and controlling. Johnson associates these reactions when one intimate attempts to physically resist the abusing intimate. Because acts of physical aggression are codified by law and subject to change, Johnson and co-​author, Kathleen Ferraro (2000) stopped short of calling VR a form of self-​defense and instead characterize the subtype as opposition or fighting back during incidents of IT. Mutual Violent Control

In Johnson’s mutual violent control (MVC) subtype, a violent and controlling person is partnered with another violent and controlling person. The effect is one of two intimate terrorists vying for power in the relationship and over each other (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). Johnson believes that MVC appears only rarely in quantitative studies and that MVC could be an aspect of IT (Johnson, 2017). When tested, a study on three of Johnson’s subtypes found that controlling behaviors predicted physical violence among not only IT but also SCV and VR perpetrators. SCV offenders’ controlling behaviors were more consistent with winning an argument than dominating their partners’ lives (Graham-​Kevan and Archer, 2008). Few studies to date have examined Johnson’s categories in the context of same-​sex couples and IPVA. In one exception, a study of aggressive and controlling behaviors among a sample of 184 gay men and lesbians, over half were non-​violent and noncontrolling; 13% of respondents and 14.7 % of their partners had engaged in SCV; and 4.4 % of respondents and 6.5 % of partners engaged in coercive controlling violence (Frankland and Brown, 2014).

10  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships Box 1.1  Common Signs of Abusive Behavior in a Partner • Telling you that you never do anything right. • Showing extreme jealousy of your friends or time spent away from them. • Preventing or discouraging you from spending time with friends, family members, or peers. • Insulting, demeaning, or shaming you, especially in front of other people. • Preventing you from making your own decisions, including about working or attending school. • Controlling finances in the household without discussion, including taking your money or refusing to provide money for necessary expenses. • Pressuring you to have sex or perform sexual acts you’re not comfortable with. • Pressuring you to use drugs or alcohol. • Intimidating you through threatening looks or actions. • Insulting your parenting or threatening to harm or take away your children or pets. • Intimidating you with weapons like guns, knives, bats, or mace. • Destroying your belongings or your home. (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.) “Breaking Apart” the Beginnings: IPVA Resistance Histories IPVA and concerted efforts to stop it is not a 21st-​century phenomenon. While the criminalization of “wife beating” in the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies offered some historical exception, the potential for legal victories regarding the abuse of wives was greatly compromised in early America (Pleck, 1983; 1989). Wife abuse was viewed as a method of family discipline and among men’s responsibilities as head of household. If taken to court, a wife’s claim of spousal violence might go unresolved if maltreatment did not legally qualify as significant enough to cause lasting injury or to justify divorce (Carlson et al., 2000). Voicing disapproval were first-​wave feminists, including suffragists who historically advocated for women’s right to vote. They argued that the beaten wives of inebriated husbands should be able to divorce on the grounds of cruelty or habitual drunkenness and that the law treated abusive husbands too leniently (Pleck, 1983). Twentieth-​century’s anti-​rape and battered women’s movement efforts were influenced by the Civil Rights and feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Second-​wave feminists began to recognize that violence against

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  11 women, including rape and wife abuse, was more common than presumed (Schechter, 1982). Several responses followed. IPVA was redirected from being a discreet “family matter” to a social problem requiring both an institutional recourse and a critique of men’s role in the tolerance/​perpetuation of violence against women. Telephone hotlines and battered women’s emergency shelters were erected in major cities in Minnesota, Arizona, California, and New York between 1972 and 1976 (Tierney, 1982). The language associated with violated women was also changing. The term battered women was invoked in place of wife abuse or wife battering to include women abused by men with whom they had intimate but non-​marital relationships (Pagelow, 1981). Over time, the use of violence against women became aligned with the term, gender-​based violence to identify acts specifically resulting in or is likely to result in the physical, sexual, mental harm or suffering of women and girls (General Assembly Resolution, 1993). Social science investigations on the causes, consequences, and nature of violence in the home also progressed. A historical example is sociologists Murray Strauss, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmetz’s (1980) then-​unprecedented 1980 study, Behind Closed Doors, which first exposed violence in the American family. Legislation aiding and protecting abused women were also on the rise. Prior to the first state anti-​stalking laws passed in 1990, police and prosecutors were limited to lawfully aid women who felt threatened by a stalker (Graham, 1996). By 1993, marital rape became a crime in at least one section of the sexual offense codes in all 50 states (Bennice and Resick, 2003; X, 1999). A particularly significant achievement occurred in 1994 with the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Under its March 2022 federal reauthorization, VAWA continues its support of initiatives targeting survivor-​centered training and services, while increasing services/​ support for culturally specific communities, LGBTQ survivors, individuals with disabilities, immigrant survivors, older adults, and victims in rural communities. Grant funding for legal services to survivors in matters of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking was also expanded (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022). The 21st-​century documents the battered women’s movement’s reckoning with long-​held discrepancies within its own numbers. Public awareness campaigns emphasizing the prevalence of male-​on-​female violence/​abuse –​ that a victim could be any woman –​were criticized for excluding low-​ income women and women of color from mainstream feminist goals and the public view (Richie, 2000). Third-​wave feminists and other advocates responded with the view that male dominance in relationships exists alongside other structural inequities that promote violence against women. From this perspective, abused women sustain other important social identities in addition to that of gender (e.g., race/​ethnicity, socio-​economic status,

12  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships sexual orientation, non-​binary gender identities, national status), making women’s experiences with violence/​abuse both similar as well as different (George and Stith, 2014). A result of this discourse, the emergence of an intersectional approach to IPVA analysis, is introduced in the section below. “Breaking Apart” the Controversies and Current Movements in IPVA Research Intersectionality and IPVA

A Black feminist construct, intersectionality was coined by legal theorist, Kimberly Crenshaw (1989) to characterize the double bind of racism and sexism experienced by African American women. The construct’s inclusive vantage point and feminist critique have resonated with many IPVA-​ related service practitioners (Kelly, 2011) and scholars (Sokoloff and Dupont, 2005). Rather than situating women’s IPVA experiences within the sole context of gender identity (e.g., an abused individual who is a woman), an intersectional approach acknowledges other influential and often-​marginalizing systems that also intersect victims’ decisions and the choices they have (e.g., an abused woman, who is also Black and over 64-​ years-​old and a first-​generation Haitian immigrant and residing in a low-​ income rural community). Used this way, the benefit of intersectionality is its focus on multiple, overlapping social categories and inequities, which not only shape who we are but also, for some victims, shape the experience of IPVA in unique and problematic ways. As a poor woman, a person may be more vulnerable to victimization than women in higher socio-​economic groups. As a woman of color, her credibility as a “real” victim may be questioned. As an older, less acculturated, or non-​English-​speaking woman in a low-​income rural setting, she may encounter a general lack of services, language barriers, and fewer culturally inclusive provisions when trying to meet her needs (Kelly, 2011; West, 2004). With the intersectional approach in mind, throughout this volume, we “break apart” how race/​ethnicity, socio-​economic class, sexual orientation, age, region, national status, and disabilities intersect with gender to contour victims’ perspectives, reactions, barriers, and survival. Gender Symmetry

After five decades of awakening the public to the problem of IPVA against women, today’s IPVA advocates may find themselves confronted with evidence of gender symmetry in IPVA among opposite-​sex couples. That is, men and women showing proportional rates of perpetration or

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  13 victimization in their intimate relationships (Archer, 2000; Desmarais et al., 2012). In Chapter 2, we “break apart” the theoretical perspectives and research methods associated with these findings. IPVA against Men

The height of US 20th-​century anti-​violence efforts was especially inclusive to abused heterosexual women and their children escaping violent/​ abusive relationships. It may not be surprising that IPVA awareness campaigns and intervention strategies continue to lean toward a paradigm of males-​as-​abusers and females-​as-​victims. Abused men’s absence from the conversation has led to criticisms over the lack of support services for help-​seeking male victims who, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, can and do experience threat of harm, controlling behaviors, and other forms of violence/​abuse by an intimate (Carthy et al., 2019). In Chapter 4, we “break apart” the unique challenges pertaining to abused men. IPVA and LGBTQ Couples

IPVA among same-​ sex couples and bisexual individuals has gone underrecognized for some time. Early domestic violence efforts framed family violence as a problem of married heterosexual couples and male-​ on-​female violence/​abuse was viewed more believable than that of men and women in same-​sex relationships (Poorman et al., 2003). Even more misunderstood and disproportioned in research and the public health discourse is IPVA among transgender men and women: gender minorities whose gender identity does not align with their biological sex. To evidence the need for a more inclusive account of the IPVA experience, we “break apart” IPVA-​related rates of prevalence, obstacles, and protections associated with transgender persons (T) in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, in addition to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning persons, also identified as sexual minorities. Chapter Summary This chapter distinguishes the concept, intimate partner violence and abuse, in addition to four forms of IPVA commonly noted by IPVA researchers and interventionists alike: physical violence, psychological (emotional) abuse, sexual violence and, more recently, stalking. We also explore subtypes of IPVA associated with these four primary forms of IPVA and researcher Michael Johnson’s much-​discussed typology on IPVA behavioral patterns and consequences (i.e., SCV, IT, MVC, VR).

14  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships This chapter ends with a brief history of the 20th century battered women’s movement and its influence on modern-​day IPVA investigations, public policies, and outreach practices. Current debates regarding gender symmetry in IPVA research, the dearth of IPVA research regarding men and LGBTQ couples, as well as the emergence of an intersectional approach in the study of IPVA are discussed. Recommended Resources Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Violence Prevention: Intimate Partner Violence. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​ lenc​epre​vent​ion/​inti​mate​part​nerv​iole​nce/​index.html Discussion Questions Compare and contrast the four primary types of IPV. Compare and contrast Johnson’s subtypes of violence between intimate partners. Identify the social advances from and criticisms of battered women’s movement. References Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-​analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 126(5), 651–​680. Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Liu, Y., Miller, E., & Kresnow, M. J. (2021). Prevalence of intimate partner reproductive coercion in the United States: racial and ethnic differences. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(21–​22), NP12324–​NP12341. Bennice, J. A., & Resick, P. A. (2003). Marital rape: history, research, and practice. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 4(3), 228–​246. Boethius, S., Åkerström, M., & Hydén, M. (2022). The double-​edged sword–​ abused women’s experiences of digital technology. European journal of social work, 1–​13. DOI: 10.1080/​13691457.2022.2040437 Breiding, M. J., & Armour, B. S. (2015). The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States. Annals of epidemiology, 25(6), 455–​457. Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra R. R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Brem, M. J., Florimbio, A. R., Grigorian, H., et al. (2019). Cyber abuse among men arrested for domestic violence. Psychology of violence, 9(4), 410–​418. British Broadcasting Company (BBC). (2021). Harvey Weinstein timeline: How the scandal unfolded. Retrieved from https://​ncadv.org/​blog/​posts/​when-​metoo-​isnt-​ eno​ugh-​why-​domes​tic-​viole​nce-​needs-​its-​own-​hash​tag

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  15 Carlson, B. E., Worden, A. P., Ryn, M., & Bachman, R. (2000). Violence against women: synthesis of research for practitioners. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Carthy, N. L., Bates, E. A., & Policek, N. (2019). Promoting inclusivity in intimate partner abuse research: exploring gender and age. Partner abuse, 10(3), 359–​372. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum. Vol. 1989: Iss. 1, Article 8, 139–​167. Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: rates of male and female perpetration. Partner abuse, 3(2), 170–​198. Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of family violence, 5(2), 107–​120. Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-​sex intimate partner violence. Journal of family violence, 29(1), 15–​22. General Assembly Resolution. (1993) The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, A/​RES/​48/​104. Retrieved form https://​und​ocs.org/​en/​ A/​RES/​48/​104 George, J., & Stith, S. M. (2014). An updated feminist view of intimate partner violence. Family process, 53(2), 179–​193. Gill, G. & Rahman-​Jones, I. (2020). Me Too founder Tarana Burke: movement is not over. British Broadcasting Company. Retrieved from www.bbc.com/​news/​ newsb​eat-​532​6975​1Gra​ham, M. (Ed.). (1996). Domestic violence, stalking, & anti-​stalking legislation: an annual report to congress under the Violence Against Women Act. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Graham-​Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of family violence, 23(7), 539–​548. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: two forms of violence against women. Journal of marriage and the family, 57, 283–​294. Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence against women, 12(11), 1003–​1018. Johnson, M. P. (2017). A personal social history of a typology of intimate partner violence. Journal of family theory & review, 9(2), 150–​116. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, i(4), 948–​963. Johnson, M. P. & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence findings from the national violence against women survey. Journal of family issues, 26(3): 322–​349. Kelly, U. A. (2011). Theories of intimate partner violence: from blaming the victim to acting against injustice: Intersectionality as an analytic framework. Advances in Nursing Science, 34(3), E29–​E51. Love is Respect. (n.d.). What is digital abuse? Austin, TX: loveisrespect.org. Retrieved from www.loveis​resp​ect.org/​pdf/​What_​I​s_​Di​gita​l_​Ab​use.pdf

16  Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships Mervosh, S. (2018, October 16). Domestic Violence Awareness Hasn’t Caught Up With #MeToo. Here’s Why. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nyti​mes. com/​2018/​10/​16/​us/​domes​tic-​viole​nce-​hotl​ine-​me-​too.html National Coalition against Domestic Violence (NCADV). (2018). When #MeToo isn’t enough. Retrieved from https://​ncadv.org/​blog/​posts/​when-​metoo-​isnt-​eno​ ugh-​why-​domes​tic-​viole​nce-​needs-​its-​own-​hash​tag National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). Warning signs of abuse. Retrieved from www.the​hotl​ine.org/​ident​ify-​abuse/​domes​tic-​abuse-​warn​ing-​signs/​ National Institute of Justice. (2007). Overview of stalking. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice. NYC Mayor’s Office to End to Domestic and Gender-​Based Violence. (2019). A foundation report: family violence. NY: City of New York. Retrieved from www1.nyc.gov/​ass​ets/​ocdv/​downlo​ads/​pdf/​Fam​ily-​Viole​nce-​Rep​ort-​2019.pdf Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Woman-​battering: victims and their experiences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Pflume, M. (2018). A year ago, Alyssa Milano started a conversation about MeToo#. These women replied. NBC News. Retrieved from www. nbcn​ews.com/​news/​us-​news/​year-​ago-​aly​ssa-​mil​ano-​star​ted-​conve​rsat​ion-​about-​ metoo-​these-​women-​n920​246 Pleck, E. (1983). Feminist responses to “crimes against women”: 1868–​ 1896. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 8(3), 451–​470. Pleck, E. (1989). Criminal approaches to family violence, 1640–​1980. Crime and justice, 11, 19–​57. Poorman, P. B., Seelau, E. P., & Seelau, S. M. (2003). Perceptions of domestic abuse in same-​sex relationships and implications for criminal justice and mental health responses. Violence and victims, 18(6), 659–​669. Richie, B. (2000). A Black feminist reflection on the anti-​violence movement. Signs, 24, 1133–​1138. Rowlands, S., & Walker, S. (2019). Reproductive control by others: means, perpetrators and effects. BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 45(1), 61–​67. Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: the visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston, MA: South End Press. Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief –​updated release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Sokoloff, N. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender. Violence against women, 11(1), 38–​64. Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: update and review. Violence against women, 25(1), 81–​104. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J. & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: violence in the American family. NY: Anchor; Garden City. The Guardian. (2018, July 21). The Weinstein allegations. Retrieved from www. theg​uard​ian.com/​film/​ng-​inte​ract​ive/​2017/​oct/​13/​the-​weinst​ein-​alle​gati​ons?mscl​ kid=​1fcec​f8da​e491​1ec8​6e78​fbe8​b6f6​902 Tierney, K. J. (1982). The battered women movement and the creation of the wife beating problem. Social problems, 29(3), 207–​220.

Violence and Abuse in Intimate Partner Relationships  17 Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998) Stalking in America: findings from the national violence against women survey: research in brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Justice department applauds reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. U.S. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. U.S. Office of Justice Programs. (2021). Family violence: Overview. Retrieved from www.ojp.gov/​feat​ure/​fam​ily-​viole​nce/​overv​iew Wallace, R. (2015). Domestic violence and intimate partner violence: what’s the difference? Public safety. Retrieved from https://​inp​ubli​csaf​ety.com/​2015/​10/​ domes​tic-​viole​nce-​and-​intim​ate-​part​ner-​viole​nce-​whats-​thedif​f ere​nce/​ West, C. M. (2004). Black women and intimate partner violence: new directions for research. Journal of interpersonal violence, 19(12), 1487–​1493. World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Violence against women. Retrieved from www.who.int/​news-​room/​fact-​she​ets/​det​ail/​viole​nce-​agai​nst-​women X, L. (1999). Accomplishing the impossible. An advocate’s notes from the successful campaign to make marital and date rape a crime in all 50 U.S. states and other countries. Violence against women, 5(9), 1064–​1081. Ybarra, M. (2017). Digital abuse in relationships: what you need to know. Psychology today. Retrieved from www.psyc​holo​gyto​day.com/​us/​blog/​connec​ ted/​201​705/​digi​tal-​abuse-​in-​relati​onsh​ips-​what-​you-​need-​know

2 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies

Case History: Oregon Gubernatorial Debate When asked about a report that more than half of Oregon’s women and girls had reported being a victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse, oncologist and Oregon gubernatorial candidate, Dr. Bud Pierce said that “a woman that has great education and training and a great job is not susceptible to this kind of abuse by men, women, or anyone.” The challenger, then-​Oregon governor Kate Brown, responded, “I’m honestly not sure where to start,” then revealed she once was a victim of domestic violence (Associated Press, 2016). Scope of the Problem It may be surprising to learn that someone of extensive education, training, or prominence might be a victim or survivor of intimate partner violence/​abuse or that someone of similar education, training, or prominence might subscribe to the common myth that IPVA could not happen to people like them. The truth is that IPVA does not discriminate by income, education, age, socioeconomic status, religion, nationality, race/​ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, profession, political affiliation, or region, a fact we demonstrate throughout this volume. IPVA also occurs in towns, rural areas, inner cities, suburbs, and affluent communities. Despite this, myths about what IPVA looks like, and the people who perpetrate and are victimized by it seem to thrive alongside IPVA. Another example is below: During a public safety committee meeting, New Hampshire lawmaker Mark Warden remarked that some can make the argument that “a lot of people like being in abusive relationships” and “people are always free to leave.” (Leubsdorf, 2013) DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-2

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  19 There are common factors explaining why intimates remain in abusive relationships. The truth is that wanting to be victimized is not among them. In Chapter 8 of this volume, we will discuss why leaving an abusive relationship is not always a sudden, single event, but a series or repeat of stages dependent on accurate information about safer options; access to practical, financial, and social support; cultural and gendered norms on how to respond to violence/​abuse as well as internal conflicts over whether to leave or to give the relationship another try. There also may be substantial fear over whether the abuser will carry out harmful threats, including deportment if the victim is of immigrant status (Nicholson and Lutz, 2017; Saunders, 2020). But why do misunderstandings about IPVA like these persist? The truth is that IPVA is a highly uncomfortable subject that raises highly uncomfortable questions. When IPVA confronts our understanding of love and caring between two individuals, it is not unusual to lean toward our own sense of right or wrong or cause and effect. The potential problem, however, is that IPVA is often a concealed indignity. If unaware of factors, consequences, and attitudes associated with its perpetration, victimization, intervention, and prevention, we may lean more toward myth and misconception than what is happening in abusive relationships. Here is where theoretical explanations of IPVA enter. When we address our personal questions or concerns about IPVA via theoretical frameworks, we may be able to organize what we observe (or presume) about partner victimization and perpetration. Also important, theoretical explanations of IPVA may be the basis of social-scientific knowledge used in the intervention, prevention, and further study of IPVA. Later in this chapter, we “break apart” some of the methodologies used when assessing theoretical explanations against empirical data. Meanwhile, beginning with the psychiatric model, we first explore theoretical perspectives on partners’ use of and/​or reactions to IPVA. We emphasize at the onset that the explanations acknowledged do not minimize IPVA or attempt to excuse it. “Breaking Apart” Theories Explaining IPVA Psychiatric Models

Psychiatric theories posit offender’s personality traits as key determinants of violence/​abuse. The assumption is that there are personality or mental disorders that disrupt otherwise normal tendencies to not exert violence/​ abuse (Ali and Naylor, 2013). Several reoccurring mental health-​related factors have been cited in the IPVA literature. Personality traits associated with high antisocial (e.g., impulsivity, lack of empathy or regard for

20  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies personal or others’ safety) and borderline (e.g., emotional instability, insecurity, feelings of worthlessness, impulsivity, impaired social relationships) personalities have been shown to moderate poor empathy skills in relationships, along with a significant risk of repeated IPVA (Romero-​ Martinez, et al., 2016) and IPVA perpetration in studies (Spencer et al., 2019). Also, symptoms of depression (e.g., general discontent, hopelessness, loss of interest or pleasure in activities), post-​traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (e.g., mental health conditions triggered by experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event), and other anxiety-​based disorders are often implicated in IPVA by psychiatric model theorists. In one recent study, men with higher symptoms of PTSD were three times more likely to perpetrate sexual coercion than men with lower PTSD levels. Women with moderate-​ to-​severe depressive symptoms were four times more likely to report perpetrating physical assault than women with minimal-​to-​mild symptoms (Breet et al., 2019). Critics caution that psychiatric model findings suggesting a psychopathological correlation to violence should not be generalized to larger populations. Supporting data are often collected from people arrested for crimes, in court-​referred cases, in treatment programs, or in domestic violence shelters. The perspective also fails to acknowledge why some with psychopathological disorders do not react violently toward their intimates or why some violent individuals do not suffer from psychopathological disorders (Ali and Naylor, 2013). Sociological Models Social Exchange Theories

Social exchange theories suggest that individuals try to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs in their interpersonal relationships. In Jane Pfouts’ (1978) cost-​benefit ratio, she theorizes four reactions an IPVA victim might use consciously or subconsciously when weighing the disadvantages/​ costs (e.g., frequency/​ severity of victimization, economic/​ emotional instability, effects on children/​family unit) against the advantages/​benefits (e.g., security/​housing, social status, emotional support) of tolerating a violent/​abusive partner. In Pfouts’ self-​punishing response, a victim perceives few advantages outside the relationship and no other sustainable options exist than to remain. In her aggressive response, the violent/​abusive relationship seems more advantageous than the disadvantage of being single or in another intimate partnership. The victim may even report elevated levels of relationship satisfaction, but also aggress or retaliate against the partner and/​or children. Conversely, a victim is intolerant of IPVA in Pfout’s early disengagement response and leaves the relationship. There is a

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  21 greater recognition of both relationship disadvantages and the advantages of being single or in another partnership. In the reluctant mid-​life disengagement response, the victim recognizes high rewards in as well as outside the relationship and incrementally moves toward ending the relationship, especially as the risks of remaining become more imminent (Pfouts, 1978). Exchange theories can be helpful in explaining some directions of decision-​ making regarding IPVA. Women who returned home to their abusers after seeking help from a shelter are more likely to do so if unemployed, victims of severe abuse, have a low self-​perception, and a relatively high annual family income (Johnson, 1992). Abused men who remain in a violent/​abusive relationship may have become used to a certain standard of living. Leaving their wives might entail moving out of their homes and supporting their (ex)wives, children, and their own living expenses (Steinmetz, 1977–​1978). However, exchange theories have their limitations, namely explaining which reaction might be more salient within a certain context. Resource Theories

Similar to the cost-​benefit ratio of the social exchange theory is resource theory. Resource theorist William Goode (1971) submits that the relationship partner with the most resources (e.g., higher education, income, social prestige) is less likely to use force against the partner with lesser resources. However, if a partner aspires dominance but has comparatively less resources than the other partner (e.g., lower education, income, social prestige), the partner with less resources may use force to acquire that power. There is evidence suggesting that some male partners in heterosexual relationships may use IPVA to control their female partners in the absence of material and cultural sources of power or when sex-​role expectations (e.g., men as breadwinners) are violated. Hornung and colleagues (1981) noted higher IPVA rates among couples where women’s occupational status was higher than their male partners’. Men’s higher status in the relationship was a protective effect against IPVA. One interesting contrast is Bjelland’s (2014) research in which men as well as women with a higher status relative to their partners showed a risk for psychological abuse or controlling partners. Female partners of higher income particularly showed higher risks of physical and psychological IPVA by their male partners, which Bjelland attributes to the abusers’ grasp for control or to offset what they perceive as an uneven distribution of power. Resource theories are also criticized. Some argue that the direct effects of socioeconomic or material resources may not account for all variances of IPVA perpetration (Basile et al., 2013). For example, irritability and frustration during withdrawal from or craving alcohol, heroin, and stimulants

22  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies increase the likelihood of partner violence. Victims have been shown to attribute IPVA to the impact of substance use on the relationship, in addition to the dynamics of power and control (Gilchrist et al., 2019). Feminist Models Patriarchal Theory

Patriarchal theories generally draw on two social constructs to explain inequities between men and women in society and some interpersonal relationships: a social structure that privileges men’s authority over women in society, the home as well as relationships, and an ideology whose norms, beliefs, laws, and other social institutions endorses men having power and privilege over women (Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Smith, 1990). The influence of patriarchal theory in some feminist IPVA research becomes especially evident in studies associating male-​on-​female partner violence/​abuse with unequal gender and power dynamics between opposite-​sex partners (Dobash and Dobash, 1979). IPVA researchers who support patriarchal theory also investigate historic gender and power dynamics argued to perpetuate male entitlement in society and to keep women subordinate, primarily through controlling actions including physical, sexual, and psychological IPVA (McPhail et al., 2007). Intersectional Theory

The intersectional approach to understanding male-​on-​female IPVA is less monolithic compared to how patriarchal theorists characterize relationship violence/​abuse. As Chapter 1 introduces, intersectional theory offers room for explanations involving not only gender, but that of interrelating social systems that shape abused women’s experiences with IPVA. In describing how, Bograd (1988) explains that women exist and self-​ identify within a social context made up of multiple intersecting systems of power (e.g., race, class, gender, sexual orientation) and marginalization (e.g., prejudice, socio-​economic class stratification, gender inequality, heterosexist biases). These overlapping systems are influential and can greatly affect how a victim understands the “meaning and nature of domestic violence, how it is experienced … (and) responded to by others, how personal and social consequences are represented, and how and whether escape and safety can be obtained” (p. 276). Similar nuances emerged among the sample of abused Black wives interviewed in Nash’s (2005) study on IPVA victimization. Not only did some respondents view their husbands’ violence as a reaction to racism, but they also felt pressured by cultural traditions informing how they, as Black women, were expected to respond. By unpacking the interplay

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  23 of identity, marginalization, and the experience of IPVA, these theorists argue, the sometimes-hidden vulnerabilities of abused underserved or understudied women may become more apparent and their needs more actionable. Feminist approaches, particularly the patriarchal theoretical perspective, have received criticism. One example is the very emergence of intersectional theory’s more inclusive analysis of women’s IPVA experiences. But there are also competing arguments on whether patriarchal norms or attitudes are the most influential risks for IPVA in intimate relationships. Some point out that applying a patriarchal lens to IPVA poorly explains incidents of violence/​abuse between women in same-​sex relationships, obscures other possible explanations for men’s violent behaviors (e.g., individual pathologies, paternal conflict, poor problem-​solving strategies; Dutton, 1994; Straus, 2005) and ignores the differences between men. However, the most dominant critics may be family violence researchers, who believe the theory presents IPVA as a solely male-​on-​female offense and follow with evidence of symmetrical or mutual violence/​abuse between male and female intimates (Archer, 2000, Gelles, 2007; Strauss, 2005). Some feminists believe the argument is a criticism of feminism in particular and the battered women’s movement in general (Ooms, 2006). Interestingly, John Johnson’s IPVA typology (see Chapter 1) has been purported as a key step toward addressing this theoretical “standoff” (Meier, 2015). Johnson’s intimate terrorist category acknowledges a violence type endorsing feminists’ view that IPVA is largely male-​on-​female and is strongly influenced by patriarchal attitudes (Dobash and Dobash, 1979) and coercively controlling behaviors by men. At the same time, his situational couple violence category, a classification extensively surveyed by family violence researchers, speaks to their view that IPVA is committed almost equally among men and women and may be less dependent on gender differences than argued by feminist researchers (Meier, 2015). Social-​Psychological Models Social Learning Theory

Developed by social psychologist Albert Bandura (1973), social learning theories infer that children demonstrate aggressive behaviors by mimicking other people acting aggressively and by learning how or if those actions are reinforced. Often conceptualized as the intergenerational transmission theory, the modeling effects of children who witness and experience violence by parents/​caretakers have been shown to promote aggressive forms of conflict resolution (Skuja and Halford, 2004), which play a key role in the experiencing violence/​abuse in future adult relationships. In Ehrensaft and colleagues’ (2003) 20-​year longitudinal study on the intergenerational

24  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies transmission of partner violence, child exposure to parental violence facilitated the greatest risk for being an adult victim of IPVA and was second to adolescent disorderly conduct as the strongest risk for IPVA perpetration among adult men and women. Child physical abuse and disorderly conduct during adolescence presented strong independent risks for injury to a partner. That violence/​abuse can be learned may seem accessible in theory; however, questions about the social learning approach have been raised. Some scholars find the theory an inadequate fit when explaining why some children with a history of violent exposure do not offend as adults or that some with no exposure offend (Mueller-​Bamouth et al., 2016). But the chief concern is that social learning theory may be misunderstood as deterministic, meaning that all children exposed to violence are “fated” to adult perpetration or victimization. It is important to keep in mind that children witnessing acts of family violence may actively try to stop a family member’s aggression or find it too disturbing or consequential to repeat in future intimate relationships (Dobash and Dobash, 1979). Strain Theories

Strain theory proposes that individuals stressed by an inability to meet social expectations due to factors perceived beyond their control are more likely to commit criminal actions than individuals who can meet social expectations within normal bounds (Merton, 1938). Questions regarding the effects of ongoing strain in relationships have been raised in research and discussions on incidents of IPVA. Economically, stress over unpaid utilities, housing nonpayment, food insecurity, and lack of phone service have been associated with increased odds of perpetrating IPVA. Eviction is linked to perpetrating more severe forms of physical IPVA (Schwab-​ Reese et al., 2016). Interpersonally, relationship separation, child custody disputes, receiving court orders protecting their victims from domestic abuse, suspicions of partner infidelity, and a loss of control have been noted among men who commit intimate partner homicide (IPH). Women who commit IPH tend to be socially isolated and exposed to frequent and severe emotional, physical, and sexual violence. Research also adds that the effect of strain on IPH is greater for partners who demonstrate intense anger, rage, jealousy, low constraint, and who maintain proprietary beliefs, condone IPVA or associate with peers who condone IPVA (Eriksson and Mazerolle, 2013). Recently, pandemic-​ related lockdowns, the stress of unexpected childcare and homeschooling responsibilities, economic instability, and heightened risks for couple conflict, has elevated concern over women confined in abusive homes. In the United States, per one estimate, domestic

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  25 violence incidents increased by 8.1% following COVID-​19 related stay-​ at-​ home mandates. Researchers attribute isolation from various supportive networks, which might otherwise have reported signs of abuse or helped those at risk to escape a dangerous environment (Piquero et al., 2021). Globally, by fall 2021, over 50 countries had integrated violence against women and girls’ prevention and response strategies into their COVID-​19 safety initiatives; 150 countries adopted measures to strengthen services for women survivors of violence during the pandemic (UN Women, 2022). Minority Stress Perspective

The premise of strain theories has been useful in learning more about the relationship between social marginalization and the role of minority stress on health outcomes, including IPVA. Minority stress occurs when non-​majority values and socially dominant values conflict in one social environment (Dentato, 2012). Minority stress tends to be unique (i.e., not experienced by majority groups); chronic (i.e., linked to established social and cultural values); socially based (i.e., promoted through social processes, institutions, and structures), and especially observant among populations such as women, immigrants, the impoverished and racial/​ ethnic minorities (Meyer, 1995). In recent decades, the minority stress perspective has been used to identify and explain factors mediating sexual/​gender minority-​related stressors. In their study of IPVA perpetration, Edwards and Sylaska (2013) reported a disturbing pattern among their sample of LGBTQ college youth: physical and sexual IPVA perpetration were related to participants’ internalized homonegativity; physical IPVA perpetration was related to the concealment of their sexual identity. In Chapters 3, 4, and 5, we discuss these and other barriers encountered by abused LGTBQ intimate partners, along with strategies toward help-​seeking. Researchers or activists who theorize IPVA using certain feminist frameworks may disagree with aspects of strain theory. Theorists who view patriarchal power as the most significant risk for exacting interpersonal crimes like partner violence especially may have issue with explaining IPVA through a gender-​neutral lens. But it is also argued that the development of a feminist-​informed strain theory of why IPVA might occur is not out of the question (Tennyson, 2004). Meanings and messages about interpersonal violence are often informed by several societal factors that influence how we make sense of IPVA. In the next section, we “break down” the significance of media/​technology, social norms/​attitudes, and gender inequalities and what they help to propagate regarding IPVA perpetration and victimization.

26  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies “Breaking Apart” Cultural Factors Influencing IPVA Media and Technology

Media does not “cause” a person to inflict violence/​abuse against another person. However, given its pervasiveness, it may not be surprising that media is a source through which researchers try to approximate how IPVA is perceived and reinforced within a culture. Studies on social media offer an example. With millions logging in and acquiring sometimes pin-​point access to personal data, digital/​online aggression appears to be a part of a larger nexus of relationship violence/​abuse in some relationships. Social media mate-​guarding tactics (e.g., snooping through a partner’s Facebook messages and/​or chat; becoming angry if a partner talked to another man/​ woman on Facebook) are shown as mediating the link between jealous Facebook behaviors and both psychological and physical IPVA among adults (Brem and Spillers, 2015). And yet, technologies can benefit anti-​ violence work as well. Canadian researchers designed a video game promoting public awareness and behavioral change relating to gender-​based violence among adolescents. The study’s experimental group showed a significant increase in affective responsiveness; results were sustained one week after exposure (Boduszek et al., 2019). Cultural Norms and Attitudes Regarding Gender

As if reminding readers that males are also victims of IPVA, Schofield and Bailey (2021) ask, “Whom does an abused man turn to? Are there similar resources for men (as there are for women)? Are there places for him to seek sanctuary” (p. 75). Similarly, Bates’ (2020) male sample perceived society as either unaccepting or in denial of men being victims of IPVA. Similar to a battered woman, a man battered by an intimate also may have to contend with rigid cultural scripts, particularly those depicting male victimization as weakness or otherwise conflicting with conventional masculine norms. In Chapter 4, we discuss how cultural factors often hinder abused men’s disclosure of victimization and help-​seeking. When discussing their finding that 30% of the women they sampled used as much or more coercive control as men, Swan and Snow (2002) asked the question: “What is it about the female gender role that is more permissive of physical violence by women than coercive control?” (p. 316). Acknowledging the cultural norms and attitudes that partners bring to their abusive relationships may offer some clarity. For one, violence/​abuse by women is perceived less consequential or significant than that of men, and women are socialized to aggress against men under certain circumstances (e.g., unwanted sexual advances; Langhinrichsen-​ Rohling, 2010). But

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  27 more contextual to IPVA are norms endorsing that women work hard to keep intimate relationships intact, which might be misinterpreted as a decision to tolerate further abuse (Nash and Hesterberg, 2009). This attitude surfaced in at least one public opinion survey; one-​fourth believed some women want to be abused and most attributed abuse to individual, relationship, and family issues and not a problem at least partially rooted in cultural norms and attitudes (Worden and Carlson, 2005). Gender Inequalities

Considering the often-​closeted nature of IPVA, it may be difficult to “see” individual acts of violence/​abuse as something related to broad, structural-​ level constructs. Evidence suggests that women experience IPVA in a greater proportion than men in countries where women’s social status is low and the unequal distribution of socio-​political power, resources, and opportunities between the sexes is high (Levinson, 1989). However, if research correlates women’s low status with high levels of IPVA against women, what might explain the elevated levels of IPVA against women in Nordic countries? What has been called the Nordic Paradox asks the question of whether some partner violence/​abuse against women is an effect of what has been called the backlash hypothesis: the assumption that violence against women increases as men attempt to compensate for women’s enhanced status or independence (Riger and Krieglstein, 2000). International indexes rate Nordic countries among the most gender equal countries in the world: their salary gender gap is among the lowest in world, and women rank high in labor force participation (Zahidi, 2013). And yet, in Gracia and Merlo’s (2016) study of IPVA in Nordic countries, the prevalence rates for IPVA against women were disproportionally higher than those of other European Union nations. The researchers clearly struggled to explain the paradox in their discussions, but they did raise the speculation that, despite obvious the structural efforts supportive of gender equality, some abusers may still internalize behavioral norms that contradict gender equity ideals. In the next section of this chapter, we discuss the role of research methodologies in testing theories on the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of IPVA. “Breaking Apart” the Role of IPVA Research Several prominent, large-​ scale studies attempt to “break down” the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of IPVA, but there are inconsistencies between them. A publication by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 25% of women and

28  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies 10.9% of men have experienced stalking and physical and/​or sexual IPVA during their lifetime as well as had experiences resulting in some IPVA-​ related impact (Smith et al., 2018). The National Violence against Women (NVAW) Survey found a little over 20% of women and about 7% of men to have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner and that women were significantly more likely to be injured during an assault (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). While these findings are not substantially different, they raise important questions regarding the study of IPVA: Why the divergent findings? And, more to the point, what is the process of discerning the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of IPVA? Theoretical models offer researchers a plausible set of assumptions to explain the causal factors underpinning a certain effect or social occurrence. However, research methodologies are needed to test or interpret if there is some corresponding relationship between that social event and what is theorized as its cause. In this closing section of this chapter, we “break apart” the methodological concepts, strategies, and instruments used by IPVA researchers to generate their important although sometimes-​varying conclusions. IPVA Definitions and Theories

How IPVA is characterized in each study strongly speaks to some of the inconsistent estimates, especially those involving prevalence rates. CDC and NVAW researchers, for example, define IPVA using similar but not identical variables when generating their estimates on gender and IPVA. John Johnson offers another example based on his typology on types of IPVA. When explaining the debate between family violence and feminist researchers regarding the role of gender in IPVA (see “Feminist Models”) he points out that feminist and family violence researchers actually “are using the same term (domestic violence) to describe what they study” when, “(i)n fact, they are talking about two completely different phenomena (intimate terrorism and situational couple violence)” (Ooms, 2006, p. 4). Altogether, conceptual discrepancies like these might lead researchers to different areas of focus, even analysis, which are likely to produce different IPVA findings across the spectrum of literature. A researcher’s theoretical perspective may direct how IPVA research findings are to be measured and interpreted, allowing even further room for varying conclusions. Studies based on a feminist lens are likely to focus on data suggestive of intimate terrorism in which abuse is a part of a nexus of power by one partner over another and ostensibly male-​ perpetrated in opposite-​ sex relationships. Studies on IPVA perpetration from a family violence lens are likely to focus on data suggestive of situational common couple violence, in which acts of violence/​abuse are

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  29 ostensibly gender-​neutral (Johnson, 2017). Altogether, the diversity of data under methodological scrutiny and the theoretical differences guiding how researchers think about IPVA makes measuring the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of IPVA even more complex and their findings potentially varied. IPVA Sampling Methods

The methods that researchers use to generate their participant sample significantly affect how study results are interpreted and applied (Dutton, et al., 2003). Probability and non-​probability sampling are two fundamental types of sampling methods used in social-​science research, including with studies involving IPVA. We break them apart below. Probability-​Based Strategies

The selection of research participants comprising probability samples is based on the principle of chance or random selection (Rubin and Babbie, 2017). The method implemented in Tjaden and Thoennes’ (2000) NVAW study illustrates how some probability-​based samples are strategized: The NVAW Survey sample was drawn by random digit dialing (RDD) from households with a telephone in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The sample was administered by U.S. Census region. Within each region, a simple random sample of working residential … phone numbers were drawn. Separate banks of numbers were generated for male and female respondents. These random digit numbers were called by … interviewers … Once a residential household was reached, eligible adults (i.e., women and men aged 18 and older) in each household were identified. (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000, p. 3) As the researchers describe, participants were randomly selected from a sampling frame (i.e., list of research participants) based on households across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Their method of data collection allows a stronger claim to their study being representative of the US population. Non-​Probability-​Based Strategies

When developing non-probility samples, research participants who share characteristics specific to the purpose of a study are strategically gathered in a convenient or non-random manner. Logan and colleagues

30  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies (2007) implemented a purposive non-​probability sampling method when assembling participants for their research on women who obtained a domestic violence protective order. A protective order is a court order signed by a judge designed to prevent further acts of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking by limiting an abuser’s contact with a petitioning individual, the individual’s children, or others in need of protection either in person, by phone, text, email, social media, or through friends or family (Kentucky Coalition against Domestic Violence, n.d.). Researchers obtained permission from four court jurisdictions (three rural and one urban) to recruit female petitioners for the study after they had been granted protective orders. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be female, 18 years old or emancipated, and have obtained a protective order (domestic violence order [DVO]) against a male intimate partner within six months of entering the study. (Logan, et al., 2007, p. 238) The consensus is that studies based on probability sampling should have increased representation and generalizability (Rubin and Babbie, 2017). This means that the results produced are broadly applicable to different people or situations. But this is not to suggest that probability sampling is “better” than non-​probability sampling. Non-probability sampling, for example, allows researchers to target uncommon or specialized populations more easily. However, we emphasize the importance of accounting for possible biases that may be inherent in any sample’s design. It is also important that researchers inform readers of any sampling issues and their possible influence on the outcomes presented. Analyzing IPVA Quantitative Methods

Quantitative research methods are best recognized for producing objective, generalizable data from sample participants to explain social and behavioral phenomena (Rubin and Babbie, 2017). In their quantitative NVAW survey, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) asked respondents behaviorally specific questions and coded their closed-​or fixed-​ended responses (e.g., Yes/​No reactions; reactions based on continuum from strongly agree to strongly disagree) on their experiences with rape, physical assault, and stalking. Prevalence rates of physical assault among US adults victimized by an intimate were derived from participants’ answers to the following sets of questions.

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  31 Question: Not counting any incidents you have already mentioned, after you became an adult, did any other adult, male or female:

Ever throw something at you that could hurt? Push, grab, or shove you? Pull your hair? Slap or hit you? Kick or bite you? Choke or attempt to drown you? Hit you with some object? Beat you up? Threaten you with a gun? Threaten you with a knife or other weapon? Use a gun on you? Use a knife or other weapon on you?

Yes _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​

No _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​ _​_​_​

(Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000, p.5) Qualitative Methods

Unlike quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods tap into participants’ subjective beliefs, experiences, attitudes, behaviors, and interactions using non-​numerical research strategies for a more descriptive understanding of an experience (Rubin and Babbie, 2017). Through a qualitative approach, Swanberg and Logan (2005) collected interview data from victims to learn their personal perspectives on how IPVA affected their work experiences. The researchers probed for information using open-​ ended questions designed to reveal participants’ thoughts and opinions (e.g., “How has domestic violence affected your job?”), instead of having participants answers questions based on a required set of responses (e.g., Yes/​No). Their resulting analysis uncovered both themes and subthemes of first-​hand data, much of which exposed participants’ explicit feelings of shame and embarrassment, along with issues of safety, job resignation, or even forced termination of employment. Many of these elements appeared in the respondent’s narrative below: He’d [i.e., the perpetrator] walk into [my] office and you know it’s just a little tiny room. It sat between the two bathrooms. It was like a broom closet…. He would show up at my work and just the sight of him would tear me all to pieces. My manager did ask me one time, what’s going on you know with you and man friend? I said, you know, we’re having

32  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies difficulties. She said we just don’t want to have him coming in here interfering with your job. I eventually quit, because he would not stop coming to my job, I felt too ashamed. (Swanberg and Logan, 2005, p. 10) Qualitative and quantitative research methods have their strengths and weaknesses. As Swanberg and Logan’s (2005) excerpt illustrates, a qualitative approach elicits robust descriptions of complex subject matter while giving voice to individuals and circumstances rarely heard or seen (Sofaer, 1999). But the labor needed for data collection, analysis, and coding makes producing large-​scale sample sizes and generalizable data a challenge. The lack of quantifiable data also may be limiting for researchers whose goals require a larger, representative sample size. Quantitative data can be relatively easy to analyze and, given a representative sample, have a stronger claim to generalizability than qualitative data. However, quantitative methods may be viewed as more restrictive than qualitative research, as participants may be limited from individualizing or adding context to their responses. Mixed Methods

A mixed methods approach integrates both quantitative and qualitative strategies within the same study by statistically measuring and analyzing study variables while often gathering open-ended responses for a more descriptive understanding of the subject matter. In Logan and colleagues’ (2006) study on intimate partner stalking, a mixed-​ methods approach helped researchers achieve two overarching research goals: to estimate occurrences of intimate partner stalking and to enable victims to articulate their experiences. The below summary is based on the researchers’ quantitative findings: The most reported type of partner abuse was psychological (52%), followed closely by physical violence (47%), which encompasses pushing, grabbing, slapping, punching, kicking, choking, beating, and attacking with weapons. Just over one-​quarter of the women (26%) had been stalked by a prior partner. (Logan et al., 2006, p. 71) Aside from a quantifiable look at the forms and prevalence of IPVA, researchers also asked participants open-ended questions for more subjective insight into their experiences. Along with the potentially extremist character of psychological IPVA, integrating a qualitative approach

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  33 gave enhanced meaning and context regarding the experience of IPVA. According to one participant: Every relationship I’ve ever had, I’ve had some kind of abuse … That first guy, he was so crazy he begged me to marry him, and I wouldn’t marry him. It was a horror story. He put me in front of a tree and took this little gun and was shooting, aiming right at my head to see how far it was off. It was a small gun [and he was] shooting so far to the left and so far to the right. He’d aim it right at me to see how far it would shoot off one way or another. (Logan et al., 2006, p. 71) As the example suggests, qualitative and quantitative methodologies can significantly complement each other when used in one study. But implementing both methodologies in one study has its drawbacks. Having to analyze and present two diverse forms of data is perhaps the most apparent. Implementation may also require more effort, ability, and instrumentation than if using one method. It is important to take an early account of the practicality of mixed methods and their compatibility to any theoretical frameworks guiding data collection or analysis. Research Instruments

Research instruments are tools used to collect, measure, and analyze data related to research interests. As suggested by the studies presented thus far, a research instrument may involve the use of surveys and scales (e.g., quantitative methods) and open-ended interview questions (e.g., qualitative methods). However, data also may be obtained by questioning discussion groups (i.e., focus groups), observing people or events in their natural settings, or testing respondents’ reactions to research conducted in experimental or laboratory settings. In the study of IPVA, two prominent research instruments have been the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) and the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), which are discussed below. NISVS

The CDC’s NISVS is a nationally representative telephone survey that collects information on IPVA, sexual violence, and stalking among men and women 18 and older in the United States. The survey collects data on past-​year and lifetime experiences of violence. Because its data collection is

34  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies on-​going, NISVS offers current national and state-​based quantitative information on violence/​abuse (CDC, 2020). NISVS is designed to be consistent with the way victims recall their experiences with violence/​abuse. All survey questions are asked within the context of the perpetrator’s specific actions against them. One limitation would be that, despite efforts to make respondents feel comfortable and safe, it is possible that some will be unable or unwilling to talk to an interviewer. Also, respondents who were victimized in the past may not remember some experiences (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2021). CTS

The CTS may be the most widely used and cited quantitative measure of IPVA (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998). Developed by sociologist and family violence researcher Murray A. Straus, the first CTS iteration measured multiple forms of family-​based conflict. Its quantitative measurement of physical IPVA data has been among its most common applications (Straus et al., 1996). The CTS is one of the most controversial instruments in measuring the prevalence and frequency of IPVA between men and women. Much of the debate is centered around the instrument’s internal design, in which relationship violence estimates are “act-​based” or measured by counting the number of each violent act in an abusive episode (Dobash and Dobash, 2004). Critics, historically feminist researchers, argue that CTS proponents have “primarily relied on the measurement of discrete ‘acts’, e.g., ‘slap’ or ‘punch’ as the primary or sole source of data about the violence of individual respondents” (Dobash and Dobash, 2004, p. 327); however, “(p) urely ‘act-​based’ approaches rarely consider contextual issues that promote fuller understandings and more adequate explanations of such events” (Dobash and Dobash, 2004, p. 328). A later iteration of the CTS, the CTS2, was developed to help differentiate between minor and severe forms of violence, supply a broader scale of measurements, and improve the instrument’s overall reliability and validity (Straus et al., 1996). Disagreements over the CTS’ limited accountability for contexts and motives surrounding violent episodes have continued since the instrument’s inception, as is the criticism that CTS data has led to studies showing women with similar if not higher rates of IPVA perpetration than men (Follingstad and Bush, 2014). Professionals who collaborate with abused women may find it problematic to separate context and motive from IPVA or view data supporting gender symmetry as a misrepresentation of female-on-male IPVA (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998; Jordan et al., 2004).

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  35 Chapter Summary Beginning by challenging popular myths related to IPVA, this chapter examines the theoretical perspectives used by IPVA researchers to explain their findings on the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of IPVA. The strengths and weaknesses of IPVA data organized around psychiatric, sociological, feminist, and social-​psychological frameworks are especially highlighted. Also discussed are the roles of media/​ technology, norms/​ attitudes, and gender inequality in IPVA perpetration and victimization. Research methodologies and their use in theory-testing and interpreting the experience of IPVA are explored in the chapter’s second half. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-​methods approaches are distinguished. Sampling strategies and instruments used by many researchers to measure and analyze IPVA also are compared. Recommended Resource The Domestic Violence Evidence Project (DVEP) combines research, evaluation, practice, and theory to inform critical thinking and enhance knowledge on how supportive services impact survivors and their families. DVEP is a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Website: www.dvevid​ence​proj​ect.org/​ Discussion Questions Compare and contrast the theoretical models used to explain IPVA. How might theoretical and methodological differences both benefit and complicate IPVA research goals? References Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: a narrative review of the biological and psychiatric explanations for its causation. Aggression and violent behavior, 18(3), 373–​382. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-​analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 126(5), 651–​680. Associated Press. (2016, October 1). Candidate booed for sexual assault remarks at debate. Retrieved from www.state​sman​jour​nal.com/​story/​news/​2016/​10/​01/​ candid​ate-​booed-​sex​ual-​assa​ult-​rema​rks-​deb​ate/​91421​820/​ Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: a social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-​Hall. Basile, K. C., Hall, J. E., & Walters, M. L. (2013). Expanding resource theory and feminist-​informed theory to explain intimate partner violence perpetration by court-​ordered men. Violence against women, 19(7), 848–​880.

36  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies Bates, E. A. (2020). “No one would ever believe me”: an exploration of the impact of intimate partner violence victimization on men. Psychology of men & masculinities, 21(4), 497. Bjelland, H. F. (2014). A violent balance of power?: a study of relative power and incidence of intimate partner violence. Norwegian journal of sociology, 22(1), 51–​74. Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., Jones, A. D., Ma, M., Smith, D., Willmott, D. & Kirkman, G. (2019). Prosocial video game as an intimate partner violence prevention tool among youth: a randomised controlled trial. Computers in human behavior, 93, 260–​266. Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: an introduction. In K. Yllö & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 11–​26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Breet, E., Seedat, S. & Kagee, A. (2019). Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in men and women who perpetrate intimate partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 34(10), 2181–​2198. Brem, M. J., Spiller, L. C. & Vandehey, M. A. (2015). Online mate-​retention tactics on Facebook are associated with relationship aggression. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(16), 2831–​2850.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​data​sour​ces/​nisvs/​ overv​iew.html DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships: a critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. US Department of Justice Violence against Women Grants Office Electronic Resources. Dentato, M. P. (2012). The minority stress perspective. Psychology & aids exchange, 37, 12–​15. American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: a case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: working on a puzzle. British journal of criminology, 44(3), 324–​349. Dutton, D. G. (1994). The origin and structure of the abusive personality. Journal of personality disorders, 8(3), 181–​191. Dutton, M. A., Holtzworth-​Munroe, A., Jouriles, E., McDonarld, R., & Krishnan, S. M. J., & Sullivan, C. (2003). Recruitment and retention in intimate partner violence research. United States Department of Justice (NCJ 201943). Retrieved from www.ojp.gov/​pdffil​es1/​nij/​gra​nts/​201​943.pdf Edwards, K. M., & Sylaska, K. M. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: the role of minority stress. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(11), 1721–​1731. Ehrensaft, M., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H. & Johnson, J. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: a 20-​year prospective study, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 71(4): 741–​753. Eriksson, L. & Mazerolle, P. (2013). A general strain theory of intimate partner homicide. Aggression and violent behavior, 18(5), 462–​470.

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  37 Follingstad, D. R. & Bush, H. M. (2014). Measurement of intimate partner violence: a model for developing the gold standard, Psychology of violence, 4(4), 369–​383. Gelles, R. J. (2007). The politics of research: the use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—​ the cases of intimate partner violence. Family court review, 45(1), 42–​51. Gilchrist, G., Dennis, F., Radcliffe, P., Henderson, J., Howard, L. M., & Gadd, D. (2019). The interplay between substance use and intimate partner violence perpetration: a meta-​ethnography. International journal of drug policy, 65, 8–​23. Goode, W. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of marriage and the family, 33, 624–​636. Gracia, E., & Merlo, J. (2016). Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic paradox. Social science & medicine, 157, 27–​30. Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C., & Sugimoto, T. (1981). Status relationships in marriage: risk factors in spouse abuse. Journal of marriage and the family, 43(3), 675–​692. Johnson, I. M. (1992). Economic, situational, and psychological correlates of the decision-​making process of battered women. Families in society, 73(3), 168–​176. Johnson, M. (2017). A personal social history of a typology of intimate partner violence. Journal of family theory & review, 9, 150–​164. Jordan, C. E., Nietzel, M. T., Walker, R., & Logan, T. (2004). Intimate partner violence: a clinical training guide for mental health professionals. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Kentucky Coalition against Domestic Violence. (n.d.). Protective order process. Retrieved from https://​kcadv.org/​resour​ces/​laws/​pro​tect​ive-​order-​proc​ess Langhinrichsen-​Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex roles, 62(3), 179–​193. Leubsdorf, B. (2013, February 27). N.H. state representative says some people may ‘like being in abusive relationships. Concord monitor. Retrieved from www.con​ cord​moni​tor.com/​Arch​ive/​2013/​02/​Warden​Rema​rks-​CM-​022​713 Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-​cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Logan, T. K, Cole, J., Shannon, L. & Walker, R. (2006). Partner stalking: How women respond, cope, and survive. New York: Springer. Logan, T., Cole, J., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2007). Relationship characteristics and protective orders among a diverse sample of women. Journal of family violence, 22(4), 237–​246. McPhail, B. A., Busch, N. B., Kulkarni, S., & Rice, G. (2007). An integrative feminist model: the evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence against women, 13(8), 817–​841. Meier, J. S. (2015). Johnson’s differentiation theory: is it really empirically supported? Journal of child custody, 12(1), 4–​24. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American sociological review, 3, 672–​682. Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and social behavior, 36, 38–​56.

38  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies Mueller-​Bamouh, V., Ruf-​Leuschner, M., Dohrmann, K., Schauer, M. & Elbert, T. (2016). Are experiences of family and of organized violence predictors of aggression and violent behavior? A study with unaccompanied refugee minors. European journal of psychotraumatology, 7, 27856. Nash, S. T. (2005). Through Black eyes: African American women’s constructions of their experiences with intimate male partner violence. Violence against women. 11(11), 1420–​1440. Nash, S. T. & Hesterberg, L. (2009). Biblical framings of and responses to spousal violence in the narratives of abused Christian women. Violence against women, 15(3), 340–​361. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2021). NIVIS survey: key terms and FAQs. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​data​sour​ces/​ nisvs/​FAQ.html Nicholson, S. B. & Lutz, D. J. (2017). The importance of cognitive dissonance in understanding and treating victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma, 26(5), 475–​492. Ooms, T. (2006). A sociologist’s perspective on domestic violence: A conversation with Michael Johnson, Ph.D. [Conference sponsored by CLASP and NCSL: Building bridges: Marriage, fatherhood, and domestic violence] Retrieved from www.clasp.org/​resour​ces-​and-​publi​cati​ons/​sta​tes/​0314.pdf. Pfouts, J. (1978). Violent families: coping responses of abused wives. Child welfare, 57(2): 101–​111. Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Jemison, E., Kaukinen, C., & Knaul, F. M. (2021). Domestic violence during the COVID-​19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-​analysis. Journal of criminal justice, 74, Article 101806. Riger, S., & Krieglstein, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American journal of community psychology, 28(5), 631–​647. Romero-​Martínez, Á., Lila, M., & Moya-​Albiol, L. (2016). Empathy impairments in intimate partner violence perpetrators with antisocial and borderline traits: a key factor in the risk of recidivism. Violence and victims, 31(2), 347–​360. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2017). Research methods for social work. Boston, MA: Cengage. Saunders, D. G. (2020). Barriers to leaving an abusive relationship. In Geffner, R., White, J. W., Hamberger, L. K., Rosenbaum, A., Vaughan-​Eden, V. & Vieth, V. I. (Eds.) Handbook of interpersonal violence and abuse across the lifespan. Springer, Cham. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​62122-​7_​186-​1. Schofield T. & Bailey R. K. (2021). Gender bias: the male victim. In Bailey, R. K. (Eds.) Intimate partner violence (pp. 75–​85). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Schwab-​Reese, L. M., Peek-​Asa, C., & Parker, E. (2016). Associations of financial stressors and physical intimate partner violence perpetration. Injury epidemiology, 3(1), 1–​10. Skuja, K., & Halford, W. K. (2004). Repeating the errors of our parents? Journal of interpersonal violence, 19(6), 623–​638. Smith, M. D. (1990) Patriarchal ideology and wife beatings: a test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and victims, 5(4): 257–​273. Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M. J., & Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2015

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Theories and Methodologies  39 data brief–​updated release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sofaer S. (1999). Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them? Health services research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1101–​1118. Spencer, C., Mallory, A. B., Cafferky, B. M., Kimmes, J. G., Beck, A. R., & Stith, S. M. (2019). Mental health factors and intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: a meta-​analysis. Psychology of violence, 9(1), 1–​17. Straus, M. A. (2005). Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 55–​77). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-​McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of family issues, 17, 283–​316. Steinmetz, S. K. (1977–​1978). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2, 499–​509. Swan, S. C. & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence against women, 8(3), 286–​319. Swanberg, J. E., & Logan, T. K. (2005). Domestic violence and employment: a qualitative study. Journal of occupational health psychology, 10(1), 3–​17. Tennyson, K. M. (2004). Battery in Brazil: feminist and family sociology perspectives on domestic violence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice. UN Women. (2022). Facts and figures: Ending violence against women. Retrieved from www.unwo​men.org/​en/​what-​we-​do/​end​ing-​viole​nce-​agai​nst-​women/​facts-​ and-​figu​res Worden, A. P., & Carlson, B. E. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: results of a public opinion survey: II. Beliefs about causes. Journal of interpersonal violence, 20(10), 1219–​1243. Zahidi, S. (2013, October 24). What makes the Nordic countries gender equality winners? Huffington post. Retrieved from www.huffp​ost.com/​entry/​what-​makes-​ the-​nor​dic-​cou_​b_​4159​555

3 “Breaking Apart” Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

Case History: Gabby and Brian A highly publicized example of the lethal nature of intimate partner violence/​ abuse occurred in 2021 with the death of Gabrielle “Gabby” Petito. Gabby, a 22-​year-​old woman from Long Island, New York, had been reported missing on September 11, 2021, when she did not return from a cross-​country trip with her fiancé’, 23-​year-​old Brian Laundrie. Following a search highlighted by extensive media coverage and national attention, Gabby’s deceased remains were found eight days later in the Wyoming camping ground where she and Brian had been seen. The coroner determined that Gabby’s cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head and manual strangulation. On October 20, 2021, Brian’s deceased remains were found in a heavily wooded Florida park, the result of a self-​inflicted gunshot wound to the head. As law enforcement was preparing to close the case, it was disclosed that a notebook was found near Brian’s body in which he claimed responsibility for Gabby’s murder (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2022; Levenson, 2022). Scope of the Problem The case of Gabby Petito and other media coverage on homicide by an intimate force us to grapple with the danger of IPVA and where it might lead. A real concern for women is exposure to threats of physical injury or even lethal harm by an intimate. Women report multiple forms of violence/​ abuse in their intimate partnerships when compared to men (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). Also, disconcerting is that IPVA begins at an early age for most US women. Per the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), 71% of women victimized by contact sexual violence, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate had first experienced these or other forms of IPVA by the same partner before age 25. Nearly DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-3

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  41 26% of women experienced IPVA prior to turning 18 years old (Smith et al., 2018). Emphasizing research on women’s polyvictimization in intimate partner relationships and “breaking down” their experiences have important implications. Similar to the goals of this chapter, they inform that IPVA against female intimates seldom occurs in isolation of other types of relationship violence/​abuse, furthering the potential for personal and social harm (Smith et al., 2018). Below, we “break apart” the social, behavioral, and cultural dynamics that entangle women’s experiences with IPVA, along with the risks, consequences, barriers, and prevention efforts that factor in. We begin with a discussion on the four primary forms of IPVA as they pertain to women: psychological (emotional abuse), sexual violence, stalking, and physical violence. Women and Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse “Breaking Apart” Physical IPVA Prevalence

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that physical attacks like striking, slapping, or knocking down the victim make up the largest percentage of IPVA against women (45%). Women were hit by an object that an intimate partner held or threw at them by approximately 5% (Catalano, 2013). But when comparing female and male intimates, meta-​analyses and population-​ based surveys on the incidence of domestic violence find both sexes having either a similar prevalence for physical IPVA or women having statistically significant, albeit slightly higher likelihood to perpetuate aggression than men (Archer, 2000; Straus & Gelles, 1990). NIVIS reports that 30.6% of women surveyed experienced physical IPVA at one point during their lives; the rate for men was comparable at 31% (Smith et al., 2018). Among the sample of IPVA publications in Desmarais and colleagues’ (2012a, 2012b) review of literature between 2000 and 2010, about 1 in 4 women (23.1%) and 1 in 5 men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship; more than 1 in 4 women (28.3%) and 1 in 5 men (21.6%) were estimated as perpetrating physical violence in an intimate relationship. The authors note the importance of recognizing the need for interventions that address women’s use of violence in their intimate partner relationships. Interestingly, implications pairing female and male partners with having symmetrical physical IPVA encounters tend to fracture when examining research on the seriousness of aggression received by women, including those in which women are primary aggressors (Temple et al., 2005). A pattern suggests that women are greatly impacted by relationship violence throughout their lifetimes and that female intimates

42  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse are more likely to inflict at least one physical act of aggression while male intimates are more likely to inflict injury (Breiding et al., 2014). In the most recent NIVIS survey, for example, 21.4% of female intimates suffered more severe physical abuse (e.g., being beaten, kicked, hit with a fist or something hard, hair pulled, slammed against something, choked or attempted suffocation, burned on purpose, or a knife or gun used) during their lifetimes compared to 14.9.% of male intimate partners, a notable discrepancy (Smith et al., 2018). Also, a significant percentage of women’s emergency visits are due to IPVA (Grisso et al., 1996). When comparing the “total burden” of victimization against the “relatively smaller differences” in the prevalence of physical violence between male and female intimates, it is perhaps not surprising that NIVIS researchers cite a “greater differentiation between women and men in terms of the prevalence of negative intimate partner violence-​related impact” (Breiding et al., 2014, p. 15). Later in the chapter, we discuss these consequences as they pertain to women and IPVA. SES

Contrary to stereotype, a woman having a relatively low socio-​economic status is not “fated” to physical IPVA. However, women living in financially distressed households located in disadvantaged neighborhoods are found to be at greater risk for repeated IPVA and more than twice as likely to be victims of severe violence by an intimate than women in more advantaged neighborhoods (Benson and Fox, 2004). How chronic social disadvantage might facilitate IPVA perpetuation has been an interest of domestic violence scholars, theorists, and activists alike. As Benson and Fox’s (2004) 5-​year study shows, the rate of IPVA was 4.7% among couples in which male partners were always employed but increased to 7.5% when the men experienced one period of unemployment and 12.3% when two or more unemployment periods occurred. The study’s association between women’s increased IPVA and perpetrators’ employment instability was emphasized by the researchers, who also pointed out that some institutional labor practices (e.g., periodic layoffs/​ rehiring; cuts in labor force) might have a negative influence on levels of IPVA experienced by some women. In another survey related to SES and relationship violence/​abuse, women who experienced food insecurity in the past year (11%) had a higher prevalence of IPVA (e.g., physical violence, rape, or stalking) than men (8.2%) (Breiding et al., 2014). Research on the abuse experiences of financially secure female partners or what has been called upscale violence among wealthy couples is elusive (Dozois and GermAnn, 2017). Much of the IPVA data, including that of physical violence, are from samples of individuals using supportive

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  43 services in which respondents are likely to be in financial need or have low incomes. Moreover, with better access to resources, some battered women from higher socio-​economic backgrounds are in a better position to keep their victimization more private (Renzetti, 2009). Even so, the scholarly neglect to appropriate upper-​ SES women’s experiences in the IPVA discussion has been criticized and argued to reinforce the isolation that abused wealthy women feel. Many affluent victims themselves find it difficult to self-​identify with common stereotypes of battered women and have “come to perceive that their torment lacks validity … or it wasn’t ‘abusive’ ” (Weitzman in Dozois and GermAnn, 2017, p. 4.) Race/​Ethnicity

Rates of physical IPVA have been shown to vary among women of different racial/​ethnic backgrounds. A NIVIS study estimates that American Indian/​ Alaska Native women (51.7%) and multiracial women (51.3%) tend to report higher rates of physical violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes. Black women followed (41.2%), along with White (30.5%), Hispanic (29.7%), and Asian or Pacific Islander (15.3%) women (Breiding et al., 2014). Questions have been raised about why some groups of non-​White (i.e., women of color) appear to show higher rates of IPVA, including physical violence. Prior research has suggested several explanations for elevated rates of violence among American Indian/​Alaska Native women including elevated poverty levels, social and geographic isolation, and a higher likelihood of alcohol use by the perpetrator (Bachman et al., 2008). Little is known about why multiracial women appear at greater risk for physical and other forms of IPVA (Breiding et al., 2014). More certain, especially among intersectional scholars, is that solely comparing women’s prevalence rates by race/​ethnicity fails to address how other socio-​demographic factors interact with race/​ ethnicity to compound IPVA or impede a woman’s safekeeping (Richie, 2000; UK Center for Research on VAW, 2011; West et al., 1998). In fact, racial/​ethnic differences in rates of IPVA have been shown to either diminish or disappear when accounting for household income (Cazenave and Straus, 1979; UK Center for Research on VAW, 2011). Other factors may explain differences in women’s rates of IPVA when examined from contexts of gender and race/​ethnicity. For abused women already socially marginalized, decisions about how, whether, and in what manner to respond to physical and other abusive acts may filter through gendered expectations on how their actions might affect themselves and their communities (Lee et al., 2002). It is not hard to imagine that women

44  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse in most cultures may tolerate hardship for their children and families. But for an abused woman from an insular community where intergenerational trauma, a vulnerable immigration status, language barriers, or cultural traditions endorsing intact families are prominent, preserving family or community reputation may be viewed as resiliency if fewer safer choices exist or are perceived. In interviews with predominantly midlife physically and psychologically abused Black wives, for example, race and gender socialization weighed heavily on the reactions of several victims, who deferred to gendered scripts on “strong Black women” safeguarding their husbands from law enforcement intervention for fear of marginalizing both their spouses and communities (Nash, 2005). Explaining rates of IPVA, including physical violence, across contexts of gender and race/​ethnicity becomes more complex when considering the historical nuances and with-​in group challenges some women of color may face. The Vietnamese American respondents in Chang and colleagues’ (2009) study were less likely to report physical IPVA compared to other groups of Asian-​American respondents and Vietnamese-​American women showed significantly lower rates of female-​ to-​ male minor violence. Researchers question if patriarchal values that endorse a husband’s disciplining his wife or if victims’ efforts toward cultural preservation, especially due to loss and family fragmentation by forced migration, may have led to underreporting. “Breaking Apart” Sexual IPVA Prevalence

When compared to the lifetime prevalence of IPVA among men, women are disproportionately affected by some form of sexual violence by their intimate partners at some point during their lives. The most recent NISVS findings estimate that nearly 18% or nearly 22 million female intimates experienced what the survey defines as “contact sexual violence” across their lifetime, a measurement combining incidents of rape, forced penetration with someone else, sexual coercion, and/​or unwanted sexual contact. Regarding incidents of rape by an intimate, the lifetime prevalence for women is higher than men at 8.8% to 0.5%, respectively (Breiding et al., 2014). Yet, one-​half or more of women having had an experience descriptive of most researchers’ definition of rape (see Chapter 1), in fact, do not label themselves as having been raped. If a woman does not recognize her sexual experience as rape, she may not report the incident and the assailant will not be named or punished (Kahn et al., 2003).

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  45 Marital Rape

The concept of rape in marriage may sound even more removed for some women abused by their spouses. Marital rape is often committed by husbands as their wives are sleeping. Acts of coercion, verbal threats, physical violence, or weapons also may be forcefully used. And yet, evidence suggests that wives may struggle to identify some marital sexual experiences as “real” sexual violence (Bergen, 2006). Debates over repealing marital rape’s exemption from criminal prosecution appear to have gained exposure in 1978, when an Oregon man became the first husband to be criminally accused of marital rape while still living with his wife (Bennice and Resick, 2003). But despite its criminalization, there is evidence that the marital rape of wives is still a problem. In a nationally representative survey of 8,000 women victimized by rape, 20.2 % reported they had been raped by a spouse or ex-​spouse (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2006). Race/​Ethnicity

Based on NIVIS research, approximately 53.8% of multiracial women; 46% of American Indian or Alaska Native women; 43.7% of Black women in the United States have been a victim of rape, physical abuse, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Lifetime rates for Hispanic and White women are 37.1% and 34.6%, respectively. Asian or Pacific Islander show the lowest rates of intimate partner rape, physical abuse, or stalking in their lifetimes at 19.6% (Breiding et al., 2014). A woman does not “ask” to be raped by flirting, attire, alcohol consumption, or having consensual sex with several partners during her lifetime. Nor does a woman “consent” to sexual violence by entering an assailant’s car or home. Myths like these are pervasive –​even endorsed by a substantial margin of college women (Carmody et al., 2001) –​and may result in self-​ blame and non-​disclosure of victimization. Some of these stereotypes may be especially attached to women of color. Whether caricatured as promiscuous and hypersexual or sensual and compliant, historical representations of Native American, Hispanic, Black, and Asian American women can label some women of color as less credible rape victims or imply their victimization as somehow justified (West, 2004). Intersectional sexual assault intervention strategies addressing race and gender-​ specific stereotypes, combined with culture-​based resilience models, have been endorsed over strategies using colorblind examples (Zounlome et al., 2019). SES

Couples with income, educational, or occupational status disparities have higher rates of intimate partner violence than couples with no status

46  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse disparity (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). However, questions surrounding the effects of SES on rape perpetration and other sexual violence against female partners deserve closer attention. A study on gender, SES inequality, and incidents of rape in US metropolitan areas, for example, did not specifically focus on partner violence. Nonetheless, results did find gender income inequality a significant contributor to rape against women. Gender inequities in educational attainment and occupational status did not contribute significantly to this sexual violence, but researchers discovered that the greater the income gap between males and females, the higher rate of rape (Peterson and Bailey, 1992). “Breaking Apart” Psychological (Emotional) IPVA Prevalence

NIVIS reports that nearly half of US women (47%) reported psychological aggression by an intimate during their lifetime. Among them, an estimated 39.3% reported being targets of expressive aggression or acts of name-​ calling, insults, or humiliation by an intimate. About 40% reported being subjected to coercive control or behaviors intended to monitor and control a partner by acts such as threats, jealousy, and possessive behaviors, interfering in normal social interactions with family and friends, and economic deprivation or limiting the victim’s access to money (Smith et al., 2017). There is evidence that rates of psychological aggression are equivalent between men and women, especially among young adults (Cercone et al., 2005). Results from NISVS found comparable rates between the sexes with over one-​third of women and men experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). Tactics of emotional harm tend to vary between men and women. Women are found to more frequently insult, swear, shout, or yell at their partners or stomp off during disagreements (Hamby and Sugarman, 1999). Women demeaning their male partner’s gender role choices as not being masculine enough has also been argued (McHugh et al., 2013). Men are argued to more often refer to their female partners as fat/​ugly, destroy their property, or ridicule their inability to do things (Hamby and Sugarman, 1999). Coercive Control

IPVA research offers insight into how levels of coercive control align with women’s experiences with sexual and physical violence. In Beck and Raghavan’s (2010) study of divorcing adults, 80% of the 465 women whose lives were threatened and 81% who had gone through escalated

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  47 physical IPVA also tended to fall into moderate or high coercive control groups. The moderate coercive control group accounted for roughly half of women who reported forced sex, escalated physical violence, and threats to their lives. Researchers argue that their findings suggest that IPVA cannot be reliably determined by incident-​specific acts, that fear-​inducing coercive control is a key element in any type of abusive relationship, and that “obtaining a snapshot of physical abuse, without regard to coercive control and sexual coercion, may misrepresent what are severe and less severe forms of intimate abuse” (p. 526). Underpinning all this is the concern controlling behaviors may undermine women’s escape from abusive relationships (Stark, 2007). Evidence suggesting both female and male partners’ use of controlling behaviors (Graham-​Kevan and Archer, 2008) is not without its discrepancies. Based on findings from a national victimization survey of Canadians, Lysova and colleagues (2019) note comparable rates of controlling behaviors with men more likely to experience severely controlling behaviors from their female partners by 35% to 34%, respectively. These outcomes differ from Myhill’s (2015) also nationally representative analysis, in which nearly 1 in 3 women and 1 in 20 men reporting some form of IPVA also experienced coercive controlling behaviors. The variance in outcomes is likely derived from no standardly applied definition of coercive control (Robinson and Myhill, 2021). Race/​Ethnicity and SES

Aspects of both psychological and physical IPVA among racial/ethnic minority couples have been raised in studies on negative coping responses to racial/​ ethnic discrimination which are argued to spillover into some relationships. Based on a sample of rural, mostly low-​income Southern Black couples, if facing higher levels of racial discrimination, women reported higher levels of physical aggression and men reported higher levels of psychological aggression and relationship instability. Researchers state that all results replicated when controlling for financial hardship, indicating unique effects for discrimination (Lavner et al., 2018). However, other research suggests a likelihood for partners to lean on each other based on shared experiences with minority-​based stressors. A longitudinal study of racial-​ minority couples revealed partners who experienced frequent racial discrimination and were supportive toward their intimates for over 2 years. That same study additionally noted that supportive partners under high chronic financial strain behaved less supportively thereafter. A separate sample of support providers under financial strain was viewed as slightly less supportive by their partners over a 3-​year period (Clavél et al., 2017).

48  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse “Breaking Apart” Stalking IPVA Prevalence

The latest NISVS estimates suggest that stalking is a serious public health problem. For female victims, perpetrators were usually of the opposite sex and 35.5% were stalked by a current or former intimate partner a year before the survey. Women’s lifetime victimization rates were mostly represented as someone they knew, such as a current or former intimate partner (43.4%) or an acquaintance (40.6%). Only about 19% of female victims reported that a stranger was their stalker. The study also indicates that stalking victimization occurs in combination with other forms of IPVA and that approaches to prevention may be similar (Smith et al., 2022). Research dispels the myth that intimate partner stalking is only a post-​ divorce or separation occurrence. In one national survey, women reported being stalked by a partner while in the relationship (21%); after it ended (43%); as well as before and after the relationship ended (36%) (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998). There is also a strong, suggested link between stalking and other forms of partner violence. One study revealed that 81% and 31% of women who were stalked by a current or former intimate partner were also physically and sexually assaulted, respectively, by the same individual (Breiding et al., 2014). Race/​Ethnicity and SES

According to NIVIS, 28% of American Indian/​Alaska Native women and 25.7% of multiracial women experienced stalking at some point in their lives. An estimated 16% of White and Black women reported experiences with stalking during their lives followed by 14.5% of Hispanic women and 7.6% of Asian/​Pacific Islander women. Among women surveyed, 61.5% of the perpetrators were a current or former intimate partner (Smith et al., 2017). Among the few studies intersecting race/​ethnicity and gender with the emotional experience of stalking is by Dietz and Martin (2007). White women (82%) reported the highest fear of stalking followed by Asian or Pacific Island (80%), multi-​ racial (75%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (71%), and Black (61%) women. Having some college or a college degree influenced higher odds of feeling fearful of stalking, in addition to being frequently stalked, being stalked by an intimate, family member, or acquaintance and being stalked by certain physical means (e.g., standing outside, spying) and other monitoring tactics (e.g., unsolicited calls). When further considering discrepancies between Black and White women, researchers also questioned whether some White respondents, who generally view themselves more at risk for violence, may be predisposed to

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  49 be more fearful of stalking and whether some Black respondents, who may have undergone other life course adversities, may experience other emotions besides fear. More research is called for. In the next section, we “break apart” principal issues regarding IPVA among women in the LGBTQ community. IPVA among Women in Same-​Sex Relationships and Transgender Women Scope of the Problem

Rolle and colleagues (2018) write that while public opinion considers LGBT abuse as a rare phenomenon, “this opinion is particularly strong with regard to bisexual and lesbian women, [who are] often idealized as being in peaceful and utopian relationships …” (p. 2). The comment’s meaning might be argued as twofold: it shows the fallacy that women in same-​sex relationships are not subject to abuse because of their sex, and it explains why violence/​abuse among women in same-​sex intimate relationships is often underrecognized or misunderstood. Given even less public attention or scholarly investigation are transwomen’s experiences with IPVA. What limited studies there are strongly suggest that transgender people may confront similar, if not higher, levels of IPVA than sexual minority and cisgender people with lifetime rates of IPVA ranging from 31.1% to 50.0% (Brown and Herman, 2015). The following sections offer a context for prevalence of IPVA among transgender as well as bisexual and lesbian women and how they compare to abused women in opposite-​ sex intimate partner relationships. Lesbian Women

Key comparisons from NIVIS data find that 44% of lesbian women and 35% of heterosexual women experienced rape, physical violence, and/​or stalking by an intimate partner at least once in their lifetime. Nearly 30% of lesbian women compared to 25.2% of heterosexual women were fearful because of the violence; 19.5% of lesbian women reported concern for their safety. Two-​thirds or 67.4% of lesbian women reported having only female perpetrators of intimate partner violence (Walters et al., 2013). Regarding emotional IPVA and lesbian women, 63% compared to 47.5% of heterosexual women experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner during their lifetimes (Walters et al., 2013), often taking the form of verbal threats and insults such as being demeaned in front of friends, family, or strangers (West, 2002). NIVIS also finds a 48.4% and 63% lifetime estimate of coercive control and expressive aggression victimization, respectively (Walters et al., 2013).

50  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Some social attitudes on gender non-​conformity may impose problems for some lesbian IPVA victims. A partner self-​identified as “butch” or expressing traits socially constructed as masculine whose partner self-​ identifies as “femme” or expressing traits socially constructed as feminine may be misread as an offending partner. However, no apparent research has directly linked a specific gender expression to lesbian battering, and a butch partner is as likely to be a victim or a perpetrator (Leeder, 1994). Women who do use violence against their same-​sex partner tend to do so for reasons not unfamiliar to partners in opposite-​sex relationships. For one, violence/​abuse may be a means to an end, namely gaining control over a partner and the situation. An abuser’s fear of abandonment or losing a partner may manifest in asserting violence/​abuse against that partner. There also may be mutual aggression between female intimates as well as aggression done in self-​defense (Lie et al., 1991). In Frankland and Brown’s (2014) study of lesbian and gay adults, when compared to respondents engaged in situational couple violence, respondents engaged in violent resistance reported a greater range of physical violence, perhaps suggesting one partner’s efforts to defy the other’s control. Bisexual Women

Bisexual women often show significant rates of IPVA victimization. Compared to heterosexual women, bisexual women experience more IPVA and IPVA-​related impact with 61.1% having undergone rape, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. Ninety-​eight percent of bisexual women who experienced rape in their lifetime reported having only male perpetrators (Walters et al., 2013). Invariably, the considerable risk for IPVA among bisexuals is explained by the group’s unique social positioning among sexual orientations. Seen as a sexual minority in both heterosexual and homosexual communities, bisexual individuals may be a target of threats and coercion by partners, who threaten to “out” them to unknowing families, friends, employers, and ex-​ spouses (Renzetti, 1992). In one IPVA study, the most often-​ identified correlation between bisexuals and relationship victimization was perpetrators’ negative attitudes toward bisexuals and the belief in stereotypes typifying bisexuals as promiscuous, especially if the perpetrator was male and if both partners were bisexual (Turrell et al., 2018). Transgender Women

The few IPVA estimates there are regarding transgender women –​persons who have previously transitioned or are currently transitioning from male-​to-​female and living as women –​suggests a significantly high

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  51 prevalence of intimate partner violence/​abuse. In Risser and colleagues’ (2005) later study, 50% of transgender women experienced IPVA with 25% reporting sexual IPVA during their lifetime. In the National Coalition of Anti-​Violence Programs’ survey of IPVA and HIV-​affected sexual and gender minorities, transgender women were 2.5 times more likely to be stalked, 2.5 times more likely to experience financial abuse, and 2 times more likely to experience online harassment than cisgender women (NCAVP, 2016). In a British study in which nearly half the sample were transwomen, the most frequent form of IPVA was transphobic-​related emotional abuse from a current or ex-​partner. Respondents disclosed several coercive behaviors such as being stopped from changing their appearance or undergoing hormone treatment/​medical procedures, being told by abusers to say nothing about their trans background/​identity, being threatened by their abuser to have their background/​identity exposed, and being told not to engage with other transgender people. Abusive partners also drew attention to respondents’ body parts to trigger discomfort and over 40% said they were insecure about their gender identity as a result. Trans-​related emotional abuse and its negative impact often are not fully understood or acknowledged by service providers (Roch et al., 2010), which might be a barrier to victims in need of professional resources. Next, we further “break apart” this and other barriers to help-​seeking among gender and sexual minority women who experience IPVA. “Breaking Apart” Barriers to IPVA Help-​Seeking Regarding Women in Same-​Sex Relationships Misconceptions about IPVA Experiences

It is not unheard of for lesbians victimized by a violent/​abusive partner to have others mistake that violence for a “catfight” or mutually combative “schism.” It also turns out that binary notions of men as violent and women as victims may even confuse some lesbian’s perceptions of their own relationship violence as they struggle to understand it (Giorgio, 2002). External and Internalized Homophobia

Homophobia creates a sharp distinction in how some sexual minority women experience IPVA. Internalized homophobia sourced by social discrimination against sexual minorities may be coopted or internalized by group members themselves. Its effects can lead to low self-​esteem, feelings of powerlessness, denial of group membership, and difficulty establishing committed, trusting relationships, which is acted out by way of relationship

52  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse violence/​abuse (Pharr, 1986; West, 2002). A lack of social validation and maltreatment outside the relationship also may encourage one intimate to adopt a greater attachment to the other. Fusing oneself to an intimate diminishes partner autonomy within the relationship, leading to relationship tension and poor reactions to conflict like IPVA (Causby et al., 1995; Renzetti, 1998). Another concern lies in the broader homophobic contexts in which victims are socially situated: Revealing a female abusers’ gender could lead to stigma, unemployment, or even loss of child custody (Giorgio, 2002; Lundy, 1993). Regarding Transwomen Exclusionary Service Practices

A transgender woman may find herself traversing several obstacles if in need of support due to IPVA. There are few trans-​ competent service providers, including in cities with large trans-​ populations (e.g., New York, San Francisco; Greenberg, 2012). Even then, most domestic violence shelters admit cisgender women and, because only a minority of transwomen have completely transitioned medically, socially, or legally, a transwoman may find herself excluded from these resources (Courvant and Cook-​Daniels, 1998). Like abused sexual minorities, gender minorities also worry about their safety and privacy if outed as transgender. Many go as far as deciding against reporting abuse for fear of consequences in which they are without medical/​hormonal treatment (Ing and Woods, 2013). Others opt out of the use of services because of low self-​esteem or the belief that they will not be seen as “real” women (Courvant and Cook-​Daniels, 1998). External and Internalized Transphobia

Violence/​abuse by an intimate or by a stranger may entail transphobic attitudes, leading to body-​ shaming or other defamations related to a trans persons’ appearance and value. As a result, a transgender woman (or man) may internalize these denunciations; an abusive partner may seize upon her vulnerability to tighten their control. A transwoman, for example, may believe her gender expression as aberrant, become convinced that no one else will ever want her, and even blame herself for the abuse (Greenberg, 2012). The following section examines the risks for and consequences of IPVA as well as protective factors and help resources related to women in abusive intimate partner relationships.

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  53 “Breaking Apart” IPVA Risks, Consequences, and Protective Factors Regarding Women Risk Factors for Female Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Childhood Trauma

Evidence suggests that rates of childhood trauma and abuse are very high among women exposed to IPVA. In a longitudinal study of women treated for childhood sexual violence, their past experiences not only predicted their partners’ use of IPVA against them but also their use of IPVA against their partners (Siegel, 2000). While the study suggests the potential for aggressive behaviors to persist beyond childhood, findings also show that strong maternal attachments mitigated the risk of adult violence, primarily by reducing the likelihood of involvement in abusive intimate relationships. Similarly, a later study linking women’s childhood physical violence with adult IPVA also found increased rates of physical aggression toward as well as more revictimization by their partners. Anger suppression mediated the association between girls’ physical abuse and their higher risk for IPVA perpetration and revictimization as women (Maneta et al., 2012). Pregnancy

An unintended pregnancy, lower SES, and being unmarried are moderate predictors of IPVA against pregnant women (James et al., 2013). Moreover, an abuser may be jealous that attention has shifted to the baby, feel disgruntled over financially supporting a first or another baby, or already disposed to controlling behaviors (i.e., financial abuse, isolation from family and friends; March of Dimes, n.d.). Perhaps an even stronger predictor of pregnancy-​associated IPVA against women is relationship violence/​abuse prior to pregnancy (James et al., 2013). Studies attribute IPVA during pregnancy to adverse neonatal outcomes such low birth weight, preterm birth, neonatal death or, the death of the mother (Alhusen et al., 2015). Alcohol Use/​Dependency

Alcohol consumption has been associated with an increased risk of violence/​ abuse victimization and perpetration in intimate relationships (Abramsky et al., 2011; Foran and O’Leary, 2008) and a higher severity of physical aggression in incidents of male-​on-​female IPVA (Graham et al., 2011). In one study, the odds of any male-​on-​female physical aggression among a sample of men seeking domestic violence treatment were more than eight times higher on days they consumed alcohol when compared to days of no alcohol consumption. In cases of severe physical male-​on-​female aggression,

54  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse the odds were 11 times greater compared to days they abstained (Fals-​ Stewart, 2003). While not a sole trigger of relationship violence, alcohol is likely a compounding factor that ultimately could lead to relationship violence/​abuse. A longitudinal study of newlywed couples concluded that the sample’s marital aggression was largely mediated through marital conflict styles, in addition to husbands’ alcohol consumption, which had influenced their perceptions of power and hostility against their wives (Leonard and Senchak, 1996). None of this is to suggest that the increased risk of IPVA related to alcohol consumption is limited only to male-​ on-​ female victimization. Foran and O’Leary’s (2008) meta-​analysis specified a small effect size for a link between alcohol use/​abuse and female-​on-​male partner violence. But aspects of this finding might be disputable. For example, Crane and Eckhardt (2013) found that female-​on-​male IPVA was no more likely to occur on days of women’s alcohol use than on days of non-​alcohol use. Rather than alcohol use, negative emotionality (i.e., anger, anxiety, and suspiciousness) and male-​on-​female IPVA predicted the risk of female-​on-​ male IPVA. Social Attitudes Regarding Gender

In addition to economically strained households and disadvantaged neighborhoods (Benson and Fox, 2004), rigid traditional attitudes and beliefs involving gender and conduct have been recognized as a factor in women’s susceptibility to IPVA. In a World Health Organization (WHO, 2012) report, hypermasculine social norms endorsing men’s superiority over women, the use of physical violence to resolve relationship conflict, and sexual intercourse as a male right in marriage are associated with IPVA victimization and/​or perpetration against women. Also cited in the analysis was the belief that women are responsible for controlling a man’s sexual urges. Consequences of Female Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Health-​Related Outcomes

The health effects associated with women and IPVA are both negative and significant. Studies find depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and behavior to be critically higher among women survivors of IPVA than women who report no violence/​abuse (Almiş et al., 2018), as is an increased risk for smoking, binge drinking, and risky sexual behaviors (CDC, 2021). Harmful psychological defense mechanisms are also reported, including self-​blame, denying or minimizing abuse, and feeling shameful or guilty

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  55 about the situation (Brandt and Rudden, 2020). About 35% of female IPVA survivors report some form of physical injury, the results of which may range from bone and muscular issues to problems affecting the cardiac, digestive, reproductive, and nervous systems (CDC, 2021). Homicide

Intimate partner homicide (IPH), the most extreme consequence of IPVA, disproportionately affects US women with over half of female homicide victims killed by a current or former male intimate partner (CDC, 2021). Relationship harms, such as death threats, stalking, controlling behaviors, nonfatal strangulation, physical violence, and prior domestic violence, often have a role in increasing violence ending in IPH. However, the greatest estimated risk among them, being threatened with a weapon, increases the probability of partner homicide by 18.5 times. For pregnant female partners, that probability increases by 3.74 times (Matias et al., 2020). State statutes limiting access to firearms for persons under a domestic violence restraining order are believed to serve as preventive measure in reducing risk for IPH and firearm-​related IPH (Petrosky et al., 2017). Racial/​ethnic differences in female IPH rates underscore the importance of targeting intervention efforts to populations at a disproportionate risk for violence/​abuse. Using homicide data from the National Violent Death Reporting System, CDC researchers found that non-​Hispanic Black and American Indian/​Alaska Native women experienced the highest rates of homicide (4.4 and 4.3 per 100,000 population, respectively), over half (55.3%) were IPVA-​related, and 11.2% of victims of IPVA-​related homicide experienced some form of violence in the month before their deaths. Arguments and jealousy were common precipitating events (Petrosky et al., 2017). Meanwhile, considerable investigation is needed regarding same-​sex IPHs, attempted homicides, and policies that protect women partners against IPH. Protective Factors of Female Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Education and SES

Women with at least a secondary education and an increased income tend to be more shielded from IPVA victimization. Household hardships are reduced, there are fewer arguments over a partner’s contribution to the family, and some relationship dynamics are more stable (Abramsky et al., 2019). In fact, interviews with abused women suggest that employment can play a critically important, positive role in the lives of IPVA victims. Respondents attributed employment to their improved financial standing

56  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse and physical safety, increased self-​esteem, enhanced social connectedness, and sense of purpose (Rothman et al., 2007). Social Support

If abused, reaching out to family and friends can be an uncomfortable decision; however, there can be considerable benefit in developing a network of positive social support. Aside from help in coordinating tangible resources (e.g., access to adequate housing, medical and mental health services, and economic assistance), family and friends may heighten surveillance or otherwise increase the potential for intervention when needed (CDC, 2019; Goodkind et al., 2003). Residents in communities that make a collective effort to improve their neighborhoods and respond to violence also are more protected from IPVA (Pinchevsky and Wright, 2012). Being aware of resources and actions intended to protect IPVA survivors cannot be overstated. In the last section, we highlight individual, clinical, and community-​related resources that are credited as preventing further partner violence/​abuse once IPVA has occurred. The section also identifies strategies used by professionals to improve abused women’s safety and well-​being. Protective Resources and Strategies for Women Survivors of IPVA Individualized Safety Plans

Once a woman understands the patterns of violence in her relationship or how abuse tends to be more triggered on certain dates and times (e.g., holidays, pay days, afterwork hours, during intoxication), it will be a important to have a prepared strategy for safety. Who to call ahead of time to warn about her partner’s drinking or violent instability would be prudent consideration, along with how she and her children might leave the home prior to the partner’s arrival or whether someone might be in the home when her partner arrives. A safety plan that documents these and other courses of action for immediate and future use can be that first-​line protective strategy for survivors of IPVA. Studies suggest that discussing safety options encourage women to open up about their experiences, resulting in them becoming more comfortable with implementing planned safety strategies (Bair-​Merritt et al., 2014). When helping survivors gather and secretly put away emergency belongings (e.g., bags of clothing, pharmaceuticals, toiletries, official documents, cash, phone/​calling cards with service contacts and, if needed, preparations for children) or negotiate the safest way to leave and where to go, it is important that they identify with someone reliable and trustworthy.

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  57 A sample of a detailed Domestic Violence Personalized Safety Plan by the National Center for Domestic and Sexual Violence is provided in Appendix I. This safety plan template can also be referred to in subsequent chapters with other populations. Clinical-​Based Interventions

A health care provider may be the first professional to provide formal care or, perhaps, intervention for an abused woman. It is, therefore, recommended that IPVA screening and counseling be a core part of women’s preventive health visits and during obstetric care (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012), particularly among community-​based agencies that work with abused women. Some of the basic universal screening questions presented to women in physicians’ offices, emergency departments, and other clinical settings include: (1) Has anyone hit, punched (or hurt you in any way) in the last year? (2) Do you feel safe in your current relationship? (3) Does anybody from your previous relationship(s) make you feel unsafe now? (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012). The WHO (2014) further recommends that health care providers be proactive in listening to, inquiring about, and validating abused women’s needs when engaging in any type of planning or intervention. Programs designed to address the traumatic effects of relationship violence are introduced in Chapter 9 and should not be minimized. Several studies have identified an association between IPVA and suicidal ideation or actual suicide attempts, especially among young people (Barter and Stanley, 2016). One potential resource is an evidence-​ based risk assessment inventory measuring the level of lethality or danger for homicide in intimate relationships. We discuss the Danger Assessment inventory in Chapter 9. Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy

Domestic violence advocates can be a critical tool for women surviving IPVA. As trained professionals and often staffed by local/​regional support agencies, they function as both an emotional and a practical resource. By coordinating services with other supportive agencies, they help refer victims to shelters and other emergency housing as well as guide women through individualized safety planning and how to determine their best options. There also may be circumstances in which a court-​issued injunction is needed to safeguard a survivor from the possibility of more violence/​ abuse. A domestic violence advocate may coordinate with legal services to petition a protective order or another judicial order limiting an abuser’s

58  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse communication with or proximity to the victim (Chen et al., 2013; Hartley and Renner, 2018). Chapter Summary The homicide/​suicide case history of Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie is an unsettling reminder of where IPVA against women might lead. Because physical IPVA is rarely committed in isolation, this chapter also addresses other forms of relationship violence/​abuse against women, including sexual IPVA, psychological (emotional) abuse, and stalking by an intimate. Several factors might place women at higher risk for IPVA, including trauma during childhood, being pregnant, and alcohol use or dependency within the relationship. Despite the many advancements toward gender equality, attitudes endorsing male superiority and physical violence as an acceptable response to conflict resolution is still an issue in some relationships and can perpetuate IPVA against women. Contrary to public perception, women in same-​sex intimate relationships and trans-​gendered women are not immune to IPVA and are estimated in some studies to experience higher rates of IPVA than their heterosexual/​cisgender counterparts. One factor may be the toll of external and internally coopted homophobia and transphobia, both unique to abused sexual and gender minority women and a problem likely compounding the more common reactions of personal guilt and shame. Other negative consequences universal to women in abusive relationships are feelings of anxiety, depression, suicidal behavior, and suicidal ideation. On a positive note, a better understanding of protective factors and resources can be a valuable tool in preventing and mitigating the severity of IPVA. Particularly, education and sustained employment, having positive support systems, accessing available community resources, in addition to IPVA screening and anti-​violence advocacy, may lead to an enhanced a sense of safety and well-​being for abused women. Recommended Resources Fact Sheet: March 16, 2022 Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act www.whi​teho​use.gov/​brief​i ng-​room/​sta​teme​nts-​relea​ ses/ ​ 2 022/ ​ 0 3/ ​ 1 6/ ​ f act- ​ s heet- ​ r eau ​ t hor ​ i zat ​ i on- ​ o f- ​ t he- ​ v iole ​ n ce- ​ a gai​ nst-​women-​act-​vawa/​ University of Kentucky Center for Research on Violence against Women www.uky.edu/​crvaw/​

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  59 Discussion Question Identify similarities and differences between the IPVA experiences of women identified as heterosexual and women identified as gender and sexual minorities. References Abramsky, T., Lees, S., Stöckl, H., et al. (2019). Women’s income and risk of intimate partner violence: secondary findings from the MAISHA cluster randomized trial in North-​Western Tanzania. BMC public health, 19(1), 1–​15. Abramsky, T., Watts, C. H., Garcia-​Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M., … & Heise, L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-​country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC public health, 11(1), 1–​17. Alhusen, J. L., Ray, E., Sharps, P., & Bullock, L. (2015). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Journal of women’s health (2002), 24(1), 100–​106. Almiş, B. H., Kütük, E. K., Gümüştaş, F., & Celik, M. (2018). Risk factors for domestic violence in women and predictors of development of mental disorders in these women. Archives of neuropsychiatry, 55(1), 67.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2012). Intimate partner violence. Committee opinion no. 518. Obstetrics & gynecology, 119(2), 412–​417. Archer J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-​analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 126, 651–​680. Bachman, R., Zaykowski, H., Kallmyer, R. et al. (2008). Violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and the criminal justice response: what is known. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from www.ncjrs. gov/​pdffil​es1/​nij/​gra​nts/​223​691.pdf Bair-​Merritt, M. H., Lewis-​O’Connor, A., Goel, S., Amato, P., Ismailji, T., Jelley, M., … & Cronholm, P. (2014). Primary care-​based interventions for intimate partner violence: a systematic review. American journal of preventive medicine, 46(2), 188–​194. Barter, C., & Stanley, N. (2016). Inter-​personal violence and abuse in adolescent intimate relationships: mental health impact and implications for practice. International review of psychiatry, 28(5), 485–​503. Beck, C. J., & Raghavan, C. (2010). Intimate partner abuse screening in custody mediation: the importance of assessing coercive control. Family court review, 48(3), 555–​565.Bennice, J. A., & Resick, P. A. (2003). Marital rape: history, research, and practice. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 4(3), 228–​246. Benson, M. L., & Fox, G. L. (2004). Concentrated disadvantage, economic distress, and violence against women in intimate relationships. In B. S. Fisher (Ed.), Violence against women and family violence: developments in research, practice, and policy (pp. II-​3-​1-​II-​3-​9). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

60  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Bergen, R. (2006). Marital rape: new research and directions. The National Online Resource Center on Violence against Women. Retrieved from http://​new.vaw​net. org/​Ass​oc_​F​iles​_​VAW​net/​AR_​Mar​ital​Rape​Revi​sed.pdf Brandt, S., & Rudden, M. (2020). A psychoanalytic perspective on victims of domestic violence and coercive control. International journal of applied psychoanalytic studies, 17(3), 215–​231. Breiding, M. J., Chen J., & Black, M. C. (2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States—​2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brown, T. N. & Herman, J. L. (2015). Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse among LGBT people. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute. Carmody, D. C., & Washington, L. M. (2001). Rape myth acceptance among college women: the impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of interpersonal violence, 16(5), 424–​436. Catalano, S. M. (2013). Intimate partner violence–​ attributes of Victimization, 1993–​2011. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Causby, V., Lockhart, L., White, B., & Greene, K. (1995). Fusion and conflict resolution in lesbian relationships. Journal of gay & lesbian social services, 3(1), 67–​82. Cazenave, N. A., & Straus, M. A. (1979). Race, class, network embeddedness and family violence: a search for potent support systems. Journal of comparative family studies, 10(3), 281–​300. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). Preventing intimate partner violence. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​ipv-​facts​ heet​508.pdf Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Preventing intimate partner violence. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​ipv/​IPV-​ fac​tshe​et_​2​021 Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and victims, 20(2), 207–​218. Chen, P. H., Jacobs, A., & Rovi, S. L. (2013). Intimate partner violence: counseling, community resources, and legal issues for IPV victims and perpetrators. FP essentials, 412, 18–​23. Clavél, F. D., Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (2017). United and divided by stress: how stressors differentially influence social support in African American couples over time. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 43(7), 1050–​1064. Courvant, D., & Cook-​Daniels, L. (1998). Trans and intersex survivors of domestic violence: Defining terms, barriers, and responsibilities. National Coalition of Domestic Violence. https://​vaw​net.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​materi​als/​files/​2016-​08/​ Transa​ndIn​ters​exSu​rviv​ors.pdf Crane, C., & Eckhardt, C. (2013). Negative affect, alcohol consumption, and female-​to-​male intimate partner violence: a daily diary investigation. Partner abuse, 4(3), 332–​355.

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  61 Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., et al. (2012a). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 1: rates of male and female victimization. Partner abuse, 3(2), 140–​169. Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., et al. (2012b). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: rates of male and female perpetration. Partner abuse, 3(2), 170–​198. Dietz, N. A., & Martin, P. Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: questioning the fear standard. Violence against women, 13(7), 750–​776. Dozois, E., & GermAnn, K. (2017). No one deserves to be abused: an inquiry to inform the development of supports for affluent survivors. Sagesse; Calgary Foundation. Fals-​Stewart, W. (2003). The occurrence of partner physical aggression on days of alcohol consumption: a longitudinal diary study. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 71(1), 41–​52. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2022). FBI Denver provides final investigative update on Gabrielle Petito case. Retrieved from www.fbi.gov/​cont​act-​us/​field-​ offi​ces/​den​ver/​news/​press-​relea​ses/​fbi-​den​ver-​provi​des-​final-​invest​igat​ive-​upd​ate-​ on-​gabrie​lle-​pet​ito-​case Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: a meta-​analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 28(7), 1222–​1234. Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-​sex intimate partner violence. Journal of family violence, 29(1), 15–​22. Giorgio, G. (2002). Speaking silence: definitional dialogues in abusive lesbian relationships. Violence against women, 8(10), 1233–​1259. Goodkind, J. R., Gillum, T. L., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M. (2003). The impact of family and friends’ reactions on the well-​being of women with abusive partners. Violence against women, 9(3), 347–​373. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Wilsnack, S. C., & Gmel, G. (2011). Alcohol may not cause partner violence, but it seems to make it worse: a cross national comparison of the relationship between alcohol and severity of partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 26(8), 1503–​1523. Graham-​ Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of family violence, 23, 539–​548. Greenberg, K. (2012). Still hidden in the closet: trans women and domestic violence. Berkeley Journal of gender, law & justice, 27, 198–​251. Grisso, J. A., Schwarz, D. F., Miles, C. G., & Holmes, J. H. (1996). Injuries among inner-​city minority women: a population-​based longitudinal study. American journal of public health, 86(1), 67–​70. Hamby, S. L., & Sugarman, D. B. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of marriage and the family, 61(4), 959–​970. Hartley, C. C., & Renner, L. M. (2018). Economic self-​sufficiency among women who experienced intimate partner violence and received civil legal services. Journal of family violence, 33(7), 435–​445.

62  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Ing, D. & Woods, T. (2013). Why talking about domestic violence in the transgender community matters, Transgender Law Center. Retrieved from https://​ trans​gend​erla​wcen​ter.org/​archi​ves/​9392 James, L., Brody, D., & Hamilton, Z. (2013). Risk factors for domestic violence during pregnancy: a meta-​analytic review. Violence and victims, 28(3), 359–​380. Kahn, A. Jackson, J. Kully, C. Badger, K. & Halvorsen, J. (2003). Calling it rape: difference in experiences of women do and do not label their sexual assault as rape. Psychology of women quarterly, 27, 233–​242. Lavner, J. A., Barton, A. W., Bryant, C. M., & Beach, S. (2018). Racial discrimination and relationship functioning among African American couples. Journal of family psychology, 32(5), 686–​691. Lee, R. K., Thompson, V. L., & Mechanic, M. B. (2002). Intimate partner violence and women of color: a call for innovations. American journal of public health, 92(4), 530–​534. Leeder, E. (1994). Treatment of battering in couples: heterosexual, lesbian, and gay. In Elaine Leeder, treating abuse in families: a feminist and community approach. New York: Springer Publishing. Leonard, K. E., & Senchak, M. (1996). Prospective prediction of husband marital aggression within newlywed couples. Journal of abnormal psychology, 105(3), 369–​380. Levenson, M. (2022, January 21). Brian Laundrie claimed responsibility for Gabrielle Petito’s death, F.B.I. says. New York Times. Retrieved from www. nyti​m es.com/​2 022/​0 1/​2 1/​u s/​g abby-​p et​i to-​b rian-​l aund​r ie-​n oteb​o ok-​c on​f ess​ ion.html Lie, G. Y., Schilit, R., Bush, J., Montagne, M., & Reyes, L. (1991). Lesbians in currently aggressive relationships: how frequently do they report aggressive past relationships? Violence and victims, 6(2), 121–​135. Lundy, S. (1993). Abuse that dare not speak its name: assisting victims of lesbian and gay domestic violence in Massachusetts. New England law review, 28, 273–​311. Lysova, A., Dim, E. E., & Dutton, D. (2019). Prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence in Canada as measured by the national victimization survey. Partner abuse, 10(2), 199–​221. Maneta, E., Cohen, S., Schulz, M., & Waldinger, R. J. (2012). Links between childhood physical abuse and intimate partner aggression: the mediating role of anger expression. Violence and victims, 27(3), 315–​328. March of Dimes. (n.d.) Abuse during pregnancy. Retrieved from www.march​ofdi​ mes.org/​find-​supp​ort/​top​ics/​pregna​ncy/​abuse-​dur​ing-​pregna​ncy Matias, A., Goncalves, M., Soeiro, C., & Matos, M. (2020). Intimate partner homicide: a meta-​analysis of risk factors. Aggression and violent behavior, 50, 101358. McHugh, M. C., Rakowski, S., & Swiderski, C. (2013). Men’s experience of psychological abuse: conceptualization and measurement issues. Sex roles, 69(3), 168–​181. Myhill, A. (2015). Measuring coercive control: what can we learn from national population surveys? Violence against women, 21(3), 355–​375.

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  63 Nash S. T. (2005). Through Black eyes: African American women’s constructions of their experiences with intimate male partner violence. Violence against women, 11(11), 1420–​1440. National Coalition of Anti-​Violence Programs. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-​ affected intimate partner violence in 2015. New York, NY: Emily Waters. Peterson, R. D. & Bailey, W. C. (1992). Rape and dimensions of gender socioeconomic inequality in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 29(2), 162–​177. Petrosky, E., Blair, J. M., Betz, C. J., Fowler, K. A., Jack, S. P., & Lyons, B. H. (2017). Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—​United States, 2003–​2014. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 66(28), 741. Pharr, S. (1986). Two workshops on homophobia in Lobel, K.’s (Ed.). Naming the violence: speaking out about lesbian battering (pp. 202–​222). New York: Seal Press. Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 13(2), 112–​132. Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: partner abuse in Lesbian relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Renzetti, C. M. (1998). Violence and abuse in lesbian relationships: theoretical and empirical issues. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 117–​127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Renzetti, C. M. (2009). Economic stress and domestic violence. CRVAW Faculty Research Reports and Papers. 1. Retrieved from https://​ukn​owle​dge.uky.edu/​ crvaw_​repo​rts/​ Richie, B. (2000). A Black feminist reflection on the antiviolence movement. Signs, 25(4), 1133–​1137. Risser, J. M., Shelton, A., McCurdy, S. et al. (2005). Sex, drugs, violence, and HIV status among male-​ to-​ female transgender persons in Houston, Texas. International Journal of transgenderism, 8(2–​3), 67–​74. Robinson, A. and Myhill, A. (2021) Coercive control. In Devaney, J., Bradbury-​ Jones, C., Macy, R. J., Øverlien, C., & Holt, S. (Eds.). The Routledge international handbook of domestic violence and abuse (1st ed.) (pp. 387–​402). London: Routledge. Roch, A., Ritchie, G., & Morton, J. (2010). Transgender people’s experiences of domestic abuse. Scotland: LGBT Youth Scotland and the Equality Network. Rollè, L., Giardina, G., Caldarera, A. M., Gerino, E., & Brustia, P. (2018). When intimate partner violence meets same sex couples: a review of same sex intimate partner violence. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1506. Rothman, E. F., Hathaway, J., Stidsen, A., & de Vries, H. F. (2007). How employment helps female victims of intimate partner violence: a qualitative study. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(2), 136. Siegel, J. A. (2000). Aggressive behavior among women sexually abused as children. Violence and victims, 15(3), 235–​255.

64  Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., & Kresnow, M. (2022). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2016/​2017 report on stalking. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., et al. (2017). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010–​2012 state report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., et al. (2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2015 data brief –​updated release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: how men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Temple, J. R., Weston, R., & Marshall, L. L. (2005). Physical and mental health outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent relationships. Violence and victims, 20, 335–​359. Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Turrell, S. C., Brown, M., & Herrmann, M. (2018). Disproportionately high: an exploration of intimate partner violence prevalence rates for bisexual people. Sexual and relationship therapy, 33(1–​2), 113–​131. UK Center for Research on Violence Against Women. (2011). Top ten things advocates need to know. Retrieved from https://​ops​vaw.as.uky.edu/​sites/​defa​ult/​ files/​10_​R​ace.pdf Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. West, C. M. (2002). Lesbian intimate partner violence: prevalence and dynamics. Journal of lesbian studies, 6(1), 121–​127. West, C. M. (2004). Black women and intimate partner violence: new directions for research. Journal of interpersonal violence, 19(12), 1487–​1493. West, C. M., Kantor, G. K., & Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Sociodemographic predictors and cultural barriers to help-​seeking behavior by Latina and Anglo-​American battered women. Violence and victims, 13(4), 361–​375. World Health Organization (WHO). (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women. Intimate partner violence. Geneva: World Health

Women’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  65 Organization. Retrieved from http://​apps.who.int/​iris/​ bitstream/​10665/​77432/​ 1/​WHO_​RHR_​12.36_​eng.pdf World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Health care for women subjected to intimate partner violence or sexual violence: a clinical handbook (No. WHO/​ RHR/​14.26). World Health Organization. Zounlome, N. O., Wong, Y. J., Klann, E. M., et al. (2019). ‘No One … Saves Black Girls’: Black University women’s understanding of sexual violence. The counseling psychologist, 47(6), 873–​908.

4 “Breaking Apart” Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

Case History: Andy and Linda Tensions between Andy and his long-​time partner, Linda, had been escalating for a few years. Linda’s verbally and emotionally abusive actions toward Andy were increasing and often after she had been drinking. Further complicating the situation were their clashes over Linda’s passive approach to parenting her teenage children, whom Andy described as out of control, needing discipline, and getting into trouble around town. It was during a verbal argument about the teens when Linda became angry with Andy and slapped him on the side of his face. Andy grappled with whether Linda’s physical assault was more an accident than a deliberate act of violence. Sorting out all that had happened was difficult: “I felt belittled, scared. I knew about her previous marriage and the domestic violence she had been subjected to, so I was thinking, has some of that rubbed off on her?” Later, Linda’s children blamed Andy for harming the family pet, which Andy denies. By Andy’s account, Linda’s son “stormed in,” Andy “felt an almighty whack,” his glasses “went flying off” and he “just kind of sat down on the bed, bawling (his) eyes out.” As he recounted his feelings of betrayal by Linda, Andy said, “I think most people think domestic violence doesn’t happen to men, that men are the stronger sex and so it won’t happen to them. But having experienced it firsthand, I feel there’s not a lot of support for men …” (Gleeson, 2020). Andy’s encounter with IPVA forces some uncomfortable realities to the surface. His emotional reaction to Linda’s assault defies the general belief that men victimized by IPVA are, as men, inherently incapable of being traumatized by the experience. Moreover, Andy’s bewilderment that men’s trauma might be trivialized or dismissed entirely suggests that there are casualties of IPVA who go unnoticed as “a valid victim group” (Graham-​ Kevan and Powney, 2021, p. 4). In this chapter, we “break apart” the experiences of men who are victimized by IPVA, an area of research and public health that has been DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-4

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  67 long unrecognized by social scientists and interventionists alike. Later in the chapter, we examine the incidence of IPVA among men in same-​sex intimate partner relationships, in addition to abused transgender individuals who identify as men. Scope of the Problem

Acknowledgment of male IPVA victimization dates to 1978 with findings from the National Family Violence Survey (Steinmetz, 1978). Among more recent findings, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIVIS) reports that 1.5% of men have been raped; 5.9% have been made to penetrate someone else; 5.3% have experienced stalking and 30.9% have experienced some form of contact sexual violence, stalking, and/​or physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship during their lifetime (Smith et al., 2017). The same NIVIS study shows that 42.3% of multiracial men; 40.5% of American Indian/​Alaska Native men; 40.1% of non-​Hispanic Black men; 30.3% of non-​Hispanic White men; 30.0% of Hispanic men and 13.7% of Asian Pacific Islander men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/​or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2017). Over half of the victimized men (55.8%) had first experienced these or other forms of violence by that partner before age 25; 14.6% had first experienced IPVA before age 18 (Smith et al., 2018). An estimated 97% of men who experienced either rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner had only female perpetrators (CDC, 2020). “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Men “Breaking Apart” Physical IPVA Prevalence

Despite their differences in average body mass, size, or strength, a few studies suggest substantial physical aggression against men by their female partners. Drijber and colleagues’ (2013) found hitting, kicking, biting, scratching, seizing the throat, and being stabbed with an object the most common forms of physical IPVA among male victims. In 54% of cases involving physical IPVA, the men’s female offenders used an object, usually household items such as chairs, knives, vases, and tableware. In Mechem and colleagues’ (1999) investigation of 866 male patients receiving services from urban-​based emergency departments, 12.6% of men were victimized by a female intimate sometime the year before. Among these incidents, 37% of cases involved a weapon, 19% contacted the police, 14% required medical attention; 11% pressed charges or sought a restraining order and

68  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse 6% pursued follow-​up counseling. The most common forms of physical assault were slapping, grabbing, and shoving at almost 61%. Nationally, 14% of US men will experience what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines as severe physical IPVA during their lifetime (e.g., being hit with something hard, kicked, beaten, or burned on purpose; Breiding et al., 2014). Experiences with Physical Victimization

Researchers suggest that men’s and women’s experiences with IPVA may differ in opposite-​sex intimate relationships. Although the men in Nybergh and colleagues’ (2016) study were subjected to a range of physically abusive acts by their female intimate partners, the respondents also acknowledged that differences in men’s and women’s size and strength made it difficult for women to enforce dominance through physical violence the same as men. In fact, most believed they were in control of their partners’ physical violence and did not view their own victimization as serious, frightening, or “pos(ing)” a geniune threat” (p. 196). Female intimates’ use of emotionally abusive tactics (e.g., belittlement, humiliation), however, were viewed by the men as most effective in perpetrating control. “Breaking Apart” Sexual Violence Prevalence

A national survey shows that male rape victims primarily have male perpetrators; however, forms of male sexual victimization other than rape have been attributed to male as well as female offenders. Unwanted sexual touching, for example, is evenly split among male and female perpetrators. Acts like sexual coercion and being made to penetrate (MTP) another person are perpetrated most often by women (Breiding et al., 2014; Also see Anderson et al., 2020 and Weare and Hulley, 2019). Experiences with Sexual Violence Victimization

Research on acts of MTP against men gained some momentum during the past decade. According to the CDC, 79% of US male victims of MTP report only female perpetrators (Walters et al., 2013). In a small-​scale European study of men who experienced MTP, participants also identified their perpetrator as a current or former female partner and characterized MTP as a component of partner and/​or post-​separation violence/​abuse. Further, the sample showed an extensive history of repeated victimization that took the form of childhood sexual abuse, repeated episodes of forced penetration by

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  69 the same perpetrator, and varying forms of sexual violence from different perpetrators, including women and men (Weare and Hulley, 2019). There is some consensus that MTP is a form of sexual violence, but whether MTP should be specified as rape appears an unsettled question. The CDC identifies rape and MTP as two closely defined although separate concepts that may be experienced by either sex. But critics counter that the term, MTP, is commonly applied when relating to only men’s sexual assault, as if recasting men’s violation as something less than rape or a less significant form of sexual victimization (Stemple and Meyer, 2014). Others find similarities between men’s MTP victimization and women’s experiences with rape compelling enough for MTP to be considered rape (Weare, 2018). “Breaking Apart” Psychological (Emotional) Abuse Prevalence

Empirical evidence suggests no significant differences between men and women regarding the perpetration of minor (86% and 89%, respectively) or more serious psychological aggression (30% and 27%, respectively; Cercone et al., 2005), particularly among younger adult intimates. In the National Family Violence Survey, women used as much emotional aggression as did men (75% and 74%, respectively) and were reported to have committed at least one psychologically abusive act against a partner (Straus and Sweet, 1992). Experiences with Psychological (Emotional) Victimization

Qualitative research on male victims of female-​perpetrated IPVA offers a clearer sense of how psychological abuse might be for male intimate partners. The men in Hogan and colleagues’ (2022) study of femaleperpetrated IPVA grounded their partner’s abuse and control in cultural stereotypes, namely interpreting the abuse they experienced as a gendered attack on their masculinity. In fact, the importance of maintaining an appropriate sense of masculinity underscored the men’s narratives. Respondents expressed shame and embarrassment for not having met dominant cultural expectations surrounding men’s role in heterosexual relationships, and most struggled to accept the role of “victim,” which they saw as de-​masculinizing. In another recent study, a sample of heterosexual, coercively-controlled men described their IPVA experiences as “feeling trapped” and eliciting “helplessness,” “depression,” and “anxiety” (p. 21). Any fear the men had was not directed, per se, at their abusers, but at the actions their partners might use against them, particularly

70  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse allegations that might lead to the loss of their children (Graham-​Kevan and Powney, 2021). “Breaking Apart” Stalking Prevalence

According to the CDC (2020), about 1 in 17 men in the United States are victims of stalking at some point in their lifetime: nearly 41% of male victims first experienced stalking before age 25. Among males, 46% reported being stalked by only female perpetrators. Experiences with Stalking Victimization

As a group, male victims appear to show lower levels of fear regarding stalking behaviors than female victims. Women are 13 times more likely than men to report being very afraid of a stalker (Davis et al., 2002). It is perhaps because men are more likely to anticipate becoming a target of direct violence than a target of covert or repetitive forms of contact behavior. In one study, men who were most often stalked by women tended to procrastinate before turning to the police but also experienced less frequent stalking behaviors than did women (Acquadro et al., 2020). “Breaking Apart” Race/​Ethnicity, SES, and Male IPVA Victimization Race/​Ethnicity

In Caetano and colleagues’ (2005) sample of cohabiting and married couples reporting IPVA, the prevalence of female-​on-​male partner violence was 38% for Whites, 31% for Blacks, and 38% for Hispanics. About a fifth of the unidirectional female-​ on-​ male partner violence occurring among White couples was identified as severe (e.g., being kicked, bitten, choked, burned, or scalded; forced to undergo sexual intercourse; assaulted or threatened with a knife or gun). Severe female-​on-​male partner violence was present among more than a third of Black and Hispanic couples. Researchers associate women’s IPVA perpetration with problems due to female alcohol use, female exposure to parental violence, and threats of violence during childhood. SES

Household income alone has been cited by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as having “no discernible relationship” with IPVA against males (Rennison and Welchans, 2000, p. 4). However, two other SES indicators, housing

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  71 insecurity and food insecurity, appear to have a strong association with men’s as well as women’s IPVA victimization even after adjusting for household income, race/​ethnicity, education, marital status, and age. Researchers who find food and housing insecurity important in reducing vulnerability to IPVA also endorse strategies that would buffer SES disparities among couples (Breiding et al., 2017). Although there has been more research in recent decades, knowledge regarding gay and bisexual men and transgender persons continues to lag behind that of abused women in heterosexual relationships. In the section below, we continue to “break apart” the myth of men’s invulnerability to relationship violence/​abuse by focusing on the elevated risk of IPVA among sexual and gender minority men. While examining barriers to and consequences of abused men’s help-​seeking, we also identify stereotypes, biases, and other exclusionary factors that have long rendered invisible the experiences of these groups. “Breaking Apart” Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Scope of the Problem

IPVA is a significant public health issue among male sexual minorities, who experience a higher risk of IPVA than men involved in opposite-​sex relationships. Compared to 29% of heterosexual men, NIVIS finds that gay and bisexual sexual minority men experience rape, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate during their lifetime at a combined rate of about 63%. Nearly 91% of gay men identified only male perpetrators; nearly 79% of bisexual men identified only females as their perpetrators (Walters et al., 2013). NIVIS provides no data on transgender men. However, a recent meta-​ analysis of research on IPVA and transgender populations found a high incidence of IPVA, regardless of whether assigned as female or as male at birth. Transpeople were also shown to experience a dramatically higher prevalence of victimization due to IPVA than cisgender people (Peitzmeier et al., 2020). Below, we continue our comparative “break down” of the similarities and differences between the IPVA experiences of heterosexual/​cisgender men and gay men, bisexual men and transgender individuals who identify as males. Regarding Gay Men

Compared to 26.3% of heterosexual men, 24% of gay men in the United States have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by an intimate at some point in their lives. About 16% have experienced severe physical IPVA at least

72  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse once (Walter et al., 2013). In Chen and colleagues’ study (2020), almost 52% of gay men reported at least one experience of contact sexual violence, stalking, and physical violence by an intimate. In the same study, the estimate for heterosexual men was 35.7%, a considerable difference. Researchers also found that abused gay men showed a significantly higher prevalence of fearfulness than abused heterosexual men (37.9% vs. 17.8%), in addition to having been concerned for their safety (38.4% vs. 16.1%), experiencing post-​traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (32.1% vs. 16.3%), and having been injured (23.5% vs. 11%). Gay men also had a significantly higher prevalence of having been concerned for their safety when compared with bisexual men (22.0%) (Chen et al., 2020). At 60% by NIVIS estimates, the lifetime frequency of psychological/​ emotional IPVA among gay men is also considerable. Around 45% of gay men reported expressive aggression by an intimate during their lifetime. About the same report having been coercively controlled by a current or former intimate partner (Walters et al., 2013). Regarding Bisexual Men

Based on NIVIS, 27% of US bisexual men have been physically abused by an intimate during their lifetime. Approximations of intimate partner rape and sexual violence other than rape had been based on numbers too small for a reliable estimate and, therefore, not reported. However, preliminary evidence of a high occurrence of sexual violence other than rape among bisexual men was significant enough for the authors to recommend specialized victim support services for bisexual men (Walters et al., 2013). Empirical evidence points to considerable rates of psychological aggression among male bisexual partners. Fifty-​three percent of bisexual males show a lifetime prevalence of psychological IPVA and 24.4% have experienced expressive aggression at some point in their lives. Not unlike emotional offenses committed in same-​sex female and opposite-​sex relationships, psychological abuse among bisexual and gay male partners takes the form of name-​calling (i.e., calling a partner “ugly,” “fat,” “crazy,” or “stupid”) or otherwise denigrating the partner’s self-​worth (e.g., calling a partner a “loser,” “failure,” or “not good enough”). The perpetrator may also threaten to hurt himself or commit suicide when upset (Walters et al., 2013). At 48%, acts of coercive control by an intimate are a close estimate to that of gay male intimate partners. Regarding Transgender Men

The only estimate found pertaining to transgender men and IPVA shows that 27% of male transgender respondents experienced physical violence

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  73 with 30% attributing this violence to an intimate (Clements et al., 1999). There is some evidence that transgender persons may be physically targeted for assault upon their breasts and genitals (Messinger, 2017). In the context of psychological IPVA, a transgender man (or woman) may feel pressured by a partner to be more gender-​conforming. A partner may control the victim’s appearance by disallowing clothing the abuser deems too masculine or feminine, preventing medical treatments supportive of certain gender expression, drawing attention to the victim’s physical transition or refusing to use a victim’s preferred name and pronouns. Any combination of these offenses may result in a transgender male being ashamed of their gender identity (Messinger, 2017). “Breaking Apart” Barriers to IPVA Help-​Seeking among Abused Men

Men are believed to demonstrate negative attitudes toward help-​seeking more than women (Vogel et al., 2011). If violence/​abuse enters an intimate relationship, male victims who identify as gay, bisexual, and transgender may be similarly disinclined to outreach, especially formal health-​related assistance, although at times for different reasons (Salter et al., 2021; Guadalupe-​Diaz, 2013; McClennen et al., 2002; Merrill and Wolfe, 2000). Below, we distinguish barriers leading to help avoidance among heterosexual and sexual/​gender minority men abused by an intimate partner. Masculinity Archetypes

Culturally, many men are taught from an early age to be strong, act bravely, and remain stoic or that disclosing vulnerability equates to personal weakness, failure, and personal embarrassment. Masculinity norms like these are socially pervasive and may be counterintuitive in situations in which help or safety hinge on a victim’s trust and openness to disclosure. Even when men do report IPVA, they may rationalize their emotional pain, defend their abuser, identify the severity of violence/​abuse as not “as bad” as other incidents or fail to name offenses against them as abuse (Dutton and Nicholls, 2005; Machado et al., 2016; Stiles et al., 2017). Attitudes toward Law Enforcement

Along with feelings of shame, the men in Drijber and colleagues’ (2013) study were disinclined to contact the police, believing that law enforcement would not take their experiences seriously or that “the police cannot do anything” (p. 175). In the same study, less than 15% of male victims had reported their abuse to law enforcement and were more likely to do so following physical assault (Drijber et al., 2013).

74  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Reception from Service Providers

Male victims identified as having encounters with support systems for IPVA report challenges to their masculinity, diminished confidence, and feeling invisible within support settings (Huntley et al., 2019). Research appears to partially implicate social support personnel. In Hogan’s (2012) study of licensed counselors, for example, the professionals were indifferent to the concept of men as victims of female-​perpetrated IPVA; some, in fact, found it challenging to treat male clients. In another study, men reported largely negative experiences when seeking help from domestic violence agencies. Many identified their service providers as “biased against men” or having been “accused of being the batterer” and redirected to batterer’s program information (Douglas and Hines, 2011, p.479). Some scholars have gone as far as to assert that male IPVA victimization is essentially denied, resulting in few counseling and treatment innovations designed for men in abusive relationships (Cook, 2009). Sexual/​Gender Minority Males and Heteronormative Biases in Supportive Services

If a victim is a gay, bisexual, or transgender male and receptive to assistance from formal supportive agencies, he is likely to find care settings administering curricula and services developed through a heteronormative or male/​female relational lens. Because sexual and gender minority men (and women) report feeling safe and comfortable when health providers use gender-​ affirming language with LGBT clients (Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, 2021), oversight in its use may be interpreted as privileging heteronormative binaries and, possibly, relationships. Sexual/​Gender Minority Men and Fear of Outing

US support for men and women in same-​sex relationships has increased across most demographic and political groups (Poushter and Kent, 2020). Notwithstanding, a sexual or gender minority man still may have valid concerns over what might happen if his sexuality or gender expression is disclosed or if he will be “outed” against his will. Also concerning might be how that acknowledgement may negatively affect his personal safety, career path, and other interpersonal relationships. If both closeted and abused, coming forward about his victimization not only may require him to identify his offender but also the nature of their relationship, making help-​seeking even more intimidating (Messinger, 2017). Sexual/​Gender Minority Men and Double Outing

Gay men diagnosed with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are reported to experience IPVA at a prevalence of 22% to 54% and may

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  75 directly relate to disclosing HIV infection in some cases. The risk for double outing, the implicit or explicit threat by one partner to expose the other’s HIV status and/​or sexual orientation, is likely to exacerbate pressures experienced by abused gay or bisexual men. Escaping an abuser may become even more challenging, for example, and entering another relationship may prove difficult to navigate (Siemieniuk et al., 2013). Sexual/​Gender Minority Men and Marginalization by Service Providers

Abused sexual minority men and non-​binary persons who identify as men may have past and present experiences with transphobia and homophobia when accessing medical and social services (James et al., 2016), which can hinder their help-​seeking. Research suggests these experiences are more prominent among transpeople of color. Transpeople of color report chronic bouts of racial/​ ethnic discrimination and prejudice against their gender non-​conformity and, in one study, showed higher rates of police harassment and refusal of medical care than the study’s general sample of transpeople (Grant et al., 2011). Further, there is some research suggesting that help-​seeking among abused trans persons may factor around service providers’ attitudes about clients’ gender identity. In a secondary data analysis of over 15,000 transgender IPVA survivors, the odds of seeking assistance from supportive agencies for transgender men or non-​binary survivors, who were assigned female at birth, were significantly greater compared to transgender women, who were assigned male at birth and primarily due to fear of transphobia (Messinger et al., 2022). The final section examines the risks for and consequences of IPVA as well as protective factors and resources related to men in abusive intimate partner relationships “Breaking Apart” IPVA Risks, Consequences, and Protective Factors and Resources Regarding Men Risk Factors for Male Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Alcohol and Substance Use/​Dependency

Alcohol and drug use/​dependency has been associated with incidents of IPVA. Thompson and Kingree (2006) found that women whose male partners had been drinking were significantly more likely to be injured than women whose partners had not been drinking; however, a woman’s own alcohol use was found unrelated to victimization. Interestingly, men were significantly more likely to report the incident if their partners had been drinking but were marginally less likely to report the event if they had been drinking. In other research, a 26-​study analysis of how substance

76  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse use factors into male-​ on-​ female qualitative accounts of IPVA, female victims interpreted their male partner’s intoxication or withdrawal from intoxicants as part of a pattern of relationship violence/​ abuse. Men, however, interpreted their use of violence/​ abuse as incidents distinctly brought on by inebriation (Gilchrist et al., 2019). Based on Finneran and Stephenson’s (2014) study, many of the IPVA precursors linked to opposite-​ sex couples are also significant precursors of IPVA among gay and bisexual men, including life stressors brought by alcohol and drugs as well as relationship jealousy, dishonesty, and finances. Childhood Trauma and Mental Health Factors

There is a possible association between childhood physical or sexual abuse and an increased likelihood for IPVA victimization and perpetration as adults (Afifi et al., 2009; Coker et al., 2002; Gass et al., 2011, Trabold et al., 2014). In an international study in which men showed particularly high levels of lifetime of IPVA perpetration (41%), researchers described child abuse as a key determinant of negative outcomes among adults in general and an area deserving consideration in the prevention of IPVA among men in particular. Almost 89% of male participants had experienced some form of childhood abuse. In the same study, data analysis indicated that child abuse had direct effects on factors associated with PTSD and depression, in addition to patriarchal beliefs regarding gender and sexual power in relationships (Machisa and Shamu, 2018). Consequences of Male Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Physical and Mental Health Outcomes

Abused male partners with a lifetime history of rape, physical violence, or stalking are more likely to report physical reactions such as chronic pain, headaches, sleep disturbance, and overall poor physical health than men with no experiences with IPVA (CDC, 2010). Another health issue linked to IPVA exposure is the hypervigilance and emotional exhaustion developed from living with violence/​abuse. Among abused men, research shows victims feeling as though they never know what they are walking into when coming home nor what exactly may cause their partners to commit violence without warning (Bates, 2020). The psychological distress of having to “walk on eggshells” may have significant impact, including bouts of fear, stress (Golden and Frank, 1994), depression, anxiety, and PTSD (Coker et al., 2002; Golding, 1999; Hines and Douglas, 2011). Also cited in the literature on abused men are feelings of shame and diminished self-​worth, along with increased thoughts of suicide and substance misuse

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  77 (Campbell, 2002; National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 2017). And yet, male IPVA victimization is likely underreported (Machado et al., 2016) and emergency clinics, where women are routinely screened for IPVA, infrequently screen male patients regardless of sexual orientation (Bacchus et al., 2017). Homicide

Death is the most extreme consequence for men who experience IPVA. Nearly 5% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate (Cooper and Smith, 2011). But while most annual murder-​suicides are committed by men, about 5% involve a female perpetrator and a male victim (Violence Policy Center, 2020). Protective Factors of Male Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Social Support

If not hindered by social isolation, male victims who engage in an open, honest relationship with their family of origin and extended kinships may benefit from these close interactions. Strong, empathetic relationships also may provide an additional layer of support and accountability. In a recent study on IPVA and male sexual minorities, among the 328 respondents who had witnessed violence/​abuse between gay, bisexual, or queer partners, 40.5% verbally intervened, 14% physically intervened, and 12.5% sought help. Many participants said they wanted safe, healthy relationships for themselves and for other men (Salter et al., 2021). In another study, male participants who sought help for female-​perpetrated IPVA reported their most positive outreach encounters came from family, friends, and, in some cases, health providers. Cumulative rates of positive help-​seeking experiences were associated with lower levels of alcohol abuse in the same study (Douglas and Hines, 2011). Age

Aging may reduce men’s experiences with IPVA. Reid and colleagues (2008) found that younger men were more likely than older men to report recent IPVA, particularly physical violence. While the study’s overall rates of physical and non-​physical IPVA were similar, men aged 18–​55 were twice as likely to be recently abused (14.2%) than were men aged 55 and older (5.3%). Older men who experienced IPVA had more depressive symptoms than men with no IPVA experiences. Below, we discuss protective strategies regarding abused men in the contexts of individual, clinical and community-​based resources.

78  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Protective Resources and Strategies for Abused Male Survivors of IPVA Individualized Safety Plans

In Chapter 3, we discussed the need to discreetly gather emergency belongings ahead of an abusive episode, a fundamental action toward safekeeping for any victim. We also provide an example of a safety plan in Appendix I. But offering support to male survivors of IPVA, additional reassurances may be in order. It may be important to reiterate to male survivors that the emotional impact of victimization does not invalidate their gender or sexual identity nor does disclosing abuse or accepting outreach equate to failure. Helping survivors become aware of signs that may trigger a partner’s violence can be especially beneficial, as is being ready to leave an abusive situation and not seeking retaliation. If obligated to stay and protect his children, guidance from a domestic violence advocate or legal resource may be warranted and may help male IPVA survivors better understand protections available to them, including temporary restraining or child custody orders (Robinson and Segal, 2021). As an additional measure of self-​protection, interventionists stress the feasibility of gathering evidence of abuse such as copies of police reports, a journal of abuse including dates/​times and witnesses, and photographic evidence of injuries and medical/​hospitalization documentation (Robinson and Segal, 2021). In ambiguous cases where both female and male partners are identified by police as both victim and offender, males are arrested more often than their female partners, although mandatory arrest policies (see Chapter 9) tend to disproportionately affect women in IPVA situations (Durfee, 2012). Clinical-​Based Interventions

There is a strong consensus that IPVA therapies designed and implemented for women do not necessarily translate into the most effective treatment for men (Cook, 2009). When strategizing a plan of treatment inclusive to men with IPVA experiences, one recommendation is that therapists of male victims assess trauma-​based and support group treatments reputed to benefit women in mutually abusive relationships and then develop a suitable treatment model based on their male clients’ needs. It is also suggested that men experiencing mutual couple violence might benefit from couples’ therapy (see Chapter 9), an intervention not only targeting improvement in anger management and conflict resolution skills, but also shown as effective among couples with lower levels of IPVA. There is no research exploring treatment options for men who sustain intimate terrorism, in which violence is one tactic in a general pattern of control by one partner over the

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  79 other (Hines and Douglas, 2011). Nor has a recent review of the literature uncovered published reports describing the routine IPVA screening of men in healthcare settings, a strategy toward men’s intervention deserving attention (Velonis et al., 2022). Community-​Based Supportive Services

One of the most glaring impediments to men’s use of IPVA service providers is that so few are prepared to support men or male-​identified victims to begin with. Even a casual Internet search of formal domestic violence-​related services invariably features user information, tools, and promotional images disproportionally reflecting the emotional and practical needs of young women and often in the context of male-​to-​female victimization. Community-​level resources specializing in male IPVA victims are similarly elusive or inaccessible. Most local shelters for abuse victims are more readily available to able-​bodied, childbearing women and children, leaving men who flee abusive partnerships with few places to turn. Among men who withdrew protection from abuse orders against their abusive female partner in Mele and colleagues’ study (2011), most were unsuccessful in obtaining forms of relief requested from court, namely temporary housing, and the defendants’ release of firearms. A significant movement toward creating safe, attainable spaces for abused men would be the proactive approach of developing male-​specific IPVA-​based services and innovations. Even on a short-​term basis, peer-​ facilitated support with an educational component may be successful in helping survivors to work through their trauma and, for some, develop a sense of trust toward formal support services. Introducing sets of services and supports involving partnerships between community outreach services and local/​regional stakeholders (e.g., legal and law enforcement representatives, health care providers, local government, military affiliates, LGBTQ alliances) has also been suggested (Stiles et al., 2017). Chapter Summary This chapter “breaks apart” challenges faced by men victimized by an intimate partner. Although estimates suggest that men are not subjected to serious IPVA-​related injuries as often as women, acts of violence/​abuse faced by men can be consequential. Nevertheless, the incidence of the IPVA against men is often overlooked, under-​researched, and exists alongside the misperception that men cannot be victimized by relationship violence/​ abuse. The experiences of abused men in same-​ sex intimate partner relationships are similarly ignored, especially when compared to those

80  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse of abused women, and even fewer data explore the prevalence of IPVA among transgender men. More apparent, however, is that victimized sexual and gender minority men in abusive relationships tend to face challenges that are different from counterparts in abusive opposite-​sex relationships, most notably fear of disclosing one’s sexual or gender identity or feeling marginalized in supportive service settings. More research and education on the topic are needed. Recommended Resource National Domestic Violence Hotline: Men Can Be Victims of Abuse, Too Website:    www.the​hotl​ine.org/​resour​ces/​men-​can-​be-​vict​ims-​of-​abuse​too/​ Discussion Question “Believe the victim” has been the mantra for people advocating the rights of those who are victims of IPVA. Based on this chapter, this does not seem to apply to male victims. Why do you think it is so difficult for people to believe that men can be victims of IPVA? And what do you think can be done? References Acquadro Maran, D., Varetto, A., Corona, I., & Tirassa, M. (2020). Characteristics of the stalking campaign: consequences and coping strategies for men and women that report their victimization to police. Plus one, 15(2), e0229830. Afifi, T. O., MacMillan, H., Cox, B. J., Asmundson, G. J., Stein, M. B., & Sareen, J. (2009). Mental health correlates of intimate partner violence in marital relationships in a nationally representative sample of males and females. Journal of interpersonal violence, 24(8), 1398–​1417. Anderson, R. E., Goodman, E. L., & Thimm, S. S. (2020). The assessment of forced penetration: a necessary and further step toward understanding men’s sexual victimization and women’s perpetration. Journal of contemporary criminal justice, 36(4), 480–​498. Bacchus, L. J., Buller, A. M., Ferrari, G., Peters, T. J., Devries, K., Sethi, G., White, J., Hester, M., & Feder, G. S. (2017). Occurrence and impact of domestic violence and abuse in gay and bisexual men: a cross sectional survey. International journal of STD & AIDS, 28(1), 16–​27. Bates, E. A. (2020). “Walking on eggshells”: a qualitative examination of men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Psychology of men & masculinities, 21(1), 13–​24. Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Klevens, J., & Smith, S. G. (2017). Economic insecurity and intimate partner and sexual violence victimization. American journal of preventive medicine, 53(4), 457–​464.

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  81 Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization –​national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C.: 2002), 63(8), 1–​18. Caetano, R., Ramisetty-​Mikler, S., & Field, C. A. (2005). Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among white, black, and hispanic couples in the United States. Violence and victims, 20(4), 393–​406. Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359 (9314), 1331. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). An overview of intimate partner violence in the United States: 2010 findings. Retrieved from www.cdc. gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​ipv-​nisvs-​factsh​eet-​v5-​a.pdf Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among men. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​ vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​inti​mate​part​nerv​iole​nce/​men-​ipvsv​ands​talk​ing.html Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and victims, 20(2), 207–​218. Chen, J., Walters, M. L., Gilbert, L. K., & Patel, N. (2020). Sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence by sexual orientation, United States. Psychology of violence, 10(1), 110. Clements, K., Katz, M., & Marx, R. (1999). The transgender community health project. San Francisco, CA: University of California San Francisco. Coker, A., Davis, K., Arias, I., Dessai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American journal of preventative medicine, 24(4), 260–​268. Cook, P. W. (2009). Abused men: the hidden side of domestic violence. London: Praeger. Cooper, A., & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980–​ 2008 (NCJ 236018). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Davis, K. E., Coker, A. L., & Sanderson, M. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of being stalked for men and women. Violence and victims, 17(4), 429–​443. Douglas, E. M., & Hines, D. A. (2011). The help-​seeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: an overlooked population and implications for practice. Journal of family violence, 26(6), 473–​485. Drijber, B. C., Reijnders, U. J., & Ceelen, M. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. Journal of family violence, 28(2), 173–​178. Durfee, A. (2012). Situational ambiguity and gendered patterns of arrest for intimate partner violence. Violence against Women, 18(1), 64–​84. Dutton, D., & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: part 1 –​the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and violent behavior, 10, 680–​714. Finneran, C., & Stephenson, R. (2014). Antecedents of intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men. Violence and victims, 29(3), 422–​435.

82  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Gass, J., Stein, D., Williams, D., & Seedat, S. (2011). Gender differences in risk for intimate partner violence among South African adults. Journal of interpersonal violence, 26(14), 2764–​2789. Gilchrist, G., Dennis, F., Radcliffe, P., Henderson, J., Howard, L. M., & Gadd, D. (2019). The interplay between substance use and intimate partner violence perpetration: a meta-​ethnography. International journal of drug policy, 65, 8–​23. Gleeson, H. (2020 September 12). Male victims of domestic violence have few places to turn or services to call. ABC News. www.abc.net.au/​news/​2020-​09-​01/​ malet​ims-​of-​omes​tic-​viole​nce-​shame-​sti​gma-​supp​ort/​12495​738?nw=​0&r=​Htm​ lFra​gnt Golden, G. K., & Frank, P. B. (1994). When 50–​50 isn’t fair: the case against couple counseling in domestic abuse. Social work, 39(6), 636–​637.Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: a meta-​analysis. Journal of family violence, 14(2), 99–​132. Graham-​ Kevan, N. & Powney, D. (2021). Male victims of coercive control: experiences and impact. University of Central Lancashire/​ Mankind Initiative. Retrieved from www.mank​ind.org.uk/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2021/​07/​ Male-​Vict​ims-​of-​Coerc​ive-​Cont​rol-​2021.pdf Grant, J. M., Mottet, L., Tanis, J. et al. (2011). Injustice at every turn: a report of the national transgender discrimination survey. Washington: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Guadalupe-​Diaz, X. (2013). An exploration of differences in the help-​seeking of LGBQ victims of violence by race, economic class and gender. Gay and lesbian issues and psychology review, 9(1), 15. Hogan, K. F., Clarke, V., & Ward, T. (2022). The impact of masculine ideologies on heterosexual men’s experiences of intimate partner violence: a qualitative exploration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 1–​20. DOI: 10.1080/​ 10926771.2022.2061881 Hogan, K. F., Hegarty, J., Ward, T., & Dodd, L. (2012). Counsellors’ experiences of working with male victims of female-​perpetrated domestic abuse. Counselling and psychotherapy research, 12(1), 44–​52. Hines, D. A. & Douglas, E. M. (2011). Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in men who sustain intimate partner violence: a study of help-​seeking and community samples. Psychology of men and masculinity, 12, 112–​127. Huntley, A. L., Potter, L., Williamson, E., Malpass, A., Szilassy, E., & Feder, G. S. (2019). Help-​seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Open, 9, Article e021960. James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. Machado, A., Hines, D., & Matos, M. (2016). Help-​seeking and needs of male victims of intimate partner violence in Portugal. Psychology of men & masculinity, 17(3), 255.

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  83 Machisa, M., & Shamu, S. (2018). Mental ill health and factors associated with men’s use of intimate partner violence in Zimbabwe. BMC public health, 18(1), 1–​11. McClennen, J. C., Summers, A. B., & Vaughan, C. (2002). Gay men’s domestic violence: dynamics, help-​seeking behaviors, and correlates. Journal of gay & lesbian social services, 14(1), 23–​49. Mechem, C. C., Shofer, F. S., Reinhard, S. S., Hornig, S., & Datner, E. (1999). History of domestic violence among male patients presenting to an urban emergency department. Academic emergency medicine, 6(8), 786–​791. Mele, M., Roberts, J., & Wolfer, L. (2011). Men who seek protection orders against female intimate partners. Partner abuse, 2(1), 61–​75. Merrill, G. S., & Wolfe, V. A. (2000). Battered gay men: an exploration of abuse, help-​seeking, and why they stay. Journal of homosexuality, 39(2), 1–​30. Messinger, A. (2017). LGBTQ intimate partner violence: Lessons for policy, practice, and research. University of California Press. Messinger, A. M., Kurdyla, V., & Guadalupe-​Diaz, X. L. (2022). Intimate partner violence help-​seeking in the US transgender survey. Journal of homosexuality, 69(6), 1042–​1065. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. (2017). Serving male identified survivors of intimate partner violence. https://​vaw​net.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​ass​ ets/​files/​2017-​07/​NRCDV_​TAG-​Servi​ngMa​leSu​rviv​ors-​July2​017.pdf Nybergh, L., Enander, V., & Krantz, G. (2016). Theoretical considerations on men’s experiences of intimate partner violence: an interview-​based study. Journal of family violence, 31(2), 191–​202. Peitzmeier, S. M., Malik, M., Kattari, S. K., Marrow, E., Stephenson, R., Agénor, M., & Reisner, S. L. (2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: systematic review and meta-​analysis of prevalence and correlates. American journal of public health, 110(9), e1–​e14. Poushter, J., & Kent, N. (2020). The global divide on homosexuality persists. Pew Research Center, 25. Retrieved from www.pewr​esea​rch.org/​glo​bal/​2020/​06/​25/​ glo​bal-​div​ide-​on-​homose​xual​ity-​persi​sts/​ Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO). (2021). Promoting 2SLGBTQI+​health equity. Toronto, ON: RNAO. Reid, R. J., Bonomi, A. E., Rivara, F. P., Anderson, M. L., Fishman, P. A., Carrell, D. S., & Thompson, R. S. (2008). Intimate partner violence among men: prevalence, chronicity, and health effects. American journal of preventive medicine, 34(6), 478–​485. Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. www.bjs.ojp.gov/​cont​ent/​pub/​pdf/​ipv.pdf. Robinson, L. & Segal, J. (2021). Help for men who are being abused. Help guide. Retrieved from www.helpgu​ide.org/​artic​les/​abuse/​help-​for-​men-​who-​are-​being-​ abu​sed.htm Salter, M., Robison, K., Ullman, J., Denson, N., Ovenden, G., Noonan, K., Bansel, P., & Huppatz, K. (2021). Gay, bisexual, and queer men’s attitudes and

84  Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse understandings of intimate partner violence and sexual assault. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(23–​24), 11630–​11657. Siemieniuk, R. A., Krentz, H. B., & Gill, M. J. (2013). Intimate partner violence and HIV: a review. Current HIV/​AIDS reports, 10(4), 380–​389. Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-​ 2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., Chen, J. (2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief –​Updated Release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​2015d​ata-​brief​508.pdf Steinmetz, S.K. (1977–​1978). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2(3-​4), 499–​509. Stemple, L., & Meyer, I. (2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American journal of public health, 104, e19–​26. Stiles, E., Ortiz, I., & Keene, C. (2017). Serving male-​identified survivors of intimate partner violence. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. www.vaw​ net.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​ass​ets/​files/​2017-​07/​NRCDV_​TAG-​Servi​ngMa​leSu​rviv​ ors-​July2​017.pdf Straus, M. A., & Sweet, S. (1992). Verbal/​symbolic aggression in couples; incidence rates and relationships to personal characteristics. Journal of marriage and the family. 54(2), 346–​357. Thompson, M. P., & Kingree, J. B. (2006). The roles of victim and perpetrator alcohol use in intimate partner violence outcomes. Journal of interpersonal violence, 21, 163–​177. Trabold, N., Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Cerulli, C. (2014). Childhood sexual abuse and the perpetration of violence: the moderating role of gender. Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma, 24(4), 381–​399. Velonis, A., Maddox, R., Buhariwala, P., Kamalanathan, J., Hassan, M. A., Fadhil, T., & O’Campo, P. (2022). Asking the right questions: screening men for partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(15–​16), NP13813–​NP13829. Violence Policy Center. (2020). American roulette: murder-​suicide in the United States. Retrieved from https://​vpc.org/​stud​ies/​amr​oul2​020.pdf Vogel, D., Heimerdinger-​Edwards, S., Hammer, J., & Hubbard, A. (2011). “Boys Don’t Cry”: examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-​ stigma, and help-​ seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. Journal of counseling psychology, 58(3), 368–​382. Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​ pdf/​nisvs​_​sof​i ndi​ngs.pdf

Men’s Experiences with Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse  85 Weare, S. (2018). ‘Oh, you’re a guy, how could you be raped by a woman, that makes no sense’: towards a case for legally recognizing and labelling ‘forced-​to-​ penetrate cases as rape. International journal of law in context, 14(1), 110–​131. Weare, S. & Hulley, J. (2019). Experiences of men forced-​to-​penetrate women in the UK: context, consequences, and engagement with the criminal justice system—​Project Report. Lancaster University. Retrieved from https://​epri​nts. lancs.ac.uk/​id/​epr​int/​135​755/​1/​BA_​FTP_​proj​ect_​repo​rt_​2​019.pdf

5 “Breaking Apart” Teen Dating Violence and Abuse

Case History: Mya and Samuel Mya had been a 17-​year-​old high school student, when she became a victim of murder/​suicide at the hands of her 18-​year-​old boyfriend, Samuel. Mya was described as a sensitive person with a desire to uplift others. Samuel, on the other hand, struggled with an ongoing battle with mental health, including a recent suicide attempt. According to Mya’s mother, Audra, Mya had been aware of Samuel’s battle with depression but felt called to help Samuel overcome his illness. The relationship proved to be far more sinister than Myra had anticipated. Samuel had begun to exhibit violent behaviors and had been recently hospitalized due to mental instability. Samuel also possessed an illegal firearm and had a history of domestic violence against another individual. On January 14, 2020, Mya failed to come home from school. Authorities soon located Samuel’s car in a parking lot near the young couple’s school. As law enforcement approached the scene, Samuel fired a self-​inflicted gunshot, killing himself. Mya’s already deceased body was found in the back seat of his vehicle. In honor of her daughter, Audra founded an organization dedicated to spreading awareness and education about teen dating violence. Her goal is to prevent dating violence from taking away more teens from their parents (Hernandez, 2020). Scope of the Problem

Too often, people align intimate partner violence/​abuse with adult couples or presume IPVA among adolescents is less serious than among adults. Yet everyday crisis centers take hundreds of calls, texts, and online chat messages from teens experiencing IPVA or individuals searching for information on violence prevention and healthy relationships (Bapties, 2021). DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-5

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  87 National statistics reveal why. Per the CDC (2022), teen dating violence and abuse (TDVA), specifically physical and sexual dating violence, affects about 1 in 12 of high school students with psychological TDVA occurring or co-​occurring non-virtually and online. Although an adolescent may consider teasing or name-​calling a “normal” part of a relationship, these behaviors also are abusive and may develop into serious forms of violence, including homicide. In this chapter, beginning with physical violence, we further “break apart” the problem. “Breaking Apart” Physical TDVA Prevalence

Using 2019 data, the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) uncovered that 7.2% of heterosexual youth reported being purposely hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon by someone they were going out with or dating 12 months prior to being surveyed (Basile et al., 2020). The risk of physical TDVA onset appears to be at or before ages 15 to 16 for females and at or before age 18 for males (Shorey et al., 2017). When “breaking apart” prevalence rates by grade level, physical TDVA appears highest among 10th-​grade (10.1%) girls, followed by 11th-​grade (8.4%) and 9th-​grade girls (8.1%). Ninth, 10th, and 11th grade boys experienced physical violence by 5.6%, 6.5%, and 4.8%, respectively (Kann et al., 2018). In a more recent YRBSS study, high school females (9.3%) experienced physical TDVA at higher rates than male students (7%). While male students do not report a higher rate of physical TDVA than females, when males do report violence or TDVA victimization, they experience it at higher frequencies. Compared to 21.6% of girls, for example, 41.6% of boys were victimized more than four times the year before the survey (Basile et al., 2020). That adolescent male and female dating partners can be both victims and perpetrators of physical TDVA is generally accepted by researchers (Giordano, 2007; O’Keeffe et al., 1986). Both sexes report anger as a primary cause of aggression and both may lash out when unable to constructively communicate affection, frustration, or jealousy (Mulford and Giordano, 2008). There is also an overlap between teens who victimize peers and those who victimize their dating partners (Oudekerk et al., 2014). But what practitioners and advocates –​particularly those whose professions involve battered women and girls –​find most perplexing is that boys and girls perpetrate physical violence in dating relationships at similar rates (Coker et al. 2000; Foshee et al., 2009; Mulford and Giordano, 2008) or that females perpetrate more physical and/​or psychological TDVA than

88  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse males (Foshee, 1996; Hokoda et al., 2012; Jain et al., 2010; Taylor and Mumford, 2016). Some have cautioned against sweeping assumptions of complete gender parity regarding what it is to experience dating violence (O’Keefe, 2005), especially TDVA pertaining to girls. Like adult women, female high school students also undergo multiple forms of violence/​abuse in their intimate relationships (Basile et al., 2020) which, researchers argue, manifests in girls’ overall “more frequent victimization” (p. 33) than boys. Others point out that the average disproportionate size and strength between adult male and female couples are not as pronounced compared to developing adolescent boys and girls. The result may be that both boys and girls sustain similar or equal amounts of mild, moderate, and severe dating violence (Foshee, 1996) and situationally different experiences with IPVA than those of adults. Race/​Ethnicity and Gender

Based on recent YRBSS data, 12.7% of Hispanic high school students, 12.1% of White, and 10.6% of Black high school students experienced some form of dating violence. Findings show an unsubstantial difference between students from each racial/​ethnic group who reported being purposely hurt (e.g., hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon) by someone they dated or were going out during the previous year: 8.9% of Hispanic high school students, 8.2% of Black, and 7.5% of White high school students experienced physical TDVA (CDC, 2020a). Also based on YRBSS data, Fix and colleagues (2022) offer insight into the seriousness of physical TDVA among other racially/​ethnically identified minority teens: 13% of Native North American adolescents reported physical abuse followed by Hawaiian/​Pacific Islander (12%) and multiracial teens (11%). Intersectional YRBSS findings on gender and race/​ethnicity show that Black female (13.1%) and Hispanic female (9.2%) students reported higher rates of physical TDVA than Black male (7.1%) and Hispanic male (5.9%) students when compared to 8% and 5.9% of White females and males, respectively (Kann et al., 2018). Research regarding TDVA among Asian American adolescent populations is scarcer. But a smaller study of students from two US Pacific Islander high schools did report various forms of physical victimization, the most common occurring in abusive dating relationships: girls and boys had partners who threw something at them, slapped them, or pulled their hair. The same study also found significant gender differences, as boys reported higher rates of victimization and girls reported higher rates of perpetration (Baker and Helm, 2011).

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  89 Overall, racial/ethnic minority adolescents report perpetrating significantly more moderate and severe physical TDVA than their majority counterparts. Problematic communication skills, acceptance of dating abuse, gender stereotyping, and exposure to family violence have been shown to significantly mediate these associations (Foshee et al., 2008). Intersectional theorists have been particularly observant about what role race/ethnicity and gender might have in abusive relationships among minority teens, an association Roberts and colleagues’ (2018) study seems to suggest: adolescents experiencing racial and gender discrimination are estimated to experience the highest levels of TDVA at 2.7 times more than teens who experience no racial and gender discrimination. SES

Grasping an “exact” relationship between SES and TDVA is often challenged by whether socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g., community/​neighborhood disadvantage, low household income) directly influences physical and other forms of violence or whether disadvantage interacts with individual-​level risks (i.e., individual behaviors, association with violent peers, exposure to family violence) that affects the odds of relationship aggression (Offenhauer and Buchalter, 2011). In Jain and colleague’s (2010) longitudinal analysis of urban, predominately ethnic/​racial minority youths 13-​to 19-​years old at baseline, researchers did find an association between the highest, most concentrated levels of poverty and TDVA. However, much of that association disappeared when individual-​level factors (e.g., age, gender, parental education, race/​ ethnicity) or having a cohesive, resourceful community base were controlled. In fact, even in low-​to mid-​ level impoverished neighborhoods, when higher levels of community cohesiveness occurred, the risk of community as well as partner violence reduced for females and the risk of dating violence perpetration reduced for males. The variable, parents’ education, is an SES proxy that has emerged in research on factors mediating the trajectories of moderate and severe physical IPVA among teens. In Foshee and colleagues’ study (2008), adolescents whose parents had low levels of education were empirically more accepting of dating abuse, held views consistent with traditional gender stereotypes and were exposed to more family violence than adolescents whose parents had higher levels of education. The authors call for continued research on how certain social demographic and family variables, including exposure to violence, appear to influence the attitudes and actions of some adolescent intimate partners. When considering regionality, a variable often signifying individuals’ access to social and economic resources, a study showed students in rural school districts were at greater risk for participating in

90  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse physical TDVA than their suburban and urban counterparts. Rural female students were at greatest risk compared to rural male students (Spencer and Bryant, 2000). “Breaking Apart” Sexual TDVA Prevalence

In 2019, 8.2% of US high school students who dated 12 months prior to being surveyed reported unwanted kissing, touching, or being physically forced to have sexual intercourse by someone they were dating (Basile et al., 2020). Almost 63% of female and almost 42% of male college students self-​report that their first instance of sexual TDVA victimization occurred between the ages of 16 and 17 (Bonomi et al., 2012). Figures like these are disconcerting. Therefore, it is also important to keep in mind that these data also signal that most US adolescents do not experience sexual violence in their dating relationships and that sexual violence may be the least common reported forms of TDVA (Offenhauer and Buchalter, 2011). At the same time, a closer examination of large representative samples strongly suggests that girls are disproportionately targeted in sexual assault in dating relationships compared to boys (Hokoda et al., 2012; Youth.gov, n.d.). The prevalence of sexual TDVA is highest for 11th-​grade females followed by 9th-​grade (11%), 10th-​ grade (10.6%), and 12th-​grade females (9.4%) (Kann et al., 2018). For males, 12th graders reported the highest level (4%) followed by 10th-​ graders (2.9%), 9th-​graders (2.2%), and 11th-​graders (1.8%) (Kann et al., 2018). Because sexual violence is a deliberate criminal act of power and control over another, it is worth considering how such ideas might begin and where it might lead. Many feminist theorists have associated sexual violence against girls with what is characterized as toxic masculinity, a cultural expectation that men or male-​identified individuals are to act in control, dominant, and lack emotion to validate their gender. Some boys who endorse these scripts might model them in their relationships and perpetuate the potential for dating violence, a point borne out by research (Reidy et al., 2015). While sexual victimization is often presented as a gender-​based problem of female victims and their male offenders, less recognized is that toxic masculinity norms like these inaccurately position males as unable to be sexually assaulted. Parents may not be aware of their sons’ experiences with sexual victimization. When pressured into having sex with a dating partner, 61% of sons felt uncomfortable with talking to their fathers and 67% felt the same about their mothers. Also, parents tend to underestimate

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  91 their children’s dating frequency. In one study, twice as many teens reported having “hooked up” (i.e., meeting people for the purpose of having sex and generally not having any sort of relationship afterward) with a partner compared to what their parents had believed (Liz Claiborne, 2009). Race/​Ethnicity and Gender

Intersectional findings on sexual TDVA suggest disparities in rates of sexual TDVA in contexts of race/​ethnicity and gender. Per YRBSS, high school adolescents sexually victimized by someone who they were dating was 8.7% for Hispanic followed by White (8.1%) and Black students (6.2%). Girls were sexually victimized by a dating partner at 12.6% with boys at 3.8% (Basile et al., 2020). Also, per YRBSS, Hispanic girls (11.4%) not only showed a greater frequency of having experienced sexual dating violence than White (11.1%) and Black (6.8%) females but also White (2.6%), Black (2.7%), and Hispanic (2.5%) male students (Kann et al., 2018). Among the few studies involving sexual TDVA among other non-​majority racial/​ethnic groups, sexual dating violence also was most prevalent among girls (Baker and Helm, 2011; Fix et al., 2022). In one study, Native North American, Hawaiian/​Pacific Islander and multiracial adolescents reported sexual TDVA at rates of 10%, 14%, and 12%, respectively (Fix et al., 2022). In another study of students at US Pacific Island high schools, 9.6% of boys and 22.1% of girls had been touched sexually without consent and 12% of girls and 3.7% of boys had been forced to have sex without consent (Baker and Helm, 2011). SES

Only a few TDVA studies infer a possible relationship between SES and sexual TDVA (Runarsdottir et al., 2019). An exception, Foshee and colleagues’ (2009) longitudinal study on the trajectories of TDVA among males and females from ages 13 to 19 years, found that family structure (i.e., single and dual parent families) was not associated with sexual TDVA perpetration at any age and that sexual violence is the least common form of TDVA. Parental education was not associated with classifications of serious physical or sexual TDVA perpetration at any age (Foshee et al., 2009). “Breaking Apart” Psychological TDVA Prevalence

Psychological abuse is the most frequent but least studied form of TDVA. By following teens in grades 7 to 12, the National Longitudinal

92  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Study of Adolescent Health found that approximately 30% of people ages 12 to 21 in opposite-​sex relationships reported experiencing psychological abuse in the past 18 months (Halpern et al., 2001, 2004). In other studies, however, reports of teen-​related psychological abuse have been as high as more than 60% and 70% (Arriaga and Foshee, 2004; Taylor and Mumford, 2016). Psychological TDVA appears to increase between grades 7 and 9 grades and remain more stable through high school (Hokoda et al., 2012). The non-​physical nature of psychological abuse makes it no less an aggressive action. Without benefit of intervention (see Chapter 9), teens who perpetrate psychological IPVA can damage their partner’s possessions, insult them in front of others, erode their self-​esteem and, like their adult counterparts, cast blame on their victims. Moreover, psychological TDVA appears to co-​occur in other interpersonal conflicts that may elevate physical risk. For example, not only research suggest a positive correlation between psychological and physical abuse among teen couples (Hokoda et al., 2012; Jouriles et al., 2009), but there is also evidence that adolescents’ experiences of parent–​child psychological abuse, witnessing psychological abuse between parents, affiliation with abusive peers and acceptance of psychologically and physically abusive behaviors in dating relationships are related to the use of psychological TDVA (Price et al., 1999). Gender

Male and female teen dating partners demonstrate patterns of being both offenders and targets of psychological TDVA. In research on 13-​to 19-​ year-​old dating teens, for example, over one-​third of abused females had two or more abusive partners and had experienced controlling behaviors (35.6%); put downs/​name-​calling (37%); pressured sex (42.9%); insults (44.3%), and threats (62.5%) in their relationships. Males also showed having had two or more abusive partners and had experienced controlling behaviors (42.1%), insults (51.2%), put downs (53.3%), threats (55.6), and unwanted calls/​texts/​visits (60.7%) (Bonomi et al., 2012). Researchers have tried to interpret the causes of psychological aggression in teen dating relationships. In a qualitative study of 9th and 11th-​grade Canadian high school students, participants generally agreed that boys and girls behave abusively toward their dating partners and attributed verbal TDVA to how each gender copes with stressful situations. Participants believed that boys were socially discouraged from talking about their feelings, only to explode and physically and/​or emotionally aggress. Girls were believed to have greater social consent to express feelings during

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  93 intense moments (e.g., talking, crying, verbal aggression). In the same study, participants also perceived psychological TDVA as a function of adolescents’ posturing for dominance in their relationships. Girls were said to use psychological abuse to develop power and control in the relationship, a response related to cultural messages that girls should take care of themselves and disallow inappropriate behaviors from male partners. Because male-​to-​female physical victimization is socially frowned upon, boys were said to use psychological abuse to establish relationship control (Sears et al., 2006). Race/​Ethnicity

Racial/ethnic minority status was not associated with psychological TDVA in Foshee and colleagues’ (2009) study, where white adolescents reported as much psychological TDVA perpetration as minority minority adolescents. However, competing findings suggest psychological IPVA among racial/​ ethnic minority adolescents to be as high as or higher than majority adolescents. In Choi-​Misailidis and colleagues’ (2008) study of psychological TDVA among Asian American and Pacific Islander adolescents, for example 58.3% experienced emotional dating violence, almost 44% experienced insulting verbal abuse and 43.3% were victims of controlling behaviors. No significant differences were found in rates of victimization and severity by gender. Orpinas and colleagues (2012) followed a sample of students from 6th to 12th grade to estimate how psychologically abusive behaviors might develop in dating relationships over time. When analyzing students’ trajectories by race/​ethnicity, groups of students exhibiting low victimization and low perpetration of psychological TDVA had more boys and White students; the high victimization and high perpetration group had an even distribution of boys and girls and more Black students. Interviews with 15-​to 19-​year olds indicate that Black, Hispanic, or multiracial teens view their dating partners as offering care, emotional support, and friendship but that relationship conflict, controlling behaviors, and violence co-​existed in these same relationships (Volpe et al., 2014). SES

Few studies were found that directly examine psychological TDVA from the context of annual household income, making it difficult to determine any clear connection. But related studies may offer some inference to a possible SES–​TDVA link. In Coker and colleagues’ (2014) study, for example, rates of teen dating psychological victimization and perpetration were highest among girls and students receiving free or reduced-​price meals.

94  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse In another study, adolescents in single-​parent-​households reported more psychological TDVA than those in two-​parent-​households; the average for moderate psychological TDVA perpetration lowered as parental education levels increased (Foshee, et al., 2009). And yet, rates of emotional TDVA are generally higher than physical TDVA (Offenhauer and Buchalter, 2011), warranting a more comprehensive look at the prevalence of teen psychological abuse across categories of social class, along with the social contexts mediating those results. “Breaking Apart” Stalking TDVA Prevalence

To examine the prevalence of TDVA related to stalking and harassment, Rothman and colleagues (2021) asked youths 12 to 18 years old with dating experience whether a partner had ever spied on or followed them, damaged something that belonged to them, or searched through their online accounts. Results revealed a 48% prevalence of lifetime stalking and harassment victimization, a lifetime prevalence of stalking perpetration of 43% and 1 in 3 experiencing both victimization and perpetration. The authors note that, unlike previous studies on stalking, their surveying both harassment and stalking behaviors likely explains the high prevalence rates uncovered. Race/​Ethnicity, Gender, and SES

In the same TDVA study by Rothman and colleagues (2021), male participants reported stalking and harassment at a rate of 44.6%; female participants’ victimization rate was higher and just over half at 51.1%. When subjecting the data to an intersectional analysis, about 37% of White male teens perpetrated dating-​ related stalking and harassment and 39.1% had experienced it; among Hispanic participants, 70.6% had perpetrated stalking and harassment and 70.7% had been victimized by it. Boys residing in neighborhoods with higher crime rates and boys with low-​ quality relationships with their parents were more likely to report stalking/​ harassing a dating partner. Among girls, the demographics associated with higher rates of TDVA stalking/​harassment victimization and perpetration were being younger than 15 years old, Black, living in higher crime rate neighborhoods, and using drugs/​ alcohol. The collective results suggest family and community-​based factors a meaningful consideration for any effort at TDVA prevention or intervention, something we further “break apart” later in the chapter.

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  95 Other Distinctions of TDVA Teen Digital Dating Abuse

Digital technologies can be weaponized to harass, pressure, threaten, coerce, or monitor a dating partner (Ellyson et al., 2021). Behaviors related to teen digital dating abuse (TDDA) may include overly suspicious tactics like obsessively checking a teen partner’s messages, demanding passwords to mobile phones and online accounts, or deleting a partner’s friends or ex-​partners from online accounts (Stonard et al., 2017). A still-​growing subfield in TDVA, TDDA research suggests that digital dating abuse may occur during children’s most impressionable years. The average onset of TDDA was 16 years in one study, although participants experienced related behaviors as early as 11 years old (Ellyson et al., 2021). Recently, TDDA was shown to increase starting at early adolescence, peaking around age 16 or 17 and followed by a leveling of related behaviors (Thulin et al., 2022). Sextortion

A concerning TDDA-​ related behavior is sextortion. Sextortion is the threatened dissemination of explicit, intimate, or embarrassing images of a sexual nature without the owner’s consent and is often done to procure additional images, money, or sexual acts. In a seminal study, almost 60% of participants who were minors when sextortion began knew their perpetrators in person and often as intimate partners. Seventy-​five percent knowingly provided images, although 67% of them did so under duress. Over 90% of sextortion targets were female, most of whom were 16 or 17 when sextortion started (Wolak et al., 2018). In another study in which male, non-​heterosexual youth were more likely targeted, the adolescent perpetrators who threatened sextortion were likely to have been victims of sextortion themselves (Patchin and Hinduja, 2020). Sexting

Another digital form of TDVA is sexting, the act of creating, sharing, and forwarding sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images. Whether voluntary or reciprocal, disseminating these materials leaves youth more vulnerable to threat, coercive behaviors, bullying, and other forms of maltreatment. Feminist researchers have made note of sexting’s implications, particularly for girls. Ringrose and colleagues (2013) emphasize that teen girls are called upon to produce sexually explicit images of themselves but may face moral condemnation, shaming and even legal repercussions when

96  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse they do so. For boys, they argue, possessing or circulating images of girls are more likely valued as a form of digital currency among their peers. Qualitative research suggests sharp differences in boys’ and girls’ perceptions on the severity of TDDA-​related behaviors. Male respondents in one focus group viewed digitally abusive behaviors less harmful than abusive or controlling behaviors in face-​to-​face contexts, believing that victims’ have opportunities to stop digital communication and prevent abuse. Girls, particularly those ages 12 to 15, saw digital communication technologies not only as creating more opportunities for victimization. They also saw digital victimization as harder to prevent or recover from and, as a result, potentially worse than face-​to-​face abusive or controlling behaviors (Stonard et al., 2017). “Breaking Apart” Dating Violence and Abuse in LGBTQ Teen Relationships Scope of the Problem

Having to constantly navigate the broader acceptance of male/​female relationship binaries and gender expression and having few non-​binary role models to turn to (Gillum and DiFulvio, 2012; Luo et al., 2014) have been tied to increased risks for negative health outcomes for many LGBTQ teens. Among these outcomes is the increased potential for dating violence/​abuse among sexual minority teens (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual teens and teens who question their sexual orientation) and gender minority teens (e.g., transgender adolescents, whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth). Based on the most recent YRBSS data, the prevalence of experiencing any dating violence is 22.3% for high school students identifying as LGBQ, and 18.7% for questioning students compared to 10.5% of students identifying as heterosexual (Basile et al., 2020). One noteworthy finding among this group are the vulnerabilities unique to many bisexual youths, which were especially pronounced in Freedner’s (2002) analysis of TDVA among LGB adolescents. Specifically, bisexual boys and girls undergo the added stress of having their sexuality invalidated by gay, lesbian, and heterosexual communities and are more susceptible to threats of being outed or isolated by gay or lesbian peers. Samples of transgender teens in dating relationship are often absent from TDVA research, often too small to generalize to most transgender youth or lack the nuance of within-​in group differences. However, without naming TDVA, the dearth of research available does suggest that transgender youth are especially vulnerable to forms of interpersonal violence. A CDC population-​based survey of ten states and nine urban school districts found transgender students more likely to report violence victimization

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  97 than cisgender students (i.e., non-​transgender persons, whose identity and gender corresponds with their sex at birth; Johns et al., 2019). To expose threats and barriers unique to adolescent LGBTQ victims, we “break apart” the TDVA experiences of LGBTQ youth by comparing them with those of opposite-​sex teen dating couples. First, we examine the prevalence of physical TDVA among sexual minority teens and gender minority teens. “Breaking Apart” Physical TDVA Prevalence

Per YRBSS, lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, and students questioning their sexual identity, are more likely to experience physical dating violence than heterosexual students. In 2019, the prevalence of physical TDVA among questioning high school students was 16.3% and 13.1% for LGB students compared to 7.2% of heterosexual students. The risk of LGB high school students experiencing physical TDVA was 82% more likely than heterosexual students (CDC, 2020b). Research is scarce regarding estimates and experiences of TDVA among transgender high school students. However, in a YRBSS study on multiple of forms of violence victimization, prevalence rates were higher for transgender than cisgender students with 26.4% of transgender persons having experienced physical partner violence (Johns et al., 2019). In another study, the odds of physical partner violence were 2.46 times higher for transgender youth than their cisgender counterparts (Whitton et al., 2016). Gender

In a national study, among female sexual minority high school students, the prevalence of experiencing physical TDVA was higher among lesbian and bisexual (16.9%) than heterosexual (7.1%) students. For male students, the prevalence was higher among gay and bisexual (16.8%) and questioning (14.1%) than heterosexual (5.8%) students (Kann et al., 2018). Similarly, in a large regional sample of 14-​ to-​ 17-​ year-​ old high school students, sexual minority teens were also more likely than their heterosexual peers to experience any form of dating conflict, specifically threatening behavior and physical abuse. Girls were more likely to report threatening behavior than boys (Norris and Orchowski, 2020). When ascertaining the sex of students’ romantic partners, physical TDVA was higher among female students who had sexual contact with only males (10.5%) and those who had sexual contact with only females or with both sexes (19.8%) when compared to females who had no sexual contact (2.9%). Among male

98  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse students, the physical TDVA prevalence was higher among those who had sexual contact with only females (7.9%) and those who had sexual contact with only males or with both sexes (21.4%) compared to males who had no sexual contact (1.8%) (Kann, 2018). Race/​Ethnicity

Large-​ scale studies suggest that racial-​ ethnic LGBTQ teens have a greater prevalence of physical dating violence than their White LGBTQ counterparts. Results from YRBSS show that, compared to 13.8% White LGB high school students, over 20% of racial/​ethnic minority students (Black, 11.6%; Hispanic, 9.8%) were victimized by physical dating violence (Johns et al., 2020). In another large, diverse sample of LGBTQ youth and young adults ages 13–​24, researchers from The Trevor Project (2021a) estimated that multi-​ racial/​ ethnic youth and Hispanic/​ Latinx LGBTQ youth had greater odds of experiencing physical dating violence in the past year than White LGBTQ youth. American Indian/​Alaskan Native LGBTQ youth had more than 2.75 greater odds of physical dating violence compared to White LGBTQ youth. Black LGBTQ and Asian/​Pacific Islander LGBTQ youth showed equal and 35% lower odds of physical dating violence than White LGBTQ youth. Researchers who study race/​ ethnicity and IPVA, including minority stress theorists (see Chapter 2), argue that internalized tensions from having to balancing multiple social identities (e.g., sexual orientation, race/​ ethnicity, gender, SES) can affect adolescents’ mental health and externalize in incidents of dating violence/​abuse (Fix et al., 2022). In another Trevor Project (2021b) study on LGBTQ youth mental health, half the sampled LGBTQ youth of color reported discrimination based on their race/​ethnicity in the prior year, including Black and Asian/​Pacific Islander LGBTQ youth at 67% and 60%, respectively. “Breaking Apart” Sexual TDVA Prevalence

Research suggests fluctuating but currently declining levels of sexual TDVA among sexual minority adolescents compared to adolescents identified as having an attraction to opposite-​sex partners. Among LGB students, the rates of experiencing sexual dating violence were 22.7% in 2015 (vs. 9.1% for heterosexual students); decreased to 15.8% in 2016 (vs. 5.5%) and increased to 16.4% in 2019 (vs. 6.7%). Fourteen percent of questioning students reported sexual TDVA and 22.9% of transgender students reported sexual TDVA (Johns et al., 2019), a substantial rate.

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  99 Gender

YBSS data based on sexual orientation identifies bisexual girls as having the highest rate of sexual TDVA victimization at 20.8% followed by questioning (18%), heterosexual (12%), and lesbian (10.8%) girls (Johns et al., 2018). The association between victimization and sexual minority orientation was even stronger among some adolescent males: gay boys (24%) experienced the highest rate of sexual dating violence followed by questioning (14.7%), bisexual (12.6%), and heterosexual (3.3%) youth. No results were reported for gender minority youth. However, in a separate research, 61% percent of transgender youth were coerced sexually by a dating partner (Dank et al., 2014) and had an overall 3.42 greater chance of sexual victimization than cisgender youth (Whitton et al., 2016) Race/​Ethnicity

When examined by race/​ethnicity, LGB high students report sexual TDVA victimization at a rate of 18.3% among Hispanic respondents; 16.7% among White respondents; and 10.3% among Blacks (Johns et al., 2020). Study comparisons of other racial/​ ethnic sexual minority adolescents suggest the highest rates of sexual TDVA include Hawaiian/​Pacific Islander LBQ girls (23%); Hispanic/​Latinx GBQ boys (26%); and Hawaiian/​Pacific Islander GBQ boys (32%) (Fix et al., 2022). Sexual assault data on racial/​ethnic minority undergraduate students, who identify as transgender and had been sexually assaulted in past year, suggest the need for more research on TDVA among transgender adolescents and the external barriers and internal pressures that might spill over into their relationships. For example, the data show transgender undergraduates as having greater odds for experiencing sexual assault than cisgender undergraduates, the highest being for Blacks at 57.7%, followed by Hispanics (26.7%), “Other” (19.8%), and Whites (14.2%) (Coulter et al., 2017). “Breaking Apart” Psychological (Emotional) TDVA Prevalence

While psychological TDVA presents a problem among dating teens overall, the gap between heterosexual youth and youth in sexual minority communities appears even wider. In a cross-​sectional study of 7th to 12th graders in three US states, about 59% of dating LGB teens reported being the victim of psychological TDVA compared to 46% of teens in heterosexual relationships. The few transgender youth sampled reported some of the highest victimization rates of psychological TDVA (Dank et al., 2014).

100  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Gender

Empirical estimates by gender suggest different patterns of emotionally abusive behaviors among same-​sex teen partners. Of the 117 adolescents with same-​sex romantic or sexual partners in Halpern and colleague’s (2004), almost one-​quarter experienced victimization by an intimate in the previous 18 months, the majority of which was psychological abuse. Females more likely to report being sworn at or insulted; males were more likely to report receiving threats (Halpern et al., 2004). “Breaking Apart” Stalking and Teen Digital Dating Abuse

Among the scant research directly examining stalking behaviors among sexual and gender minority adolescents, a recent study found that sexual minority girls, sexual minority boys, and heterosexual girls had higher rates of forms of violence, including stalking and sexual harassment, than heterosexual boys. The study’s researchers did not examine LGBTQ teens’ reports of violence as a function of TDVA. However, they do note that rates of violence between sexual minority girls and boys were statistically equivalent (Mennicke et al., 2021) and suggest the need for specialized intervention. Regarding other forms of partner-​monitoring behaviors among sexual and gender minority teens, an Urban Institute study found that LGBTQ youth reported higher rates of DDA than heterosexual youth: 18% of LGBTQ teens reported DDA perpetration compared to 12% of heterosexual youth; 37% reported DDA victimization compared to 26% of heterosexual youth (Zweig et al., 2013). “Breaking Apart” Teens’ Disclosure of IPVA An unfortunate fact is that many adolescents do not report their experiences with dating violence. In one study, 60% of teen victims and 79% of teen perpetrators did not seek help for TDVA (Ashley and Vangie, 2005). In another, 78% of teens, who were harassed by their partners using networking sites, did not tell their parents about their abuse nor had 72% of participants, who had been “checked on” by a partner ten times per hour by email or texting (Liz Claiborne, 2009). When examining these numbers, it is important to recognize that teens’ underreporting could be tied to unsettling complications: Either the violence has become “normal” course of conduct in the relationship and viewed unworthy to report, the teen may want the violence to end but not the relationship, or the victim may fear that leaving the relationship will lead to more abuse. We further

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  101 address the question of why some victims of TDVA remain in violent/​abusive relationships in Chapter 8. The trauma of victimization also can be a deterrent to disclosing incidents of TDVA. Sexual violence can leave any victim shocked, confused, and reluctant to discuss what happened. Moreover, a victim may feel that victimization deserved for being too “weak” to protect themselves, may fear being ridiculed for either real or alleged sexual behaviors or be “slut-​ shamed’ by peers, who mischaracterize their victimization as consensual (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, n.d.). Others fear not being believed or presume that adults or law enforcement involvement will make things worse, a particular concern for teens who hide their gender identity or sexual orientation from peers, family members, and community acquaintances. In a recent study, 37% of LGBTQ youth told no one about their experiences with physical TDVA. Those who did confided in their friends at a rate of 53%, followed their parents and therapists at 15% and 14%, respectively (The Trevor Project, 2021a). In the following section, we further examine outcomes and risks associated with TDVA as well as factors and resources shown to have a protective effect. “Breaking Apart” the Risks, Consequences, and Protective Factors and Resources Regarding TDVA Risk Factors of Teens Dating Violence and Abuse

IPVA perpetration is more likely to increase when a partner is accepting of fighting or violence in dating relationships and if general antisocial behaviors, substance use, and mental health issues (e.g., depression, anxiety) are present in the relationship. Participating in high-​risk behaviors or early sexual activity; poor relationship and friendship quality (e.g., hostile during social interactions); and poor family quality (e.g., parental conflict, childhood abuse) also might contribute to a higher risk of teen dating violence/​abuse. Other demographics cited in the literature are coming from disadvantaged homes and neighborhoods, sex, race/​ethnicity, sexuality, and the use of aggressive media (Vagi et al., 2013). Consequences of Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Homicide

The most extreme consequence of IPVA is homicide. As in Mya’s case history, adolescents and young women between the ages of 15 and 24 years are at the greatest risk for domestic homicide. Relationship dysfunction in the form of extreme and obsessive jealousy, heated arguments, or having

102  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse access to guns and weapons has emerged in a number of case studies involving teen intimate partner homicide (Jaffee et al., 2018). Health Issues

The individual consequences of dating violence and abuse on youth can result in increased rates of mental health issues. Consequences include depression; suicidal thoughts or behaviors; tobacco, drug, and alcohol use/​ addiction; and antisocial behaviors (CDC, 2022). IPVA Continuation into Adulthood

Early life IPVA might be part of a continuum of violence/​abuse that begins within families of origin, continues with TDVA, and crosses into families and interpersonal relationships as adults (see Halpern interview in Williamson, 2001). Based on a report by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, 2017), when researchers tracked changes and continuity in relationships from adolescence to young adulthood, 56% had reported either perpetrating or being a victim of some form of IPVA. IPVA exposure tended to peak around age 20 and gradually declined through age 28. In another NIJ report, couple satisfaction remained high at age 24 for partners reporting high relationship satisfaction at the start of their relationships. Couples reporting lower relationship quality at the beginning of young adulthood were more likely to report physical and psychological IPVA (Mendoza and Mulford, 2018). Protective Factors Regarding Teen Dating Violence and Abuse

Several protective factors against teen dating violence/​abuse are identified in literature. The ability to demonstrate empathy, recognize TDVA perpetration as wrong, along with developing a high degree of cognitive dissonance about subjecting a partner to dating violence/​abuse, are helpful considerations toward deterring or reducing victimization. Having good grades/​ high grade point average, demonstrating verbal competencies, feeling a sense of attachment to school and having a positive relationship with one’s mother can also have a protective effect (Vagi et al., 2013). We further discuss protections regarding TDVA in the contexts of individual, clinical, and community-​based resources in the final section below. Protective Resources and Strategies for Teen Survivors of IPVA Individualized Safety Planning

Individualized safety planning requires that at-​risk adolescents take time, think about, and document the safest routes to and from home, school

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  103 campuses, etc.; where to eat or spend downtime in places unknown to the perpetrator; which trusted individuals might accompany them to classes, etc.; secret code/​ signals alerting family, friends, and neighbors to call for help if needed; and alternate contacts in cases of emergencies (e.g., counselors, coaches, teachers, administrators, school security, and other professional or trained adults/​peers). Teens who live with their abuser may require additional safety measures, including an emergency bag furnished with a cell phone/​charger, spare money/​keys, driver’s license/​other forms identification, copies of restraining orders, immigration papers, medications and, if needed, necessities for children (Loveisrespect.org, n.d.). A complete safety plan template that is specifically tailored for teens can be located in Appendix II. Clinical-​Based Interventions

Domestic violence screenings and referrals to supportive services and hotlines, if needed, are key steps toward preventing more violence/​abuse, especially among high-​risk teens with past exposure to partner violence, a history of alcohol/​drug use, symptoms of depression or anxiety, or having had experiences with risky sexual behaviors. TDVA is a growing public health problem with serious short-​and long-​term consequences. But despite the incidence of TDVA and prevalence rates discussed in this chapter, there is significant confusion among healthcare providers who treat adolescent patients concerning the definition and implications of teen relationship violence/​abuse. Researchers and interventionists stress that professionals become familiar with TDVA, how it manifests in adolescent populations, and how to screen adolescent patients. Universal screening using computer-​ based screening methods are often viewed ideal; however, they may not be accessible to all health providers. It is, therefore, suggested that health providers learn to integrate questions regarding relationship safety into each medical examination with an adolescent regardless of gender or sexual orientation to increase the rate of IPVA disclosure and referrals to mental health and other supportive services (Cutter-​Wilson and Richmond, 2012). Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy

Bystander intervention programs instruct participants how to recognize and safely intervene in potentially hostile or harassing situations or diffuse a situation enough that it does not get worse. One such nationally recognized anti-​violence effort is the University of Kentucky’s Green Dot program. Green Dot’s curriculum takes a citizen-​advocate approach by characterizing everyone as having a personal role in violence/abuse prevention and

104  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse changing norms accepting of violence/​abuse as well as training participants to carefully intercede for victims of stalking, bullying, and sexual violence against children, the elderly and intimate partners. In the context of violence involving young people, manageable violence prevention strategies demonstrating intolerance for violence are taught at local/​regional schools and college/​universities (Green Dot Lexington, 2022). Despite advances toward TDVA intervention and prevention efforts, further work is needed. One bystander intervention program evaluation showed reductions in the perpetration and victimization of sexual violence, sexual harassment, and physical TDVA among sexual majority high school students but not sexual minority high school students. Researchers recommend intervention curricula that not only explicitly engage sexual minority youth but also address the social attitudes that shape their experiences with violence/​ abuse (e.g., homophobic teasing, homonegativity; Coker et al., 2020). Chapter Summary This chapter “breaks apart” TDVA. Estimates suggest male and female adolescent dating partners as victims and perpetrators of physical and psychological TDVA with girls demonstrating higher perpetration scores than boys by estimates. Female teens in opposite-​sex relationships are disproportionately targeted for sexual violence. Psychological abuse is the most common form of TDVA but also the least researched. Alternate forms of non-​physical dating abuse, including digital dating abuse, sexting, and sextortion, have emerged as a modern-​day form of relationship aggression. Gender and sexual minority adolescents are not immune from TDVA. LGBQ teens evidence an increased potential for IPVA compared to adolescents identified as heterosexual, which may be further encumbered by having few immediate role models to turn to. Along with threats of outing, bisexual boys and girls may experience the added stress of having their sexuality invalidated by gay, lesbian, and heterosexual communities. The dearth of research on transgender youth suggests gender minority boys and girls are especially vulnerable to TDVA exposure. More research and supportive services related to abused gender and sexual minority teens are warranted. Recommended Resource Love Is Respect: A project of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, Love is Respect offers free confidential information, support, and advocacy to young people between the ages of 13 and 26 with questions or concerns about their romantic relationships. The project provides support

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  105 to concerned friends, family members, teachers, counselors, and other service providers through phone, text, and live chat. Website: www.loveis​resp​ect.org/​ Discussion Questions In retrospect, what are some of the red flags noted before the murder/​homicide of teen Mya by her boyfriend? Identify community-​level preventive measures that might have been helpful in Mya’s case. References Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: do adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’ footsteps? Journal of interpersonal violence, 19(2), 162–​184. Ashley, O. S., & Foshee, V. A. (2005). Adolescent help-​seeking for dating violence: prevalence, sociodemographic correlates, and sources of help. The journal of adolescent health, 36(1), 25–​31. Baker, C. K., & Helm, S. (2011). Prevalence of intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among youth in Hawai’i. Hawaii medical journal, 70(5), 92–​96. Bapties, S. (2021). Preventing Teen Dating Violence and Abuse: Commentary. Retrieved from: www.rob​ins.af.mil/​News/​Arti​cle-​Disp​lay/​Arti​cle/​2507​120/​pre​ vent​ing-​teen-​dat​ing-​viole​nce-​and-​abuse-​com​ment​ary/​ Basile, K. C., Clayton, H. B., DeGue, S., Gilford, J. W., Vagi, K. J., Suarez, N. A., ... & Lowry, R. (2020). Interpersonal violence victimization among high school students—​youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR supplements, 69(1), 28–​37. Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., Nemeth, J., Bartle-​Haring, S., Buettner, C. & Schipper, D. (2012). Dating violence victimization across the teen years. BMC public health, 12(1), 1–​10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (CDC). (2020a). The youth risk behavior survey data summary & trends report: 2009–​2019. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​healt​hyyo​uth/​data/​yrbs/​pdf/​YRBS​Data​Summ​aryT​rend​sRep​ort2​ 019-​508.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020b). In 2019, lesbian, gay, and bisexual students were at greater risk of experiencing several risk factors [Press Release]. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​nchh​stp/​newsr​oom/​docs/​2020/​lgb-​disp​ arit​ies-​summ​ary.pdf Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022). Preventing Teen Dating Violence (Fact sheet). Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​ipv/​ TDV-​fac​tshe​et_​2​022.pdf Choi-​Misailidis, S., Hishinuma, E. S., Nishimura, S. T., & Chesney-​Lind, M. (2008). Dating violence victimization among Asian American and Pacific Islander youth in Hawai ‘i. Journal of emotional abuse, 8(4), 403–​422.

106  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J. & McCauley, H. L. (2020). Bystander program effectiveness to reduce violence and violence acceptance within sexual minority male and female high school students using a cluster rct. Prevention science, 21(3), 434–​444. Coker, A. L., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., Asaolu, I. O., Cook-​Craig, P. G., Brancato, C. J., Williams, C. M., Bush, H. M. & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Dating violence victimization and perpetration rates among high school students. Violence against women, 20(10), 1220–​1238. Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American journal of preventive medicine, 19, 220–​227. Coulter, R. W., Mair, C., Miller, E., Blosnich, J. R., Matthews, D. D., & McCauley, H. L. (2017). Prevalence of past-​year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/​ethnicity. Prevention science, 18(6), 726–​736. Cutter-​ Wilson, E., & Richmond, T. (2011). Understanding teen dating violence: practical screening and intervention strategies for pediatric and adolescent healthcare providers. Current opinion in pediatrics, 23(4), 379–​383. Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M. & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(5), 846–​857. Ellyson, A. M., Adhia, A., Lyons, V. H., & Rivara, F. P. (2021). Prevalence, age of initiation, and patterns of co-​occurrence of digital dating abuse behaviors nationwide. Children and youth services review, 122, 105921. Fix, R. L., Nava, N. & Rodriguez, R. (2022). Disparities in adolescent dating violence and associated internalizing and externalizing mental health symptoms by gender, race/​ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(17–​18), NP15130–​NP15152. Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types, and injuries. Health education research, 11(3), 275–​286. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T., Suchindran, C., Ennett, et al. (2009). The development of four types of adolescent dating abuse and selected demographic correlates. Journal of research on adolescence, 19(3), 380–​400. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-​Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E., & Benefield, T. S. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. Journal of adolescent health, 42(6), 596–​604. Freedner, N., Freed, L. H., Yang, Y. W., & Austin, S. B. (2002). Dating violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: results from a community survey. Journal of adolescent health, 31(6), 469–​474. Gillum, T. L., & DiFulvio, G. (2012). “There’s so much at stake”: sexual minority youth discuss dating violence. Violence against women, 18(7), 725–​745. Giordano, P. (2007, December). Recent research on gender and adolescent relationships: implications for teen dating violence research/​ prevention . [Conference presentation]. US Departments of Health and Human Services and

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  107 Justice workshop on teen dating violence: Developing a research agenda to meet practice needs. Crystal City, VA, United States. Green Dot Lexington. (2022). Green dot Lexington: Small actions for a safer city. Retrieved from www.lexi​ngto​nky.gov/​green​dot Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-​ sex romantic relationships: findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. American journal of public health, 91(10), 1679–​1685. Halpern, C. T., Young, M. L., Waller, M. W., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-​ sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of adolescent health, 35(2), 124–​131. Hernandez, E. (2020 January 25). Family of highlands ranch teen Mya Pena speaks about relationship violence after murder-​ suicide. Cannon City daily record. Retrieved from www.canon​city​dail​yrec​ord.com/​2020/​01/​25/​mya-​pena-​mur​der-​ suic​ide-​fount​ain-​vic​tim/​ Hokoda, A., Martin Del Campo, M. A., & Ulloa, E. C. (2012). Age and gender differences in teen relationship violence. Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma, 21(3), 351–​364. Jaffe, P., Fairbairn, J. & Sapardanis, K. (2018). Youth dating violence and homicide. In D. A. Wolfe & J. R. Temple (Eds.), Adolescent dating violence: theory, research, and prevention (pp. 191–​214). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Jain, S., Buka, S. L., Subramanian, S. V., & Molnar, B. E. (2010). Neighborhood predictors of dating violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood: a multilevel study. American journal of public health, 100(9), 1737–​1744. Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Andrzejewski, J., Barrios, L. C., Demissie, Z., McManus, T., ... & Underwood, J. M. (2019). Transgender identity and experiences of violence victimization, substance use, suicide risk, and sexual risk behaviors among high school students—​19 states and large urban school districts, 2017. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 68(3), 67. Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Haderxhanaj, L. T., Rasberry, C. N., Robin, L., Scales, L., ... & Suarez, N. A. (2020). Trends in violence victimization and suicide risk by sexual identity among high school students—​Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2015–​2019. MMWR supplements, 69(1), 19. Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Rasberry, C. N., Dunville, R., Robin, L., Pampati, S., ... & Kollar, L. M. M. (2018). Violence victimization, substance use, and suicide risk among sexual minority high school students—​United States, 2015–​2017. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, 67(43), 1211. Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009). Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: links to psychological distress. Child abuse & neglect, 33(7), 451–​460. Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Queen, B., ... & Ethier, K. A. (2018). Youth risk behavior surveillance—​United States, 2017. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 67(8), 1.

108  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Liz Claiborne Inc and The Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2009). Teen dating abuse 2009 key topline findings. Retrieved from http://​nom​ore.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​ uplo​ads/​2014/​12/​teen_​dating_​abus​e_​20​09_​k​ey_​t​opli​ne_​f​i ndi​ngs-​1.pdf Loveisrespect.org. (n.d.) A teen’s guide to safety planning. Retrieved from www. loveis​resp​ect.org/​lir-​files/​Teen-​Saf​ety-​Plan.pdf Luo, F., Stone, D. M., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). Physical dating violence victimization among sexual minority youth. American journal of public health, 104(10), e66–​e73. Mendoza, M. M. & Mulford C. (2018). Relationship dynamics and teen dating violence. Research in brief national institute of justice. Retrieved from www. ncjrs.gov/​pdffil​es1/​nij/​251​031.pdf Mennicke, A., Bush, H. M., Brancato, C., & Coker, A. L. (2021). Sexual minority high school boys’ and girls’ risk of sexual harassment, sexual violence, stalking, and bullying. Violence against women, 27(9), 1361–​1378. Mulford, C., & Giordano, P. C. (2008). Teen dating violence: a closer look at adolescent romantic relationships. National institute of justice journal, 261(1), 31–​40. National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (n.d.) Why don’t they tell? Teens and sexual assault disclosure. Retrieved from www.nctsn.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​resour​ ces/​fact-​sheet/​why_​dont_​they_​tell_​teens_​an​d_​se​xual​_​ass​ault​_​dis​clos​ure.pdf National Institute of Justice. (2017). Relationship abuse during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood. Retrieved from https://​nij.ojp.gov/​top​ics/​artic​ les/​relat​ions​hip-​abuse-​dur​ing-​tra​nsit​ion-​adol​esce​nce-​young-​adulth​ood Norris, A. L., & Orchowski, L. M. (2020). Peer victimization of sexual minority and transgender youth: a cross-​sectional study of high school students. Psychology of violence, 10(2), 201. Offenhauer, P., & Buchalter, A. (2011). Teen dating violence: a literature review and annotated bibliography. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/​pdffil​es1/​nij/​gra​nts/​ 235​368.Pdf O’Keefe, M. (2005). Teen dating violence: a review of risk factors and prevention efforts. National Electronic Network on violence against women, 1, 1–​5. O’Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social work, 31(6), 465–​468. Orpinas, P., Nahapetyan, L., Song, X., McNicholas, C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012). Psychological dating violence perpetration and victimization: trajectories from middle to high school. Aggressive behavior, 38(6), 510–​520. Oudekerk, B., Blachman-​Denmer, D., & Mulford, C. (2014). Teen dating violence: How peers can affect risk & protective factors. Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2020). Sextortion among adolescents: results from a national survey of US youth. Sexual Abuse, 32(1), 30–​54. Price, E. L., Byers, E. S., & The Dating Violence Research Team. (1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: development and initial validation. Journal of family violence, 14, 351–​375. Reidy, D. E., Smith-​Darden, J. P., Cortina, K. S., Kernsmith, R. M., & Kernsmith, P. D. (2015). Masculine discrepancy stress, teen dating violence, and sexual

Teen Dating Violence and Abuse  109 violence perpetration among adolescent boys. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(6), 619–​624. Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R. & Livingstone, S. (2013) Teen girls, sexual double standards, and ‘sexting’: gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist theory, 14(3), 305–​323.. Roberts, L., Tamene, M., & Orta, O. R. (2018). The intersectionality of racial and gender discrimination among teens exposed to dating violence. Ethnicity & disease, 28(1), 253–​260. Rothman, E. F., Bahrami, E., Okeke, N., & Mumford, E. (2021). Prevalence of and risk markers for dating abuse-​ related stalking and harassment victimization and perpetration in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Youth and society, 53(6), 955–​978. Runarsdottir, E., Smith, E., & Arnarsson, A. (2019). The effects of gender and family wealth on sexual abuse of adolescents. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(10), 1788. https://​doi.org/​10.3390/​ije​rph1​ 6101​788 Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-​Pierre, M. (2006). “If it hurts you, then it is not a joke” Adolescents’ ideas about girls’ and boys’ use and experience of abusive behavior in dating relationships. Journal of interpersonal violence, 21(9), 1191–​1207. Shorey, R. C., Cohen, J. R., Lu, Y., Fite, P. J., Stuart, G. L., & Temple, J. R. (2017). Age of onset for physical and sexual teen dating violence perpetration: a longitudinal investigation. Preventive medicine, 105, 275–​279. Spencer, G. A., & Bryant, S. A. (2000). Dating violence: a comparison of rural, suburban, and urban teens. Journal of adolescent health, 27(5), 302–​305. Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Walker, K., & Price, S. A. (2017). “They’ll always find a way to get to you”: technology use in adolescent romantic relationships and its role in dating violence and abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence, 32(14), 2083–​2117. Taylor, B. G., & Mumford, E. A. (2016). A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 31(6), 963–​988. The Trevor Project. (2021a). Physical dating violence and suicide risk among LGBTQ youth. West Hollywood, California: The Trevor Project. Retrieved from www.thetr​evor​proj​ect.org/​resea​rch-​bri​efs/​physi​cal-​dat​ing-​viole​nce-​and-​suic​ ide-​risk-​among-​lgbtq-​youth/​ The Trevor Project. (2021b). 2021 national survey on LGBTQ youth mental health. West Hollywood, California: The Trevor Project www.thetr​evor​proj​ect.org/​sur​ vey-​2021/​?sect​ion=​Intro​duct​ion Thulin, E. J., Zimmerman, M. A., Kusunoki, Y., Kernsmith, P., Smith-​Darden, J., & Heinze, J. E. (2022). Electronic teen dating violence curves by age. Journal of youth and adolescence, 51(1), 45–​61. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: a review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(4), 633–​649.

110  Teen Dating Violence and Abuse Volpe, E. M., Morales-​Alemán, M. M., & Teitelman, A. M. (2014). Urban adolescent girls’ perspectives on romantic relationships: initiation, involvement, negotiation, and conflict. Issues in mental health nursing, 35(10), 776–​790. Whitton, S. W., Newcomb, M. E., Messinger, A. M., Byck, G., & Mustanski, B. (2016). A longitudinal study of IPV victimization among sexual minority youth. Journal of interpersonal violence, 34(5), 912–​945. Williamson, D. (2001) Research: third of U.S. adolescents suffer some form of dating violence. UNC News Services. Retrieved from www.eur​ekal​ert.org/​news-​ relea​ses/​813​445 Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Walsh, W., & Treitman, L. (2018). Sextortion of minors: characteristics and dynamics. Journal of adolescent health, 62(1), 72–​79. Youth.gov. (n.d.) Teen dating violence and gender. Retrieved from https://​youth. gov/​youth-​top​ics/​teen-​dat​ing-​viole​nce/​gen​der Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J. (2013). Technology, teen dating violence and abuse, and bullying. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

6 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse among Later-​Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities

Case History: Ann and “L.S.” Ann, a 59-​year-​old Midwestern woman, was jailed after investigations of multiple crimes against her disabled husband and another family member. Court documents showed that Ann neglected to care mentally and physically for “L.S.,” her husband of more than 5 years, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, Type 3 diabetes, and several other health conditions. Before Ann’s arrest, “L.S.” alleged that he had not left their home for a year and described his weight as falling from 164 to 129 pounds because of poor diet and hygiene due to Ann’s neglect. Court records also showed that Ann would not help her husband from his bed, forcing him to crawl along the wall to get to the bathroom. According to one emergency medical care report, technicians found “L.S.” at home, soaked in urine, suffering from severely low levels of blood sugar and comatose. Along with psychological abuse and neglect of care, Ann was also accused of misusing her husband’s monthly social security checks, a form of financial abuse. Detectives believed that Ann lived on her husband’s social security income and spent the money on illegal drugs, resulting in “L.S.” not receiving proper medical treatment. Ann pleaded guilty to abuse and neglect. According to some news reports, based on the charges in her plea deal, Ann could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison (KY3 Staff, 2022; Wert, 2021). “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse among Later-​ Life Adults The Scope of the Problem

“L.S.” ’s case history reminds us that many adults need or will likely require some level of care later in life. Sadly, some will be vulnerable to intimate partner violence/​abuse, if having to rely on a partner who misrepresents

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-6

112  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities evidence of IPVA as an age-​related mishap (e.g., attributing injuries from physical assault to a fall) or a symptom of natural decline (e.g., attributing evidence of neglect, malnutrition or the deliberate drugging of the victim to dementia) (Montgomery County Pennsylvania Health and Human Services, n.d.). And while physical IPVA may end or decrease as couples grow older, that aggression may be replaced by acts of psychological maltreatment. An abusive partner also may neglect an adult dependent’s fundamental needs (e.g., food, water, shelter, clothing, hygiene, and medical care), leave the victim alone without planning for their care or perpetrate financial abuse, an accusation attributed to “L.S’” wife, Ann. In fact, it is often the victim’s increasing frailty (Wijeratne and Reutens, 2016), accusations of caregiver exploitation, and investigations by adult protection agencies that mobilize intervention. Given these often-​secreted offenses, it is perhaps not surprising that incidents of IPVA among older couples are generally under-​ detected (Pillemer and Finkelhor, 1988) and, therefore, an underreported public health issue. In this section of Chapter 6, we “break apart” the risk factors and barriers to help-​seeking among later-​life victims of IPVA, along with protective strategies and resources associated with their survival. We begin with statistics depicting the prevalence of the problem. Prevalence

Despite decades of IPVA research, policymaking, and public awareness initiatives, the scope of couple violence/​abuse among later-​life adults is still unfolding. More apparent, however, is the ageist myth that all relationships among older intimates are mutually respective, harmonious, loving, and safe. Over 11% of adult protective services-​reported cases involve allegations in which the perpetrator was an elderly victim’s spouse (Teaster et al., 2006). In another study of nearly 6,000 later-​life adults averaging 71.5 years, 57% of respondents who perpetuated emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse identified as spouses or cohabiting partners (Acierno et al., 2010). Using data from the National Elder Mistreatment Study, Policastro and Finn (2017) more recently found that coercivelycontrolled older adults are more likely to experience physical abuse at age 60 or older. No research was found pertaining to the stalking of elderly adults by a former or current partner. Methodological discrepancies at least partially explain why studies on later-​life IPVA continue to be scarce compared to other investigations of IPVA. For one, there is little consensus on what age defines a partner as elderly. Research samples of elderly respondents generally involve individuals of at least age 50; however, they also may be identified as “midlife” adults in other studies (Weeks et al., 2021). But perhaps the most prominent critique is that although later-life victimization may be identified in

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  113 public health discourse on elder abuse by institutional staff/ caretakers (e.g., assisted living and medical personnel), abuse by an elderly partner is not operationalized within aspects of public health discourse, including those related to abuse by persons with whom there is an expectation of safety and trust (Crockett et al., 2015). IPVA Victimization among Later-​Life Men

We found no evidence identifying certain patterns of IPVA against later-​ life men aged 50 and older. In fact, what little is known about female-​ perpetrated IPVA against elderly men has been primarily –​almost incidentally –​uncovered through survey research on violence against women (Desmarais and Reeves, 2007). But what research has suggested is that spouses are the most likely offenders in elder abuse cases and that men and women are abused in roughly equal numbers. Comparable to IPVA estimates among teens and younger adults, the same study also found that women were more seriously harmed than men. Another elder abuse study found that 13.4% of males and 13.7% of females aged 60 were victimized by emotional mistreatment. Males and females were victims of physical abuse at 2.4% and 1.5%, respectively, and perpetrators were mostly spouses and other family members in both instances (Acierno et al., 2010). It is important to reemphasize that both men and women can be victims and perpetrators of violence/​ abuse, including IPVA. Notwithstanding, personal embarrassment, social stigma, and gendered norms endorsing stoicism and self-​reliance often dissuade older men from reporting violence/​abuse and seeking help (Melchoirre et al., 2016). Gender/​age-​specific anti-​battering services and other programs (e.g., support groups, shelter provisions) supportive of later-​life male partners within both majority and marginalized communities are important and overdue. IPVA Victimization among Later-​Life Women

Later-​life women experience IPVA at lower rates than that of women of reproductive age (Rennison and Rand, 2003), and general knowledge on abused later-​life women is far less comprehensive than that of their younger counterparts (Meyer et al., 2020). Nonetheless, available studies suggest that IPVA among later-​life women occurs more often than assumed, offering further evidence of women’s lifetime exposure to violence/​abuse. In a sample of 370 US women aged 65 and older, the prevalence for IPVA (i.e., physical violence, forced intercourse, forced sexual contact, verbal threats, controlling behaviors) in the past five years was 3.5%; the past-​ year IPVA prevalence rate among the same group had been 2.2% (Bonomi et al., 2007). In a large-​scale German study on physical and sexual violence

114  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities by the current partners of women aged 50 to 65 and women aged 66 to 86 years, the rate of IPVA was 12% and 5%, respectively (Stock et al., 2012). When further “breaking apart” IPVA among later-​life women, couple ­violence/​abuse appears to coexist in two interpersonal contexts. The first, late-​onset IPVA or IPVA beginning for the first time in later life either in a new or existing relationship, occurred among 2.3% of women aged 45 or older women in a CDC study (Breiding et al., 2014). The second and arguably most common situation among older abused women is one characterized as domestic violence “grown old” or having experienced IPVA throughout a relationship that then carries into later life (Harris, 1996). Having been shaped by the generational expectations and traditional gender roles of their time, later-​life women are susceptible to IPVA in ways different from their younger counterparts. A victim’s dependency on her abuser is a key example. A later-​life woman may come from a generation where women were less likely to participate in the labor force, resulting in fewer skills and material assets for financial autonomy (Durham University, 2015). And although an older woman in an opposite-​sex marriage may have seen shifts in codes of marital conduct over her lifetime (e.g., wifely subservience, privacy in family matters, the use of violence to maintain household order), it should not be presumed that these changes are internalized in her home and family life. Also, concerns over how leaving the abuser might endanger ties with adult children and grandchildren may be considerable, especially if the victim is the caretaker of the grandchildren and the partner is perceived to be abusive (Crockett et al., 2015; Leisey et al., 2009). Intertwining with any of these experiences may be the belief that she is too old to leave, or thoughts repeatedly told to her by her abuser. She may blame herself for not being a good wife, for example, or for expecting “too much” from her partner (Beaulaurier et al., 2006). But among the most troubling of situations is that older victims could be living with IPVA for decades without ever defining their maltreatment as abuse (Crockett et al., 2015). Barriers to Help-​seeking

Older victims tend not to seek help or disclose their experiences with violence/​abuse. In one European study, victims aged 61 and older experienced abuse for twice as long on average before seeking help compared to victims 60 years and younger; additionally, nearly half had a disability. The same study found that older victims were less likely to try to leave their perpetrators (68%) the year before attaining services than victims 60 years and younger (27%) (Safe Lives UK, 2016).

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  115 It is important to emphasize a victim’s lack of autonomy and its role in some of these findings. A later-​life person may be dependent on the abuser for food, housing, clothing, and health care and may fear what the abuser will do if violence/​abuse is reported (e.g., placed in an institutional setting, threatened with more violence/​abuse). They may also be apprehensive that law enforcement or social service agencies can help them (Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, 2019). A history of bouts with discrimination due to sexual orientation also might hinder a victim’s outreach, a challenge for many professionals serving abused elderly sexual minority populations. While aware of social reforms regarding same-​ sex marriage and gay-​ straight alliances, many younger support specialists note fear and secrecy among many of their older abused LGBT clients. Aging/​LGBT support alliances explain that older LGBT victims may have been exposed to trauma and homophobia as young adults (e.g., social isolation, non-​consensual mental health institutionalization, loss of children, arrests, firings, incidents of violence) to the degree that, as elderly victims, they forego the risk of being mistreated in care settings and cope with their pain and injuries themselves (National Resource Center on LGBT Aging, n.d.). “Breaking Apart” the Risk Factors and Protective Resources Regarding Abused Later-​Life Partners Risk Factors Regarding Abused Later-​Life Partners Gender, Race/​Ethnicity, and Age

Key demographic risk factors emerged in Gerino and colleagues’ (2018) review of the literature on elderly couples and IPVA. Based on their findings, gender was the most studied IPVA risk factor of all publications surveyed, the majority of which focused on IPVA’s relevance in the lives of older women and generally from a feminist theoretical perspective. At least one publication was said to highlight the absence of research on female-​on-​ male couple violence/​abuse. Apart from gender, membership in an ethnic group and immigration-​ related stress appeared to be a predisposing factor and a significant predictive variable in late-​life women’s exposure to IPVA. These outcomes were also facilitated by strong patriarchal values. Additionally, age, especially specific phases of later life, seemed related to exposure to couple violence/​ abuse. Younger segments of later-​life adults (aged 55–​69 years) showed a higher risk of IPVA; older later-​life adults (over 69 years) appeared less at risk due to life course factors like the abuser’s death or having ended the abusive relationship through divorce or separation.

116  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities Education and SES

The same literature review uncovered competing research on the roles of other socio-​demographic factors in later-​life IPVA. While victims’ unemployment, low income, and a low level of education appeared to present a risk for IPVA, alternate findings also suggested that high levels of education may not necessarily be a protective factor for some later-​life women, even if correlated with victims’ self-​awareness about protective services. At the same time, no associations appeared between low income, education, and IPVA in other research when adjusting for social support and supportive living arrangements. For these researchers, the most relevant risk factor for later-​life IPVA victimization is victim isolation and having a decreased level of family support (Gerino et al., 2018). Non-​Demographic Risk Factors

The state of older partners’ health can present risks for later-​life IPVA. A high correlation is cited between late-​life couple IPVA and age-​related physical and cognitive (e.g., Alzheimer’s, neurological, psychiatric diseases) impairment, which might be interpreted both as IPVA impacting mental and physical health and as mental and physical health impacting IPVA. Substance-​related risks (particularly alcohol use), strain arising from caregiving roles as well as an intergenerational transmission of violence and trauma also have the potential to heighten conditions for later-​life IPVA. The review’s authors, in fact, emphasize that having experienced trauma during early life may predict violent perpetration and victimization during later life. But despite these findings, untangling precisely how certain factors may predispose an individual to the risk of later-life IPVA remains challenging, given the close, intersectional nature of those risk factors. (Gerino et al., 2018). In the following section of this chapter, we explore the protective roles of IPVA-​related service agencies, helping professionals, and community-​ based resources and their collaborative efforts in addressing the needs and recovery of later-​life survivors of IPVA. Protective Resources for Later-​Life Survivors of IPVA Individualized Safety Plans

We have consistently stressed the importance of survivors identifying someone reliable and trustworthy when gathering emergency belongings or negotiating the safest way to leave and where to go. To assist, Appendix I provides a general template from which to create a safety plan directly related to a victim’s needs. But there may be additional elements to keep in mind when conducting elder-​specific IPVA safety planning. For example,

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  117 older adults may have enlisted additional care providers like legal guardians who, depending on their relationship, may be resourceful in helping with medical, financial, safety housing, home maintenance, legal services, and other decisions that might reduce the victim’s dependency on the abuser (Conti et al., 2016; Senior Rights Victoria, 2013). Further, planning may require not only flexibility but also understanding and patience. Many older survivors fear being separated from familiar systems of support or having to leave their homes (Senior Rights Victoria, 2013). Identifying survivors’ signs of distress, listening to their concerns, being sensitive to any feelings of guilt, embarrassment, and uncertainty and familiarizing survivors on how to safely use emergent technologies (e.g., GPS-​related devices, cellphone usage, pre-​programming 911 into cellphone contacts) play an important role in any survivor’s acceptance of measures to improve their safety. In one study, a respondent complained that she was not taken seriously when disclosing her physical health issues and that leaving her abusive husband would also mean moving into a ground floor facility where she did not feel safe (Safe Lives UK, 2016). Concerns like these are compounded when balancing one’s self-​care and the care of others. If parenting grandchildren and the need for shelter becomes imminent, learning beforehand if children other than birth children are allowed or if the shelter accommodates persons with medical needs may help to address survivors’ fears. Clinical-​Based Interventions

Physicians and other health care providers have a unique opportunity to screen all patients for domestic violence/​abuse. Nonetheless, self-​reported rates of screening for domestic violence by a health care professional are low (Klap et al., 2007) and later-​life adult IPVA screenings in healthcare settings appear even less common. A study found that over 60% of clinicians never asked their older adult patients about abuse (Kennedy, 2005). Further complicating progress is that the US Preventive Services Task Force reports no reliable screening instruments in most primary care settings from which to identify abuse among older or vulnerable adults with no recognizable signs of mistreatment (Curry, 2018). Researchers caution health providers not to assume that lower rates of physical violence among older adults compared to younger adults translates into lower victimization rates (Dunlop et al., 2005). Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy

A victim of violence/​abuse may benefit from services provided by community-​ based domestic violence and sexual assault programs, including crisis lines, emergency shelter, transitional housing, support groups, peer support, and

118  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities legal and economic advocacy. If servicing later-​life IPVA survivors, additional strategic planning may be in order. In Brandl’s (2016) guidance for advocates and community-​based supportive services, who work with older victims of violence/​abuse, she recommends an intervention model that is specialized in helping them build upon their apparent strengths and resiliency. Among the framing principles and practical strategies endorsed, Brandl advises that service providers support older survivors’ autonomy; develop a survivor-​ informed plan of advocacy (e.g., organize a population-​ based advisory group); address survivors’ trauma (including historical trauma); create an equitable, welcoming service environment (e.g., offer hair products, toiletries, food, and clothing that could meet the needs of female and male older victims from various racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds); implement shelter activities and spaces tailored to older victims’ abilities (e.g., amend shelter programming and chore schedules, when necessary; resolve in-​setting mobility issues, especially for survivors with assistive devices like a wheelchair or walker) and disseminate outreach materials depicting older adults, including the incidence of abuse across the lifespan. Also critical, collaborations between allied organizations (e.g., adult protective/​aging networks; sexual, domestic violence and emergency victim services, community-​based support agencies, law enforcement and court entities, faith-​based organizations with domestic violence training) are recommended to help service providers improve their responses to older survivors’ needs. In the final section, we examine factors associated with the presence and protection of persons with disabilities, who are abused by an intimate partner. “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Persons with Disabilities Scope of the Problem

The National Crime Victimization Survey categorizes disabilities into six forms of impairments: hearing (e.g., deafness or serious difficulty hearing); vision (e.g. blindness or serious difficulty seeing); cognitive (e.g., serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition); ambulatory (e.g., difficulty walking or climbing stairs); self-​care (e.g., a condition that causes difficulty dressing or bathing); and independent living (e.g., a physical, mental and/​or emotional condition that impedes running errands alone) (Harrell, 2017). When “breaking apart” how disabilities are identified, we better recognize that populations with limited activity due to physical, mental, or emotional problems represent a diverse community of people, challenges,

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  119 and experiences. But what of individuals who navigate both disabilities and IPVA? How might care or safety be compromised for persons whose intimate partners are also their primary caretakers and abusers? In what ways might different disabilities facilitate different risks of IPVA victimization? And what are the disability and IPVA-​related resources needed for survivors’ health and safety? In this final section of this chapter, we examine the complex circumstances of persons with a disability who suffer violence/​abuse at the hands of an intimate partner. “Breaking Apart” Prevalence

A nationally representative study by Breiding and Armour (2015) offers an empirical vantage point on the kinds of IPVA affecting men and women with disabilities. Among IPVA rates of prevalence for men with disabilities, 2.5% reported sexual violence other than rape; 4.7%, physical violence; 0.5%, stalking and 18.1% psychological aggression. Too few men reported rape by an intimate for researchers to produce a reliable estimate. Among women with disabilities, 0.6% reported instances of rape; 2.3%, sexual violence other than rape; 4.0%, physical violence; 2.8%, stalking and 13.9%, psychological aggression by an intimate and at significantly higher rates than women without a disability after controlling for age, family income, race or ethnicity, and education. The average age of respondents with and without disabilities was 53.1 and 43.7 years, respectively. The average age of adults experiencing any form of IPVA the year before the survey was 38.0 years compared with 47.4 years for those who did not. IPVA Victimization among Men with Disabilities

Men with disabilities might be exposed to IPVA in more critical proportions than perhaps presumed. In a regional study based on client profile data from a large urban city, over 66% of men at a disability-​identified nonresidential IPVA program were abused by an intimate partner. Physical abuse was the most serious type of victimization in almost 72% of cases; nearly 41% had previous contact with medical providers due to abuse (Ballan et al., 2017). For the men in Breiding and Armour’s (2015) larger representative sample, having a disability was associated with a greater risk for experiencing stalking and psychological aggression by an intimate partner. IPVA Victimization among Women with Disabilities

As indicated, research challenges the assumption that having a disability might somehow be a protective factor for women in intimate relationships.

120  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities Compared to women without a disability, women with a disability are significantly more likely to report multiple types of IPVA, including rape and other forms of sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, psychological aggression, and control of reproductive or sexual health (Breiding and Armour, 2015). Women with physical disabilities also have been shown to experience physical or sexual violence for significantly longer durations (3.9 years) than their physically able-bodied counterparts (2.5 years) (Young et al. 1997). Barriers to Help-​seeking

Men and women with disabilities face potential barriers when negotiating whether they can leave an abusive relationship. For men, the cultural belief that all men should be able to physically “take care of themselves” fuels the misconception that they also should be invulnerable to IPVA or sexual victimization. If abused and disabled, myths like these are likely to compromise help-​seeking and may explain why many disabled men fear being doubted and are reluctant to disclose certain forms of victimization. If open to outreach, gaps in social service provisions can lead to missed opportunities for male IPVA victims with disabilities. Victim services and intervention efforts promote or appear more welcoming to women who are younger, childbearing or with children, a factor discussed earlier. Further, many shelters may not be equipped to support men (or women) with disabilities. Also problematic for men, research on disabilities and an increased risk for victimization are more representative of problems regarding disabled women. An oversampling of persons with a disability has been recommended for future research to produce a sample size sufficient to examine the relative risk of specific disability factors and types (Basile et al., 2016). For disabled women, socio-​economic inequities can hinder the autonomy needed to better facilitate leaving an abusive situation. The U.S. Office of Disability Employment Policy (n.d.) reports that women with disabilities are significantly more impoverished than men with disabilities, more likely to be unemployed and, if employed, more likely to receive considerably lower wages than men. Also relevant, having a disability and participating in the labor force can affect women’s roles as caregivers to family members, who also may be elderly as well as disabled. Abusive Tactics against Persons with Disabilities

Abused intimates with disabilities may be confronted with controlling tactics that essentially weaponize their physical, emotional, or cognitive challenges against them. If deaf, for example, an abuser may provoke

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  121 shame and intimidation by exploiting the partner’s insecurities over their language skills, speak inappropriately about the deaf community, or sign in an exaggerated manner or close to the partner’s face (Domestic Abuse & Sexual Assault Crisis Center, n.d.). Blind or low vision IPVA victims are at a particular disadvantage, if needing to physically defend themselves from harm. A perpetrator may also try to downplay of victim’s call for outreach, if their disability involves problems with communicating (Roeseler and Kubel, 2013). Other tactics used to punish or force a partner’s compliance may involve medical abuse or the improper use of pharmaceuticals (e.g., sedatives); disabling essential assistive devices (e.g., hearing aids, glasses, wheelchairs, TTY phones, chair lifts, motorized chairs wheelchair, walkers); or threatening to abandon or harm a service or therapy animal. Given these circumstances, it is unsurprising that many IPVA victims with disabilities face increased risks for exploitation and physical, sexual, and psychological abuse which, without intervention, could occur for a prolonged period. (Crowe, 2017; Curry and Navarro, 2002). Risk Factors and Protective Resources for Abused Partners with Disabilities Risk Factors Regarding Abused Partners with Disabilities SES and Dependency

Several factors can increase the risk for IPVA among people with disabilities. Among the key individual and demographic factors is having a lower socioeconomic and educational status and increased physical, emotional, and economic dependencies as a result of having a disability (Hahn et al., 2014). Conceivably, any combination of these risk factors might prolong remaining in an abusive situation. If both poor and disabled, for example, leaving the abusive relationship could also mean ending ongoing financial as well as physical support, including help with eating, being transferred from bed to wheelchair, and assistance with pharmaceuticals or essential orthotic equipment. Alternate caretakers may be too costly or limited given the kinds of disability involved. Social Isolation

Social isolation presents another risk for abused partners with disabilities. A victim may be confined to a controlling environment, which can greatly contribute to feelings of powerlessness over the situation (Davis 2011). The experience may weigh even heavier for victims who already feel socially excluded due to stigma aligned with their form of disability. Also

122  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities unfortunate, social isolation makes it more difficult for family or friends to recognize signs of abuse/​violence. Moreover, having a smaller support network than persons without a disability may translate into fewer people to confide in when help is needed (Dockerty et al., 2015). Disability Type

There is evidence that certain forms of disabilities are associated with a greater risk for specific forms of maltreatment. Persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence (Sobsby, 1994). A recent study explains that some perpetrators may seek out women with physical and cognitive impairments, assuming they can be easily overpowered physically and manipulated emotionally (Kirkner et al., 2020). Protective Resources for IPVA Survivors with Disabilities Individualized Safety Plans

For survivors with disabilities, safety planning begins with discussing any barriers they may encounter based on their abilities. For example, how might the abuser use the individual’s physical or cognitive challenges to thwart their efforts leave the abusive relationship? What accommodations/​ assistive devices must be readily portable or otherwise accessible, if living at home becomes too dangerous? What adaptations to the home might facilitate a safer or easier escape? Is there a “safe space” in the home, where the victim can go, if harm appears imminent? Meanwhile, devising a code or signal with a trusted individual is warranted in any planning scenario, but especially if the perpetrator is in a position to misrepresent the situation (Hoog, 2010; Roeseler and Kubel, 2013). Clinical-​Based Interventions

Regular screening among people with disabilities may lead to early recognition of IPVA. However, only 15% of women with a disability have had a medical professional inquire about their exposure to IPVA (Powers et al., 2002). No data was found regarding disabled men and IPVA screening. Mutual communication is an important beginning for any healthy patient-​provider relationship; however, achieving this may require some innovation in cases of abused persons with a disability. Care and communication may require alternate forms of professional interaction, including the use of written notes, sign language, and interpreters. Advocates caution against the common misconception that persons with developmental or

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  123 intellectual disabilities either fail to comprehend their trauma or lack the ability to constructively react, a belief that might discourage referrals to other supportive services (Breiding and Armour, 2015; Curry and Navarro, 2002). Community-​Based Supportive Services and Advocacy

Survivors with severe disabling conditions, younger people with developmental disabilities as well as later-​life survivors may not be routinely informed of rights they have by law nor the services available to them through community-​ based service providers (e.g., relocation assistance and emergency replacement caregiver services) (Guidry-​ Tyiska, 1998). One of the most effective ways to assist IPVA with disabilities is to make resources more available and inclusive. Shelters, social service agencies, and healthcare settings are therefore encouraged to develop a referral list of organizations and professionals (e.g., counselors, legal advisors, translation services, disability services, etc.), who specialize in the intersection of domestic violence and disability (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2018). When engaging with domestic violence and related services, disabled persons are expected by law to be admitted to helping facilities that are architecturally and managerially compliant to their health challenges. The American Disabilities Act of 1990 mandates that spaces accommodating the public must also be accessible to persons with disabilities, if those accommodations are within reason. One example of reasonable accommodation might be for a director of a shelter with a no-​pet policy to alter protocol and admit a low vision survivor with a service animal. Federally regulated structural examples of ADA compliance include barrier-​ free access to sleeping quarters and common areas, the implementation of visual and auditory alarm systems for individual with sight or auditory challenges, and the use of interpreters and telephone devices (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.). Chapter Summary This chapter focuses on the unique vulnerabilities of later-​ life persons and persons with disabilities suffering from intimate partner violence and abuse. Of concern are victims’ possible reliance on their perpetrators, who may weaponize their partner’s physical, emotional, and cognitive health challenges by either mischaracterizing otherwise common signs of violence/​ abuse, provoking shame and intimidation over victim’s health insecurities, or forcing the partner’s compliance by withholding needed pharmaceuticals and assistive devices. Along with risk and protective factors often

124  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities associated with abused later-​life partners and partners with disabilities, this chapter ends with individual, clinical, and community-​based resources and protocols designed for the help-​seeking of both groups. Recommended Resources Brossoie, N., Roberto, K. A., & Barrow, K. M. (2012). Making sense of intimate partner violence in late life: Comments from online news readers. The gerontologist, 52(6), 792–​801. Perilla, T. & Larsen, T. (2020.) Intimate partner violence & people with disabilities fact sheet. Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities National Training Center. Retrieved from www.mhd​dcen​ter.org/​wp-​ cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​10/​Intim​ate-​Part​ner-​Viole​nce-​Peo​ple-​with-​Disab​ ilit​ies.pdf Discussion Questions Describe the various abusive tactics used against IPVA victims with disabilities. Explain the difference between “late-​onset” IPVA and domestic violence “grown old” among later-​life couples. References Acierno, R., Hernandez, M. A., Amstadter, A. B., Resnick, H. S., Steve, K., Muzzy, W., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2010). Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential neglect in the United States: the National Elder Mistreatment Study. American journal of public health, 100(2), 292–​297. Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and Community Legal Education Ontario. (2019). Elder abuse: The hidden crime. Retrieved from www.cleo.on.ca/​sites/​defa​ult/​ files/​book_​p​dfs/​elde​rab.pdf Ballan, M. S., Freyer, M. B., & Powledge, L. (2017). Intimate partner violence among men with disabilities: the role of health care providers. American journal of men’s health, 11(5), 1436–​1443. Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., & Smith, S. G. (2016). Disability and Risk of Recent Sexual Violence in the United States. American journal of public health, 106(5), 928–​933. Beaulaurier, R. L., Seff, L. R., Newman, F. L., & Dunlop, B. (2006). Internal barriers to help-​ seeking for middle-​ aged and older women who experience intimate partner violence. Journal of elder abuse & neglect, 17(3), 53–​74. Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., Reid, R. J., Carrell, D., Fishman, P. A., Rivara, F. P., & Thompson, R. S. (2007). Intimate partner violence in older women. The gerontologist, 47(1), 34–​41.

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  125 Brandl, B. (2016). Working with older survivors of abuse: a framework for advocates. National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life. Retrieved from www. ace​sdv.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2014/​06/​Work​ing-​with-​Older-​Surviv​ors-​of-​ Abuse.pdf Breiding, M. J. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—​ National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries, 63(8), 1. Breiding, M. J., & Armour, B. S. (2015). The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States. Annals of epidemiology, 25(6), 455–​457. Conti, E. C., Raspier, B., Uriarte, J., Kraus-​Schuman, C., & Batiste, M. (2016). Collaborative safety planning for older adults. South Central MIRECC and Baylor College of Medicine. Retrieved from www.mir​ecc.va.gov/​VIS​N16/​docs/​ Safe​ty_​P​lann​ing_​for_​Old er_​Adults_​Manual.pdf Crockett, C., Brandl, B., & Dabby, F. C. (2015). Survivors in the margins: the invisibility of violence against older women. Journal of elder abuse & neglect, 27(4–​5), 291–​302. Crowe, T. (2017). Breaking the silence: empowering deaf and hard of hearing survivors of domestic violence. In: Johnson, A., Nelson, J., Lund, E. (eds) Religion, disability, and interpersonal violence (pp. 131–​148). Cham, UK: Springer. Curry, M. A., & Navarro, F. (2002). Responding to abuse against women with disabilities: Broadening the definition of domestic violence. Health alert, 8(1), 1–​ 5. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Retrieved from: http://​ endab​use.org/​progr​ams/​hea​lthc​are/​files/​HA_​9_​1.pdf Curry, S. J. (2018). Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: US preventive services task force final recommendation statement. Journal of American medical association, 320(16), 1678–​1687. Davis, L. (2011) People with intellectual disability and sexual violence the arc. Retrieved from www.the​arc.org/​page.aspx?pid=​2457 Dockerty, C., Varney, J., & Jay-​Webster, R. (2015). Disability and domestic abuse. Risks, impacts and response. Public health England. Retrieved from https://​ass​ ets.pub​lish​ing.serv​ice.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​uplo​ads/​sys​tem/​uplo​ads/​atta​chme​nt_​d​ ata/​file/​480​942/​Disability_​and_​domestic​_​abu​se_​t​opic​_​ove​rvie​w_​FI​NAL.pdf Desmarais, S. L., & Reeves, K. A. (2007). Gray, black, and blue: the state of research and intervention for intimate partner abuse among elders. Behavioral sciences & the law, 25(3), 377–​392. Domestic Abuse & Sexual Assault Crisis Center. (n.d.). Resources for deaf, deaf-​ blind, and hard of hearing survivors. Retrieved from www.das​acc.org/​deaf-​ deafbl​ind-​or-​hard-​of-​hear​ing Dunlop, B. D., Beaulaurier, R. L., Seff, L., Newman, et al. (2005). Domestic violence against older women: final technical report. Miami, FL: Center on Aging of Florida International University. Durham University. (2015). Domestic violence ‘grown old’: the unseen victims of prolonged abuse. Durham University news: Comment and opinion. Retrieved from www.dur.ac.uk/​news/​alln​ews/​though​tlea​ders​hip/​?ite​mno=​25072

126  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities Gerino, E., Caldarera, A. M., Curti, L., Brustia, P., & Rollè, L. (2018). Intimate partner violence in the golden age: systematic review of risk and protective factors. Frontiers in psychology, 9(1595), 1–​14. Guidry-​ Tyiska, C. (1998). Working with victims of crime with disabilities. Washington: DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime. Hahn, J. W., McCormick, M. C., Silverman, J. G., Robinson, E. B., & Koenen, K. C. (2014). Examining the impact of disability status on intimate partner violence victimization in a population sample. Journal of interpersonal violence, 29(17), 3063–​3085. Harrell, E. (2017). Crime against persons with disabilities, 2009–​2015—​Statistical tables. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://​bjs.ojp.gov/​cont​ent/​pub/​pdf/​cap​d091​5st. pdf#page=​4 Harris, S. B. (1996). For better or for worse: spouse abuse grown old. Journal of elder abuse & neglect, 8(1), 1–​33. Hoog, C. (2010). Model protocol on safety planning for domestic violence victims with disabilities. Washington state coalition against domestic violence. Retrieved from https://​the​arc.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​forc​hapt​ers/​Protocol​_​dis​abil​ity_​safe​ ty_​p​lann​ing-​rev-​2010.pdf Kennedy R. D. (2005). Elder abuse and neglect: the experience, knowledge, and attitudes of primary care physicians. Family medicine, 37(7), 481–​485. Klap, R., Tang, L., Wells, K., Starks, S. L., & Rodriguez, M. (2007). Screening for domestic violence among adult women in the United States. Journal of general internal medicine, 22(5), 579–​584. Kirkner, A., Plummer, S. B., Findley, P. A., & McMahon, S. (2020). Campus sexual violence victims with disabilities: disclosure and help-​seeking. Journal of interpersonal violence. Retrieved from https://​pub​med.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​ 33103​557/​ KY3 Staff. (2022 February 20) Forsyth woman pleads guilty in abuse and neglect case involving husband and daughter; 13 charges dropped. KY3 Grey Media Group, Inc. Station. Retrieved from www.ky3.com/​2022/​02/​20/​fors​yth-​woman-​ ple​ads-​gui​lty-​abuse-​negl​ect-​case-​involv​ing-​husb​and-​daugh​ter-​13-​char​ges-​drop​ ped/​?mscl​kid=​ab195​3d9b​1691​1eca​7d53​ebfa​8ac4​d35 Leisey, M., Kupstas, P. K., & Cooper, A. (2009). Domestic violence in the second half of life. Journal of elder abuse & neglect, 21(2), 141–​155. Melchiorre, M. G., Di Rosa, M., Lamura, G., et al. (2016). Abuse of older men in seven European countries: a multilevel approach in the framework of an ecological model. PLoS One, 11(1), e0146425. Meyer, S. R., Lasater, M. E., & García-​Moreno, C. (2020). Violence against older women: a systematic review of qualitative literature. PLoS One, 15(9), e0239560. Montgomery County Pennsylvania Health and Human Services. (n.d.) Older Adult protective Services. Retrieved from https://​lejis.montc​opa.org/​2830/​Older-​Adult-​ Pro​tect​ive-​Servi​ces

IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities  127 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2018). Domestic violence and people withdisabilities: What to know, why it matters, and how to help. Retrieved from https://​ncadv.org/​ National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). Abuse in disability communities. Retrieved from www.the​hotl​ine.org/​resour​ces/​abuse-​in-​dis​abil​ity-​comm​ unit​ies/​ National Resource Center on LGBT Aging. (n.d.) Identifying and assisting LGBT elder abuse clients. Retrieved from www.lgbt​agin​gcen​ter.org/​resour​ces/​pdfs/​ assisti​ng_​l​gbt_​elde​r_​ab​use_​clie​nts.pdf Pillemer, K., & Finkelhor, D. (1988). The prevalence of elder abuse: a random sample survey. The gerontologist, 28(1), 51–​57. Policastro, C., & Finn, M. A. (2017). Coercive control and physical violence in older adults: analysis using data from the National Elder Mistreatment Study. Journal of interpersonal violence, 32(3), 311–​330. Powers, L., Curry, M., Oschwald, M., Saxton, M, Eckels, K. (2002). Barriers and strategies in addressing abuse: a survey of disabled women’s experiences. Journal of rehabilitation, 68(1):4–​13. Rennison, C., & Rand, M. R. (2003). Nonlethal intimate partner violence against women: a comparison of three age cohorts. Violence against women, 9(12), 1417–​1428. Roeseler, S. & Kubel, B. (2013). Assisting survivors of interpersonal violence and sexual assault who are blind or have low vision [PowerPoint slides]. Society for the Blind, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from www.enda​buse​pwd.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​ uplo​ads/​2021/​02/​FINAL-​Serv​ing-​Blind-​Surviv​ors-​PPT.pdf Safe Lives UK. (2016). Older people and domestic abuse. Spotlights report: hidden victims. Safe Lives/​Ending Abuse. UK: London. Senior Rights Victoria. (2013). Safety planning with older people. Retrieved from www.eapu.com.au/​ u plo​a ds/​EAP​ U_​ g e​n era​ l_​ re​sour ​ces/​VIC- ​Saf​ety- ​Plann ​ ing-​ With-​Older-​Peo​ple-​SRV.pdf Sobsey, D. (1994). Sexual abuse of individuals with intellectual disability. In A. Craft (Ed.), Practice issues in sexuality and learning disabilities (pp. 93–​115). New York, NY: Routledge. Stöckl, H., Watts, C., & Penhale, B. (2012). Intimate partner violence against older women in Germany: prevalence and associated factors. Journal of interpersonal violence, 27(13), 2545–​2564. Teaster, P. B., Dugar, T., Mendiondo, M., Abner, E., Cecil, K. & Otto, J. (2006). The 2004 survey of state adult protective services: abuse of adults 60 years of age and older. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse. U.S. Office of Disability Employment Policy. (n.d.) Women’s disability employment policy. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/​agenc​ies/​odep/​ prog​ram-​areas/​indi​vidu​als/​Women Weeks, L. E., Stilwell, C., Gagnon, D., Dupuis-​ Blanchard, S., et al. (2021). Initiatives to support older women who experience intimate partner violence. Violence against women, 27(15–​16), 3011–​3029.

128  IPVA among Later-Life Adults and Persons with Disabilities Wert, J. (2021 September 12), Woman accused of abusing husband, daughter. Branson TriLakes news. Retrieved from www.bran​sont​rila​kesn​ews.com/​news/​ local/​artic​le_​e​5960​2ca-​125c-​11ec-​b52f-​fb124​c660​ee8.html?mscl​kid=​ab18e​ 56ab​1691​1eca​8b90​4b82​25c3​def Wijeratne, C., & Reutens, S. (2016). When an elder is the abuser. The medical journal of Australia, 205(6), 246–​247. Young, M. E., Nosek, M. A., Howland, C., Chanpong, G., & Rintala, D. H. (1997). Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 78(12), S34–​S38.

7 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse against Women in Cultural Contexts

Case History: Jessica and Demarrio Jessica, a single mom, had resided in a small, sleepy town in rural, Western Tennessee. The rural community borders the Kentucky state line and is approximately 60 miles west of Clarksville, TN, the closest metropolitan area. Jennifer had a 3-​year-​old son, Isaiah, and was in an “on-​and off-​ again” relationship with her son’s father, Demarrio. The pair were never married but, at times, the three resided together at Jessica’s residence. As with other small towns, everyone in Jessica and Demarrio’s community seems to know each other, and private matters seldom remain private for long. Jessica and Demarrio had a contentious past and were known to many. There were multiple police-​involved incidents, and some included deadly weapons and mutual violence by both partners. However, there seemed to be a general reluctance among formal agencies to intervene and offer services or guidance. Friends and family, who knew the two were “toxic” together, encouraged each to “walk away” before incidents became too heated. Toward the end of the relationship, Demarrio was living with his mother in another small, rural town about 20 minutes away. Jessica had finally decided to end the relationship with Demarrio and focus on Isaiah and her own happiness. A massive final argument occurred between Isaiah and Jessica over vacation planning. Two days later, Jessica was shot and killed in her home, the victim of multiple gunshot wounds. Demarrio, the shooter, was found dead nearby from a self-​inflicted gunshot wound. Tragically, young Isaiah was in the house when the incident occurred but was miraculously unharmed; Jessica’s sister gained custody of Isaiah following the incident. Both sisters had watched their mother suffer as a victim of domestic violence, and at times thought the relationship dynamics were “okay” and ultimately not that dangerous.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-7

130  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts While undeniably a tragic occurrence, it was Jessica’s experience that convinced her sister to safely escape her own marriage, which also was marred by violence and danger. At the same time, the tragedy remains: young Isaiah must grow up without either parent while dealing with the post-​ traumatic stress of witnessing their deaths in a rural area with likely limited supportive services (Darrough, 2020). Jessica’s turbulent history with Demarrio had been known by many in the context of their small rural Tennessee community. Why, then, the apparent resistance to try to intervene? How might hope or survival be compromised for any rural woman victimized by intimate partner violence/​abuse, in fact, if she lives 50 miles from the next city with public transportation or reliable access to Internet or phone service? Also, what about immigrant women or women who are part of refugee communities (IMR), who daily navigate their cultural displacement and often in ways unknown to the host communities surrounding them. To whom do they turn, if they can barely read, write, or speak English while being terrorized by a violent spouse, who threatens deportation or more abuse if they disclose their experiences to friends or law enforcement? And how might an abused woman of faith’s perspectives on inexhaustible forgiveness, reward in the afterlife, or wifely submission contour her conception of suffering and how to confront it? Each scenario highlights concerns about the influence of cultural context and its potential to compound the complexity of surviving IPVA. In this chapter, we “break apart” research on how rurality, non-​national status, and religion might forge a qualitatively different set of complications for women abused by an intimate partner. Individual, clinical, and other supportive resources designed to protect abused rural, immigrant and refugee women, and faith-​based women also are discussed, along with institutional policies and strategies intended to meet each group where they culturally are. We begin the discussion on rural women and IPVA by addressing the fundamental question: What is ‘rural’? “Breaking Apart” IPVA Victimization of Women in Rural Cultures Scope of the Problem

The US Census Bureau classifies rural as open country and settlements with fewer than 2,500 residents. Rural regions can be generally described as sparsely populated, consisting of mostly low-​density housing and distant from urban areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Developing a sustainable workforce and employment opportunities has been a challenge for US rural communities. Aside from a population that is growing older, many

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  131 rural counties also show lower levels of educational attainment and higher proportions of persons with disabilities (Pender et al., 2019). It is estimated that 16.1% of all rural individuals live in poverty, a percentage well above the urban rate of 12.6% (Cromartie et al., 2020). Rural communities in the majority of Appalachian and Ozark territories embattle persistent poverty (Dobis et al., 2021). As you might already imagine, many rural women abused by an intimate are not only challenged with surviving violence/​abuse, but they also are encumbered by chronic impoverishment, scarce employment opportunities as well as geographic seclusion, a risk that greatly impacts the resources available to them. Moreover, rural women in the United States have been considered among the hidden victims of IPVA, as most academic domestic violence research has been more tightly focused on IPVA in urban regions. “Breaking Apart” Prevalence

Rural women appear to experience at least as much if not higher rates of IPVA when compared to non-​rural women. In a CDC study, 26.7% of rural women and 15.5% of rural men reported some form of lifetime IPVA victimization and at rates similar to the prevalence found among women and men in non-​rural areas (Breiding et al., 2009). In contrast, the same study also found that those living in rural areas in several states had significantly higher lifetime IPVA prevalence than those in non-​rural areas. Peek-​Asa and colleagues’ (2011) study on rural disparities and domestic violence also found that women in small rural regions reported higher prevalence rates of IPVA than urban women (22.5% and 15.5%, respectively) and that women in rural, isolated regions reported a higher severity of physical IPVA. There is also some evidence that certain types of IPVA may be more common in rural regions than other areas. Based on Edward’s (2015) literature review, sexual IPVA is more prominent in rural contexts, a finding consistent with that of Logan and colleagues’ (2005) examination of urban and rural women with protective orders against an intimate. The rural women in that study also experienced more sexual and physical abuse as well as isolation-​related tactics (e.g., denying access to money, stopping the victim from seeing family/​friends) and threats by use of weapons. Edwards (2015) also found IPVA to be more chronic and severe for rural women than non-​rural women, facilitating the most impactful form of IPVA: intimate partner homicide (IPH). While IPH declined between 1980 and 1999, this was not the case in rural regions. In fact, living in a rural area has been shown to predict a low decline of IPH (Jennings and Piquero, 2008).

132  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts “Breaking Apart” Risk Factors and Protective Resources Regarding Abused Women in Rural Regions Risk Factors Regarding Abused Rural Women Gender

An abused rural woman’s decision to seek help may also be hindered by cultural traditions on gender and conduct that, in effect, can normalize her tolerance of relationship violence/​abuse (Jennings and Piquero, 2008). Patriarchal views on the traditional role of women, the permanence of marriage, and religious convictions have been reported as challenges when providing resources to rural areas (National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 2015). Rural primary care physicians have supported this view, some noting that “(t)hirty-​two percent of rural [primary care providers] perceived that cultural expectations common to rural communities tend to establish IPV as normative behavior, and that beliefs of female subservience persisted” (McCall-​Hosenfeld et al., 2014, p. 2682). SES and Education

Certain SES factors and the incidence of IPVA among rural women may be related. Research suggests that rural women who experience IPVA have less than a high school education (Logan et al., 2007; Websdale and Johnson, 1998), are less likely to report being employed (Logan et al., 2005; Logan et al., 2007), have a lower mean total yearly income (Logan et al., 2007; Websdale and Johnson, 1998), and are more likely to have children (Logan et al., 2005). The intertwining of any of these challenges might limit an abused rural woman’s protection from further victimization and increase the risk of their exposure to IPVA. In DeKeseredy and Rennison’s (2013) study, for example, abused women with less than a high school education were more likely to live in non-​suburban environments, including rural settings; victims with a four-​year degree or more were likely to live in an urban or suburban environment. Rural women experiencing IPVA also are likely to have a greater economic dependence on their partners and low levels of self-​esteem (McCall-​ Hosenfeld et al., 2014). A point that stands out in the context of these findings is that managing the stress of financial instability and few job opportunities can hinder women from leaving an abusive relationship (Logan et al., 2003) or make it difficult for them to become economically secure once they leave.

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  133 Family and Marital Histories

It is possible for a rural woman to be exposed to certain family or marital histories that might increase risk of IPVA. Researchers found that rural women who experience IPVA often were victimized during childhood (Logan et al., 2003), a factor often identified with the intergenerational transmission of relationship violence/​abuse. There is also evidence that rural women may have a history of marriage to a violent spouse (Logan et al., 2007; Websdale and Johnson, 1998). There are aspects inherent to rural life and landscape that may work against the needs of women experiencing IPVA. Below, we unravel how regional isolation can obstruct rural women’s access to and use of supportive services often accessible to women in larger metropolitan areas. Geographic Isolation as Risk

The closed environmental landscapes that make rural life appealing for many can worsen a woman’s experience with IPVA (Roush and Kurth, 2016; Sandberg, 2013). Consider, for example, that a rural woman and her family may live in a “hollow” (locally referred to as a “holler”), a secluded living area on an unpaved or dirt road, resulting in a long response time for law enforcement intervention. If needing to hide the abuse, some women deliberately seek residence in rural communities, where geographic and social isolation allow for easier concealment (Lanier and Maume, 2009; McCall-​Hosenfeld et al., 2014). But, overall, the psychological effect of working around these geographic limitations is often a profound sense of emotional distress, social separation, and feeling as if there are few alternatives. Worsening matters, commonplace resources such as transportation and Internet-​based technologies may be compromised due to location and may further hinder attempts to better the situation (Websdale, 1998). Isolation and Transportation Limitations

For rural women, the average travel time to the nearest IPVA resource is three times greater than for urban women (Peek-​Asa et al., 2011). And yet, the potential for help-​seeking may seem even more insurmountable, if a woman as no public or private transportation to those resources. Many women in closed rural areas may not have the financial ability to secure a car or their abuser may control the family’s transportation and communication channels to prevent them from leaving the relationship or finding assistance (National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 2015). Research by Lanier and Maume (2009) further underscores the

134  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts importance of available transportation in situations involving IPVA: Rural women who receive help from family and friends, specifically that of transportation, show a lower risk for IPVA. Isolation and Communication Technology Limitations

Access to communication technologies can also be a challenge for abused women in rural areas. Websdale’s (1998) study on rurality and IPVA in Kentucky found telephone subscription rates lower in rural communities. Since then, online communication has been viewed as a supportive resource for rural women’s surviving IPVA (Bhandari et al., 2013). But while Internet resources may prove beneficial for many, Dobis and colleagues (2021) more recently noted that rural areas are traditionally underserved by Internet providers and that only 72% of rural residents and only 63% of rural residents in persistent poverty report moderate-​to high-​speed Internet availability. Privacy Concerns in Rural Areas

Maintaining confidentiality in confined rural settings can be a significant concern for victims and an overlooked risk to safety. Living in a sparsely populated rural area can mean that personal anonymity may be compromised or, at least, believed to be. Law enforcement officers may be friends with a woman’s abuser and a social worker or nurse might be a church member (Sandberg, 2013). It is not surprising that some victims fear that their experiences with IPVA will become public knowledge, if reported to authorities (Logan et al., 2005). Increased Firearms

A common perception is that hunting is associated with rural living or that rural residents in isolated environments may choose firearms as a means of self-​defense. Perhaps less often considered is that the presence of a lethal weapon in the home can be a problem for women dealing with IPVA. In one study based on a sample of Kentucky women, more rural than urban women reported that their partners threatened them with a knife or gun (Logan et. al., 2005). “Breaking Apart” the Protective Resources for Abused Rural Women Survivors Individualized Safety Strategies

It may be that some rural women perceive judicially-related IPVA tools like protective orders as less helpful than their urban counterparts (Shannon

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  135 et al., 2006). To improve safety measures, it is advised that survivors share coded messages with trusted individuals when needing to signal danger as well as create a safe plan, a tool discussed and recommended throughout this volume. One notable evolution in safety planning is the growth of online safety planning tools (Neill and Hammatt, 2015), where individuals can privately gain access domestic violence help and information and platforms connecting them to advocates and service providers. However, for rural women with restricted Internet connectivity, these services may not always be as easy to obtain. Clinical-​Based Interventions

Routine IPVA screenings have been a goal for many stakeholders whose work involves IPVA. But given the relatively smaller number of primary care medical personnel in rural regions, IPVA screenings may not be routinely conducted. Also cited are issues surrounding medical professionals’ insufficient training, along with competing responsibilities, time constraints and worry that discussions about IPVA could compromise doctor–​patient relationships (McCall-​Hosenfeld et al., 2014). Despite these drawbacks, primary care practitioners are positioned to, at minimum, offer guidance on safety planning, be a sanctuary for women open to disclosing their experiences and/or provide referrals to/​follow-​ups from other clinicallybased services (McCall-​Hosenfeld et al., 2014). Supportive and Community-​Based Services

Community-​based intervention formed around needs and resources specific to a rural community has a greater likelihood of generating programs, policies, and efforts supportive of that population (Edwards, 2015). However, as mentioned earlier, geography can be an unfortunate hindrance when coordinating local and state professionals for community-​based prevention planning. A chronic lack of funding as well as studies that analyze rurality in context of IPVA (Cook-​Craig et al., 2010) also have been a long-​ acknowledged struggle. Fortunately, web-​ based and other information technologies have been integral in bringing together key anti-​ violence stakeholders in rural communities (Cook-​Craig et al., 2010). This is an important development given the extensive travel involved in rural community-​based service work. Another advancement for women in rural areas is mobile advocacy: a portable, client-​focused support program designed to literally meet survivors where they are (Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2022). An evaluation of one such program found that more women receiving mobile advocacy had ended their abusive relationship,

136  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts scored higher ratings on quality of life and social support indicators, and utilized more resources (Sullivan and Bybee, 1999). “Breaking Apart” IPVA Victimization of Women in Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Case History: Domenica

Domenica came to the United States illegally from Mexico in 1995, entering a growing immigrant community in southern Texas. Her boyfriend was a US citizen. Domenica slept with a gun under her pillow for years. Domenica said that her boyfriend, the father of her two children, would batter her, control her life, and threaten to kill her and her children. “He told me nobody would help me,” she said, “because I don’t have papers (i.e., official document confirming immigration or national status in the host county).” Fearing for the safety of her children, Domenica eventually escaped her abuser. She admits to never calling the police. Her partner often had reminded her that involving law enforcement would lead to her deportation. Rather than having to appear in court and risk being separated from her children or sent back to her country of origin, Domenica said she would rather go into hiding (Engelbrecht, 2018). Scope of the Problem

Abused immigrant women, like Domenica, who leave their country of origin to resettle in another, and abused refugee women, who are displaced from their country by natural or human-​made disasters or fear of persecution or human rights adversities, endure many of the same challenges of women victimized by IPVA in their host societies. But, while harrowing for any victim, IPVA can be particularly traumatic for abused foreign-​born women. An abused IMR woman may be already struggling with limited host-​language skills or traversing harassment and discrimination in her new culture. She may fear deportation, have no familiarity with social services, and be confused over exactly what legal rights she may or may not have (Orloff and Garcia, 2013). This confluence of vulnerabilities is distinctive and impactful, making it even more difficult for many abused IMR women to report or escape violence/​abuse. “Breaking Apart” Prevalence

The question of whether IPVA is more prevalent among foreign-​born individuals than their US-​born counterparts has been characterized as “far

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  137 from conclusive” (Runner et al., 2009, p. 11). Menjívar and Salcidolso’s (2002) review did not show IPVA incidents among immigrants to be higher than that of non-​immigrants in major receiving countries. Some also argue that, in addition to having limited data on rates of IPVA in IMR communities, there are essential differences among IMR subgroups that cannot be combined with nor should be represented as universal to IPVA within all IMR communities (Runner et al., 2009). At the same time, there are small-​ scale, community-​ based studies suggesting high rates of IPVA among immigrant women as a group. In Raj and Silverman’s (2002) Boston-​area sample of 160 South Asian women, 40% of the predominately immigrant group (87.5%) reported physical IPVA, sexual IPVA, or injury with a need for medical services due to a current abusive male partner. In their Washington, D.C. study of domestic violence among undocumented and recently documented Latina immigrants, Hass and colleagues (2000) found over 49% of women reporting experiences with physical abuse, 11.4% sexual abuse, 60% dominance/​isolation-​type psychological abuse and almost 41% emotional/​verbal-​type psychological abuse committed by an intimate. In that same study, physically and/​or sexually abused women reported higher rates of forms of dominance/​isolation than women who were only psychologically abused. Physically and sexually abused women also experienced more threats, including warnings about harming their children and other family members, taking the victim’s money, calling Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS), and killing the victim. “Breaking Apart” Risk Factors and Protective Resources for Abused Immigrant and Refugee Women Risk Factors Regarding Abused Immigrant and Refugee Women Social Isolation

If a victim of non-​national status is not restricted by her abuser to leave or socialize extensively outside the home, her engagement with social contacts may be enough to motivate her to disclose her experiences with IPVA. Unfortunately, relationship conflict, even violence/​ abuse, may arise when women establish such ties. In one case in point, researchers noted that the partners of Guatemalan and Salvadoran women in the United States, who obtained IPVA and protective information at community organizations, “did not welcome such knowledge” (Menjívar and Salcidolso, 2002, p. 904). Even worse, immigration-​related isolation also has been associated with women’s increased vulnerability to severe IPVA. In Raj and Silverman’s (2002) sample of South Asian women in the United States, women reporting no family in the United States were three times

138  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts more likely than those with family in the United States to have been physically injured by a current partner. Language Proficiency

An abusive partner may exploit his victim’s limited host-​language skills, especially if the perpetrator acts as the family’s sole communicator (Orloff et al., 2003). The perpetrator may forbid his victim from attending school or learning English and then dictate what she can and cannot do. Not knowing the host language can be especially limiting when trying to navigate protective and other legal services of a different culture. In a study of immigrant battered women’s use of protective orders against their abusers, 58% learned about resources from people who spoke their language (Orloff et al., 2003). Country of Origin Norms

It is possible that an abused IMR woman’s community and family may not be supportive should she leave her abuser or involve social service providers (Menjívar and Salcidolso, 2002). If she leaves, she may risk ostracism for not being a “good wife” or guilted into believing she betrayed her community’s collective identity or reputation, especially if her group faces prejudice and discrimination in the host society. West (2016) similarly notes that Ethiopian and West African victims are socialized to believe that domestic assault is a private matter and, thus, seldom discussed in public settings. That same pressure may be compounded, if facing potential rejection from community religious leaders, who oppose divorce or separation (Scott et al., 2018). Economic Inequalities

An abused non-​national woman is especially vulnerable if her immigration status is dependent on marriage to a US citizen or a legal permanent resident (Narayan, 1995). If already impoverished or struggling with her host country’s language, having a non-​permanent or unlawful residency status further positions her into an uneven socio-​economic relationship that she may feel pressured to keep. Among the 70 petitions from victims who applied for legal immigration status in Scott and colleagues’ (2018) analysis, the potential loss of financial resources and legal dependency on their spouses delayed their leaving the abusive relationship. Fear of Deportation

An IPVA perpetrator with host citizenship or permanent residency may cause a partner and her family to fear deportation or, in some cases, the

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  139 abuser may confiscate their passports/​green cards. In an analysis of women representing 16 countries, 60% reported threats of deportation by their partner; over 60% of their spouses were US citizens (Scott et al., 2018). Also weighing heavily is concern over physical separation from children, which may result in some immigrant women’s tolerating IPVA or not disclosing violence/​abuse to health care providers (Kelly, 2009). Fear of Law Enforcement

Another issue is that an IMR victim may believe she has no legal right to support, personal advocacy, or legal protection from her abuser, something that might limit her confidence in involving law enforcement. At 43%, battered women with a permanent US immigration status are more likely to call the police about an IPVA incident than other battered immigrant women. Reporting rates are decreased for abused women with a temporary visa to 21% and even lower for abused undocumented women at 19% (Orloff et al., 2003). There are advocates and service providers who are charged to bridge protective services with survivors’ needs. One legislative tool in this effort has been the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA; see Chapter 1). We begin the next section on protections for IMR women by shedding further light on VAWA and its potential for help and support. Protective Resources for Immigrant and Refugee Women Survivors Violence against Women Act Protections

Part of VAWA’s objective is to protect women who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent US residents from an abusive relationship. An agency important to this federal legislation is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which oversees US immigration and offers confidential recourse to victimized immigrant women and their children, if also abused. Among the USCIS’s codified protections under VAWA is to assert a victim’s right to self-​petition for legal residency; to suspend a victim’s deportation or cancel removal from the United States, if undergoing deportation or removal proceedings; and to allow immigrants’ legal status without fear of deportation, if a victim of certain violent crimes (“U” Visas), sexual assault, or trafficking (“T” Visas). Procedural anonymity is key. The abusive partner is not required to know that the survivor is petitioning protections for herself and her children and, thus, has no corroborating role in the process (Battered Women’s Justice Project, n.d.; Scott et al., 2018; U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).

140  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts Culturally Competent Support Services

Even the sincerest efforts to help abused IMR women may fall short without collaboration between ethnic and immigrant community-​based services, specialized legal representation, and culturally competent domestic violence service providers. However, governmental and non-​governmental agencies established to address domestic violence may not have a multi-​lingual staff, who must also undergo domestic violence training, nor the volunteer base from the victim’s ethnic community, who is charged with enhancing a victim’s trust and comfort. As a result, among any organization’s initial preparations is to compile a list of qualified interpreters and to cooperate with domestic violence networks and advocates having group-​specific language skills and culturally competent abilities (Battered Women’s Justice Project, n.d.). Equally important is increasing cultural sensitivity among justice system (e.g., prosecutors) and law enforcement personnel, especially those in frequent contact with IMR communities. In a study of 230 battered Latina immigrant women, 75.6% spoke little or no English and only a small percentage experiencing severe IPVA were willing to call the police. Cultivating a trustful relationship may require both time and patience. In the same study, women who sought help from law enforcement were more likely to have been in the country for more than three years (Orloff and Garcia, 2013). “Breaking Apart” IPVA Victimization of Women in Faith-Based Cultures Patti married her former physically and emotionally abusive husband at 17. She attended her husband’s fundamentalist Christian church prior to marriage. Church leaders taught that men’s “ownership” of women and children was biblically sound. When married, Patti followed the church’s and her husband’s mother’s lead. She practiced wifely submission and willfully complied with the church’s principles on patriarchal control in marriage and society. Patti explained that under no condition could she deny her husband’s power. Even if his demands were personally viewed as “sinful,” their church taught that “it is not your [the wife’s] sin… It is [the husband’s] sin for asking you.” Refusing or even questioning her husband’s word was met with physical violence. When asked she how coped, Patti’s suggested a religious socialization of such a degree that she could not recognize her marriage as abusive at that time. I didn’t cry out to say God, ‘Why me?’ God wasn’t doing anything to me; [my husband] was. But he was the master, and that’s

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  141 really what we were taught then. The exact words that were used in church: ‘The husband is the master. He is your master,’ and [my husband] was my master…. That was what life and marriage was supposed to be, even though I didn’t see [IPVA] in my parents’ [marriage]. (Nash, 2002) Scope of the Problem

Not every religious spouse is abused or abusive. Unlike Patti’s spouse, in fact, empirical research finds no conclusive evidence that Conservative Christian denominations supportive of a patriarchal authority in home and society are disproportionately inclined to abuse their partners than do affiliates of other denominations (Brinkerhoff et al., 1992). Joint decision-​ making between husband and wife has been purported in some of the most traditionalist households (Bartkowski, 2001), although without identifying such conduct as feminist. In the context of IPVA and Jewish couples, Guthartz (2004) calls it naïve to think that all or most Jewish men who abuse their wives or girlfriends do so by justifications found within halakhab, a collection of Jewish religious laws. Similarly, some Muslim adherents believe that “there is no room for a Muslim to imagine that women are inferior to men” (Muslim Unity Center, 2022, para 4), adding that Muslim women have rights and responsibilities equal but “not necessarily identical” to those of men due to physiological and psychological differences (Muslim Unity Center, 2022, para. 4). While violence may not be inherent in some religious models of family life, it has been argued as a “by-​product” in some religious families (Nason-​Clark, 1997, p. 51). How religiosity might be an adverse force for some abused women has been a topic of religious scholars, faith-​based counselors, and secular IPVA advocates alike. Below, we examine some of the most salient factors emerging in studies on women, religion, and the risk of IPVA. “Breaking Apart” Risk Factors and Protective Resources for Abused Women in Faith-​Based Cultures Risk Factors Regarding Abused Women in Faith-​Based Cultures Faith-​Based Patriarchal Codes

There is an agreement among many IPVA scholars that some faith-​based teachings uphold a patriarchal code and social arrangement that affords men the privilege to practice and maintain dominance over their female partners, even through the use of violence/​ abuse (Fortune and Enger, 2005; Gillum and Nash, 2011; Nason-​Clark, 1997). Women of conservative Muslim backgrounds may be taught that their honor is dependent on

142  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts their conduct, and other traditionalist religious teachings have been used to underscore men’s attempt to control Muslim women and their movements (Macey, 1999) if they stray from their spouses’ control. Ammar (2007) explains, for example, that interpretations of the 34th Qur’anic verse of the Al Nisa chapter, which invokes male partners to “admonish her, abandon her bed, and then beat her” while being “carried out in the spirit of reconciliation and healing” (p. 520), have been used to justify the beating of Muslim wives before US courts and law enforcement. Guthartz (2004) writes that the laws and ordinances regulating religious observances and the daily conduct of Jewish people, halakhah, has evolved into traditions in which “some abusers, and those who refuse to acknowledge the abuse, use it to justify their action or inaction” (p. 33). The Jewish value of a harmonious household or Shalom bayit also has been used to place the sole responsibility for maintaining peace in an abusive home upon women (Fortune and Enger, 2005). The influence of religious beliefs on incidents of IPVA is not confined to certain women and families of Judaic or Islamic faith. In conservative Judeo-​Christian denominations, Ephesians 5:22’s petition that wives submit themselves to their husbands has been argued as biblical authority for a husband to control or punish his wife, if insubordinate. The relationship between domestic violence and the feminine ideals embedded in American Latino men and women’s cultural adoration of the Virgin Mary, marianismo, has yielded a few empirical investigations. Among them, for men, the marianismo dimension of chastity and virtuosity was associated with a decrease in attitudes tolerant of domestic violence (Terrazas-​Carrillo et al., 2019). In another study, however, the more that women endorsed marianismo dimensions related to subordination and being silent for the sake of harmony, the more they experienced symptoms of psychological distress (Da Silva et al., 2021). Faith-​Based Responses to IPVA

Another concern among IPVA scholars and interventionists is that hierarchical religious teachings on gender, power, and spousal conduct may limit what might be safer options for abused faith-identified women (Nason-​Clark, 1997; Nash et al., 2013; Kroeger and Nason-​Clark, 2010). Traditionally observant religious wives have been viewed as accommodating IPVA by being pressured to choose between personal well-being and keeping their families intact and the belief that wifely submission reflects godly womanhood; suffering is pious and inspires spiritual growth; forgiveness is inexhaustible; or that leaving the relationship is in conflict with divine approval, spiritual maturity or reward in the afterlife (Ferraro

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  143 and Johnson, 1983; Fortune and Hertz, 1991; Gilliam and Nash, 2011; Hassouneh-​Phillips, 2003; Nason-​Clark, 1997). Further, marital divorce is strongly stigmatized in some religious communities and remarriage may be viewed as adulterous (Kroeger & Nason-​Clark, 2010). It is not surprising, then, that some traditionally observant victims traversing these barriers extend prayer “requests for strength to accept (the abuser’s) behavior” or for God to “fix” the perpetrator (Nash, 2006, p. 201). Other Faith-​Based Traditions of Martial Conduct

Interpretations of religious texts that endorse a rigid adherence to husbands’ leadership in home and marriage have been a fixture in discourse on sexual assault against wives. Of particular concern is that some readings infer wives’ “permanent consent” to engage in intercourse with their husbands (Yllo and LeClerc, 1988, p. 51), whether they approve or not. However, a religious stance that forced sex in marriage is a patriarchal right enforced by religious teachings and not an act of sexual assault has been challenged in the religious counseling literature. Competing interpretations highlighting that “marriage be held in honor by all,” that the “marriage bed be kept pure” and that partners have “the right expect intercourse” but “both (are) responsible for respecting each other’s needs in sexual activity” are advised to offset discourse that might impede clients’ self-assertion and safety. (Nash, et al., 2013, p. 215). Protective Resources for Abused Women of Faith Religious and Secular-​Based Programmatic Collaboration

It could be that a religious leader or clergy member might view a domestic violence advocate or shelter as secular agents disrupting religious families or undermining abused women’s faith principles. A domestic violence advocate might view a religious leader or clergy as sexist or one whose beliefs facilitate inaction against abused women and their families, including a reluctance to unequivocally condemn family violence from the pulpit (Nason-​Clark, 1997). However, there has been some discourse over the decades about repairing the history of mistrust between secular interventions and certain religious doctrine. For these anti-​violence scholars and advocates who follow role of religion in IPVA against women, their call is that secular domestic violence organizations and counselors be receptive to the importance of religious faith in abused women’s backgrounds and that clergy and religious organizations be receptive to evidence-​based training on the causes, consequences, and recovery of abused women (Fortune and Enger, 2005).

144  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts Highlighting the potential of a secular/​faith-​based anti-​violence alliance are Horton and colleagues’ (1988) findings, in which battered women approved of clergy members who regarded their personal safety as important and viewed the option of separation or divorce as acceptable. While not all religious advisors advocated that the women leave their abusive relationship, the respondents felt validated because they were listened to, believed, and supported (Horton et al., 1988). Also encouraging, narrative analyses suggest that an abused woman of faith may harvest alternative ideological scripts that confront religious teachings that they once saw as substantiating their maltreatment (Nash et al., 2013). Chapter Summary This chapter “breaks apart” the unique susceptibilities of rural women, women in immigrant and refugee communities, and women in faith-​based communities who are victimized by an intimate. The first part of this chapter exposes the challenges of abused rural women. Chronic experiences with poverty present a disadvantage for many abused rural women who want to leave their abuser, in addition to geographic isolation, which can severely restrict access to otherwise commonplace communication technologies (e.g., cellphone usage) or means of public transportation. For an abused woman in an immigrant or refugee community, the lack of social interaction and language proficiency, coupled with an economic dependency on the abuser due to the victim’s non-​national status and unfamiliarity with rights permitted within the host country, can be an unsettling ordeal. But the threat of deportation by the abuser is perhaps the most cited concern for abused IMR women, whose worry over child separation may affect non-​disclosure of IPVA and the toleration of more abuse. This chapter ends with a discussion of IPVA among certain abused women of faith. Although not indicative of all traditionally observant or orthodox religious batterers, faith-​based teachings endorsing patriarchal power in spousal conduct have been prominent in the anti-​domestic violence literature as well as first-​hand accounts by abused women. Divorce and remarriage also may be stigmatized in some religious communities, both of which might hinder an abused religious woman’s escape. Recommended Resources Faith Trust Institute: A national, multifaith, multicultural training and education organization to end sexual and domestic violence. Website: www.fait​htru​stin​stit​ute.org/​ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Legal rights of immigrant victims of domestic violence in the United States.

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  145 Website:    www.uscis.gov/​arch​ive/​info​rmat​ion-​on-​the-​legal-​rig​hts-​availa​ble-​to-​ immigr​ant-​vict​ims-​of-​domes​tic-​viole​nce-​in-​the-​uni​ted Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and the justice system: An ethnography. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Discussion Questions Identify the VAWA’s role in protecting abused IMR women as well as factors that may obstruct their access to resources. How might geographical isolation in rural areas hinder abused women’s help-​seeking? How might religious traditions or contexts hinder women of faith who want to leave their abusive relationship? References Ammar, N. H. (2007). Wife battery in Islam: a comprehensive understanding of interpretations. Violence against women, 13(5), 516–​526. Bartkowski, J. (2001). Remaking the godly marriage: gender negotiation in evangelical families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Battered Women’s Justice Project. (n.d.). Assisting immigrant women of domestic violence: advocates guide. Office of Violence against Women/​ U.S. Justice Department. Bhandari, S., Bullock, L. F. C., & Sharps, P. W. (2013). Strategies pregnant rural women employ to deal with intimate partner violence. Journal of ethnographic & qualitative research, 7, 143–​154. Breiding, M. J., Ziembroski, J. S., & Black, M. C. (2009). Prevalence of rural intimate partner violence in 16 US states, 2005. The Journal of rural health. 25(3), 240–​246. Brinkerhoff, M. B., Grandin, E., & Lupri, E. (1992). Religious involvement and spousal violence: the Canadian case. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 31, 5–​31. Cook-​Craig, P. G., Lane, K. G., & Siebold, W. L. (2010). Building the capacity of states to ensure inclusion of rural communities in state and local primary violence prevention planning. Journal of family social work, 13(4), 326–​342. Cromartie, J., Dobis, E. A., Krumel, T. P., McGranahan, D, & Pender, J. (2020). Rural America at a glance: 2020 edition. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service. Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/​publi​ cati​ons/​pub-​deta​ils/​?pubid=​100​088 Darrough, C. (2020, October 6). Tennessee women in rural areas more likely to be domestic violence victims. The Tennessee lookout. Retrieved from https://​tenne​ ssee​look​out.com/​2020/​10/​06/​tennes​see-​women-​in-​rural-​areas-​more-​lik​ely-​to-​be-​ domes​tic-​viole​nce-​vict​ims/​

146  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts Da Silva, N., Verdejo, T. R., Dillon, F. R., Ertl, M. M., & De La Rosa, M. (2021). Marianismo beliefs, intimate partner violence, and psychological distress among recently immigrated, young adult Latinas. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(7–​8), 3755–​3777. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Rennison, C. M. (2013). Comparing female victims of separation/​divorce assault across geographic regions. International journal for crime and justice, 2(1), 65–​81. Dobis, E. A., Krumel, T., Cromartie, J., Conley, K. L., Sanders, A., et al. (2021). Rural America at a glance: 2021 edition. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service. Retrieved from www.ers.usda.gov/​publi​ cati​ons/​pub-​deta​ils/​?pubid=​102​575 Edwards, K. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence and the rural-​urban-​suburban divide: myth or reality? A critical review of the literature. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 16(3), 359–​373. Engelbrecht, C. (2018 June 3). Fewer immigrants are reporting domestic abuse. Police blame fear of deportation. New York times. Retrieved from www.nyti​mes. com/​2018/​06/​03/​us/​imm​igra​nts-​hous​ton-​domes​tic-​viole​nce.html Ferraro, K. J., & Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: the process of victimization. Social problems, 30(3), 325–​339. Fortune, M. M., & Enger, C. G. (2005, March). Violence against women and the role of religion. In Applied research forum. National electronic network on violence against women. USA: National Resource Centre on Domestic Violence. Fortune, M. & Hertz, J. (1991). A commentary on religious issues in family violence. In M. Fortune (ed), Violence in the family: a workshop curriculum for clergy and other helpers (pp. 137–​151). Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim. Gillum, T. L. & Nash, S. T. (2011). Faith-​based programs and interventions. In C. Renzetti, J. Edleson, & R. Bergen (eds), Sourcebook on violence against women, 2nd Edition (pp. 309–​326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guthartz, S. A. (2004). Domestic violence and the Jewish community. Michigan journal of gender & law, 11, 27. Hass, G. A., Dutton, M. A., & Orloff, L. E. (2000). Lifetime prevalence of violence against Latina immigrants: legal and policy implications. International review of victimology, 7(1–​3), 93–​113. Horton, A. L., Wilkins, M. M., & Wright, W. (1988). Women who ended abuse: what religious leaders and religion did for these victims. In A. L. Horton & J. A. Williamson (Eds.), Abuse and religion: when praying isn’t enough (pp. 235–​246). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Hassouneh-​Phillips, D. (2003). Strength and vulnerability: spirituality in abused American Muslim women’s lives. Issues in mental health nursing, 24(6–​7), 681–​694. Jennings, W. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). Trajectories of non-​intimate partner and intimate partner homicides, 1980–​1999: the importance of rurality. Journal of criminal justice, 36, 435–​443. Kelly, U. A. (2009). “I’m a mother first”: the influence of mothering in the decision-​ making processes of battered immigrant Latino women. Research in nursing & health, 32(3), 286–​297.

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  147 Kroeger, C. & Nason-​Clark, N. (2010). No place for abuse: biblical practical resources to counteract domestic violence. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Lanier, C., & Maume, M. O., (2009). Intimate partner violence and social isolation across the rural/​urban divide. Violence against women, 15(11), 1311–​1330. Logan, T. K., Cole, J., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2007). Relationship characteristics and protective orders among a diverse sample of women. Journal of family violence, 22, 237–​246. Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2005). Protective orders in rural and urban areas: a multiple perspective study. Violence against women, 11(7), 876–​911. Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Cole, J., Ratliff, S., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Qualitative differences among rural and urban intimate violence victimization experiences and consequences: a pilot study. Journal of family violence, 18, 83–​92. Macey, M. (1999). Religion, male violence, and the control of women: Pakistani Muslim men in Bradford, UK. Gender & development, 7(1), 48–​55. Menjívar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: common experiences in different countries. Gender and society, 16(6), 898–​920. McCall-​Hosenfeld, J. S., Weisman, C. S., Perry, A. N., Hillemeier, M. M., & Chuang, C. H. (2014). “I just keep my antennae out”: How rural primary care physicians respond to intimate partner violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 29(14), 2670–​2694. Muslim Unity Center. (2022). “How does Islam regard women?” Retrieved from www.muslim​unit​ycen​ter.org/​how-​does-​islam-​reg​ard-​women/​ Narayan, U. (1995). “Male-​order” brides: immigrant women, domestic violence, and immigration law. Hypatia, 10(1), 104–​119. Nash, S. T. (2006). The changing of the gods: abused Christian wives and their hermeneutic revision of gender, power, and spousal conduct. Qualitative sociology, 29(2), 195–​209. Nash, S. T. (2002). Using the sacred against the profane: exploring the programs, practices and religious discourse used by Christian wives when coping with spousal abuse (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). Nash, S. T., Faulkner, C., & Abell, R. R. (2013). Abused conservative Christian wives: treatment considerations for practitioners. Counseling and values, 58(2), 205–​220. Nason-​Clark, N. (1997). The battered wife: how Christians confront family violence. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services (2015). Intimate partner violence in rural America: Policy brief. Retrieved from www. hrsa.gov/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​hrsa/​advis​ory-​com​mitt​ees/​rural/​publi​cati​ons/​2015-​ part​ner-​viole​nce.pdf Neill, K. S., & Hammatt, J. (2015). Beyond urban places: responding to intimate partner violence in rural and remote areas. Journal of forensic nursing, 11(2), 93–​100. Orloff, L. E., Dutton, M. A., Aguilar-​Hass, G., Ammar, N. (2003). Battered immigrant women’s willingness to call for help and police response. UCLA women’s law journal, 13(1), 43–​100.

148  IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts Orloff, L. & Garcia, O. (2013). Dynamics of domestic violence experienced by immigrant victims. In K. Sullivan & L. Orloff (Eds.) Breaking barriers: a complete guide to legal rights and resources for battered immigrants. National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project, Washington College of Law at American University, and Legal Momentum. Peek-​Asa, C., Wallis, A., Harland, K., Beyer, K., Dickey, P, & Saftlas, A. (2011). Rural disparity in domestic violence and access to resources. Journal of women’s health, 20(11), 1743–​1749. Pender, J., Hertz, T., Cromartie, J., & Farrigan, T. (2019). Rural America at a glance: 2019 edition. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service. Retrieved from: www.ers.usda.gov/​publi​cati​ons/​pub-​deta​ils/​ ?pubid=​95340 Raj, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). Intimate partner violence against South Asian women in greater Boston. Journal of the American medical women’s association, 57(2), 111–​114. Roush, K., & Kurth, A. (2016). The lived experience of intimate partner violence in the rural setting. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing, 45(3), 308–​316. Runner, M., Novick, S., & Yoshihama, M. (2009). Intimate partner violence in immigrant and refugee communities: challenges, promising practices, and recommendations. Family Violence Prevention Fund. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Sandberg, L. (2013). Backward, dumb, and violent hillbillies? Rural geographies and intersectional studies on intimate partner violence. Affilia, 28(4), 350–​365. Scott, M., Weaver, S., & Kamimura, A. (2018). Experiences of immigrant women who applied for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-​petition in the United States: analysis of legal affidavits. Diversity and equality in health and care, 15(4), 145–​150. Shannon, L. M., Logan, T. K., Cole, J. & Medley, K. (2006). Help-​seeking and coping strategies for intimate partner violence in rural and urban women. Violence and victims, 21(2), 167–​181. Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (1999). Reducing violence using community-​based advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 67(1), 43. Terrazas-​Carrillo, E., & Sabina, C. (2019). Dating violence attitudes among Latino college students: an examination of gender, machismo, and marianismo. Violence and victims, 34(1), 194–​210. United States Census Bureau. (2017). One in five Americans live in rural areas. Retrieved from: www.cen​sus.gov/​libr​ary/​stor​ies/​2017/​08/​rural-​amer​ica.html U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). U and T Visa Certifications. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/​agenc​ies/​whd/​immi​grat​ion/​u-​t-​visa Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2022). Survivor driven, trauma informed, mobile advocacy. Retrieved from https://​wsc​adv.org/​proje​cts/​ domes​tic-​viole​nce-​hous​ing-​first/​tool​kit/​survi​vor-​dri​ven-​tra​uma-​infor​med-​mob​ ile-​advoc​acy/​?mscl​kid=​7a628​77ba​7bf1​1ec8​dd48​b9f5​ab0d​89a

IPVA against Women in Cultural Contexts  149 Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and the justice system: an ethnography. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Websdale, N. & Johnson, B. (1998). An ethnostatistical comparison of the forms and levels of woman battering in urban and rural areas of Kentucky. Criminal justice review, 23(2), 161–​181. West, C. M. (2016). African immigrant women and intimate partner violence: a systematic review. Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma, 25(1), 4–​17. Yllo, K., & LeClerc, K. (1988). Marital rape. In A. L. Horton & J. A. Williamson (Eds.), Abuse and religion: when praying isn’t enough (pp. 49–​57). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

8 “Breaking Apart” Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave

Case History: Jim and Mary Jim, a 31-​year-​old male, and his wife of 6 years, Mary, live together with their 4-​year-​old son, Trevor. Jim has a high school education and has been employed as a construction worker for the past five years. He is often unemployed during the colder months of the year. Growing up, Jim lived in a home where his stepfather had a severe alcohol addiction and was chronically abusive toward his mother during most of his childhood. His family also struggled financially during his childhood. Jim has a history of depression and is currently being treated with anti-​depressants from his family physician. Jim was charged with assaulting Mary and was referred by the court and local hospital for social service intervention. In reviewing Jim’s past, he demonstrates a legal history of assault against Mary. Two years ago, for example, Jim broke Mary’s foot by running over it with his car when leaving during an argument. Last year, he violated a protective order when he strangled her during an argument over Mary wanting to work again as a waitress to make ends meet. Mary also has reported that Jim would threaten her before that making statements such as, “you will be sorry” or “you will pay for that”. Jim and Mary had been arguing over dinner the evening of the incident leading to the referral. Mary had been busy all day and wanted to have food delivered. Jim was irate of Mary’s stating she was tired and believed cooking was her responsibility. Jim yelled and called Mary a bad mother and wife. When Mary was trying to go to the basement to get laundry out of the dryer, Jim grabbed her by the arm and kicked her in the leg. Mary was laying at the bottom of the stairs with a broken nose, ruptured spleen, and a broken leg when the paramedics arrived. Jim stated that he hates that she fell, but he didn’t mean to push her down the stairs. Trevor was in his room during the incident watching television; he stayed with his paternal grandparents during Mary’s hospitalization. DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-8

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  151 Mary was discharged from the hospital and Jim released from jail. Jim reports loving his family and wanting to make things work out. Mary has stated that she wants Jim to get the help he needs, so they can be a family. Scope of the Problem Jim’s abuse against Mary and Mary’s hope to keep her relationship with Jim despite his abuse is a jarring reminder of how the cumulative toll of IPVA might “look” among some couples. Just as apparent is that others will perceive IPVA victims like Mary as faced with a simple, dichotomous choice: either endure the abuse or just leave the abuser. When it comes to intimate partner violence/​abuse, however, “just leaving” is seldom that simple. In this chapter, we address the social contexts and internal battles related to some victims’ tendency to remain in their abusive relationship. We also examine catalysts shown to motivate victims’ indecision, along with the events often signifying the relationship’s end. Before we “break apart” why some victims stay and how they might leave, we first examine why abusive partners abuse. “Breaking Apart” Why They Abuse Attitudes Regarding Gender, Power, and Control

For feminist theorists, patriarchy is a key factor in creating an environment conducive to violence against women and a salient predictor of men’s aggression against women (see Chapter 2). Sugarman and Frankel’s (1996) meta-​analysis, for example, shows assaultive husbands to have more traditional gender attitudes and attitudes endorsing marital violence than husbands who were not assaultive. Although statistically insignificant, traditional gender role attitudes were identified as one of several factors related to higher odds of IPVA against women in Yakubovich and colleagues’ (2018) later literature review. In another study, based on wives’ self-​reports, husbands who espouse a set of beliefs and attitudes supportive of patriarchy in the home were also more likely than husbands who did not espouse patriarchal beliefs and attitudes to have assaulted their wives (Smith, 1990). Discrepancies have been noted in literature regarding IPVA perpetration and traditional gender-role arrangements in relationships (Ellington and Marshall, 1997; Neff et al., 1995). Among the most observed studies measuring IPVA and patriarchal ideals specific to religious involvement is one by Brinkerhoff and colleagues (1992), in which conservative Christian men did not abuse their partners more often than did affiliates of other religious denominations. However, the researchers also concluded that, while

152  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave a patriarchal thesis of IPVA as related to religion might be questionably based, the use of authoritarianism in relationships was a significant factor in the study and should not be discounted. Childhood Socialization

The social learning approach to understanding IPVA remains among the foremost explanations of adult partner violence/​abuse. But the theory’s conception of an intergenerational transmission of relationship violence/​ abuse should not be reduced to individuals simply mimicking proximal behaviors. Individuals who witness violence/​abuse in other relationships may internalize scripts on when and against whom violence/​abuse should be used. Consistent with social learning theory, Copp and colleagues (2019) found that exposure to violence/​ abuse in one’s family of origin to be associated with attitudes toward the use of IPVA among young adults. The acceptance of IPVA appeared relatively high in certain conditions, especially situations involving precipitating acts of violence (i.e., “a partner hits you first” or “a partner forces you to have sex with him or her”) or direct harm to a family member or loved one (“a partner hurts your child, either physically or emotionally”; “a partner hurts a family member or loved one”). Women were more inclined to endorse the use of violence under each of the circumstances described. But witnessing parental violence or coercive parenting should not necessarily equate with a personal trajectory toward being abused or abusive. In the same Copp and colleagues (2019) study, attention to respondents’ current life circumstances also helped explain some of the accepting attitudes found in their work, including sociodemographic and relationship characteristics. That education largely weakened the effect of neighborhood poverty, another risk factor, was an especially optimistic finding for researchers, who saw it as a sign of malleability in beliefs toward IPVA. Alcohol

Issues with alcohol are associated with incidents of IPVA. In Stuart and colleagues’ (2006) sample of men and women arrested during a domestic incident, perpetrators and their partners’ problems of alcohol contributed directly to physical IPVA and to psychological IPVA indirectly, even after perpetrator-​ related antisociality, anger and relationship discord were included in the model. A large proportion of physical and sexual violence incidents involve substance use by perpetrator, victim, or both (Abbey, 1996).

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  153 Although there is a public perception that substance use inherently “causes” IPVA, establishing a causal relationship between alcohol, drug use, and subsequent violence has been elusive (Testa, 2004). The consensus has been that alcohol and drug intoxication can lower inhibitions that might otherwise hide a perpetrator’s need for control. And yet, experiments also have shown that individual expectations within the state of intoxication is a better predictor of aggression than intoxication itself (Lang et al., 1975). College men who had perpetrated sexual assault while intoxicated had expected alcohol consumption to increase male and female sexuality more than college men who perpetrated sexual assault while sober (Abbey et al., 1996). Further, many who abuse their partner never abuse substances and many who abuse substances never abuse their partner. In fact, concern that substance abuse might be used to excuse aggression or that men might attribute their abuse to inebriation has facilitated a resistance in some women’s advocacy groups to recognize the role of alcohol in IPVA (Foran and O’Leary, 2008). Sexual and Gender Minority-​Based Stressors

Internalized distress over one’s gender expression, coupled with the societal pressures originating it (e.g., transphobia), create not only a risk for IPVA among gender minorities but also barriers to their safety and well-​being (Edwards and Sylaska, 2013). A transgender person, particularly adult men and women demonstrating gender non-​conformity when young, may have been told and consequently believe that they cannot be loved. As a result, a victim may feel responsible for abuse because of being transgender and an abusive relationship may be viewed as better than no relationship at all. Because IPVA as well as hate speech and violence by strangers may involve anti-​transgender slurs, it is not surprising that some transgender victims may not readily recognize verbal assault as abuse when it first occurs (Office for Victims of Crime, 2014). Homophobia coupled with violence/​ abuse against sexual minority partners is similarly problematic. Among lesbian and bisexual women, internalized homophobia and discrimination have been associated with IPVA perpetration and victimization and lower relationship quality (Balsam and Szmanski, 2005). Regarding gay and bisexual men, a large-​scale urban study examining IPVA and indicators of minority stress (e.g., internalized homophobia, sexuality-​and race-​based discrimination) found each stress measure significantly linked to higher odds of multiple forms of IPVA victimization, including physical and sexual violence, coercive control, digital dating abuse, and IPVA-​related HIV infection (Stephenson and Finneran, 2017). Self-​reports from gay and bisexual men in rural communities also

154  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave describe a stigmatizing social environment, along with fewer options for sexual minority-​affirming policies and health care (Hubach, et al., 2019). Self-​Defense

As evidence that women perpetrate IPVA becomes more apparent, researchers have tried to understand their motivations for partner violence/​ abuse. In Makepeace’s (1986) landmark research on gender differences and IPVA, self-​defense (36%) and uncontrollable anger (24%) were the most frequently cited reasons for women’s IPVA perpetration. In Miller and Meloy’s (2006) later research of women in an IPVA offender treatment program, respondents reported using violence either to escape or stop victimization. Taken together, some argue, the lived experience of being victimized by a partner not only explains why a woman may use violence against her intimate but also why some women adjudicated for IPVA have been characterized as “battered women who fought back” (Swan et al., 2008, p. 306). Self-​defense may not explain all the violence perpetrated by domestically violent women. According to Graham-​Kevan and Archer (2005), women’s fear for physical safety was related their use of minor physical aggression, although very weakly. Instead the partner’s controlling behaviors and the frequency of the partner’s use of physical IPVA were associated with women’s reports of physical IPVA against an intimate. In another study of women who initiated partner aggression, the most self-​reported motives for IPVA were psychological factors at 46% (e.g., problems with aggression, stress, or depression); rule violations at 36% (e.g., dissatisfaction with partners’ behavior/​ response, not following the appropriate “rules” for intimate relationship); gaining attention or the partner’s compliance at 33% and restoring face or self-​image at 23% (Olson and Lloyd, 2005). In the next section, we discuss factors associated with why some victims of IPVA remain in their abusive relationships. “Breaking Apart” Why They Stay The Cycle of Abuse

You may have heard partner violence/​ abuse described as something occurring within a sequential pattern or a “cycle.” Psychologist Lenore Walker coined the phrase, “cycle of violence” in her seminal research, The Battered Woman (1979), in which she identifies the signs and stages of IPVA. Walker’s sample consisted of abused heterosexual women; therefore, her findings do not reflect discourse on phases of violence/​abuse against heterosexual male partners or the unequal distribution of power later evidenced among some same-​sex and transgender partners.

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  155 When developing her theoretical model of IPVA, Walker (1979) observed how the changing aspects of violence/​abuse in intimate relationships often rotated via three distinct stages: the tension-​ building phase, the acute battering incident, and reconciliation, calm or what is more broadly recognized as the honeymoon phase. During the tension-​building phase, the victims sensed their partners reacting more negatively to frustration. Out of fear, they became more nurturing, compliant, or opted to stay out of their abuser’s way. The more the women withdrew, the more aggressively their partners acted toward them. The abusers eventually released their pent-​ up aggression during the acute battering phase. The women’s mistreatment often involved threats of harm or property damage, attempts to control the victim’s behavior, insults, name-​calling, and sexual and/​or physical IPVA, which could last from a few minutes to several hours. The abuser was prone to accuse the woman of intentionally provoking the anger during this time as well as cast blame for the abuse or problems in the relationship. Some women will fight back only during the battering phase after having suppressed their fear and frustration during phase one; others may incite the battering incident to get the pending violence/​abuse over with, release the tension, reclaim some sense of control, and move toward the honeymoon phase, the final stage of the cycle (Walker, 1979). The honeymoon phase is marked by the abuser’s attempt to move past the battering incident. Kindness, loving gestures, and gifts are showered on the victim to re-​cultivate calmness, trust, and reconciliation, and the abuser may promise to never aggress again (Walker, 1979). As a result, the victim may be encouraged about the relationship or feel better bonded to the perpetrator, leading many to believe that the “real” partner or relationship has resurfaced. In Cruz’ (2003) qualitative study, mirroring Walker’s honeymoon phase, expressions of love and apology disarmed the victims of self-​identified gay men. Respondents were convinced that the problem was not as bad, not frequent enough that they needed to leave, or that their batterers really loved them, only to reexperience cyclical violence/​ abuse over time. In fact, another consequence in Walker’s model is that tensions almost always start to rebuild, continue, or escalate unless some intervention takes place. The abuse may become normal and set conditions for downplaying later acts of violence/​abuse (e.g., “He only pushed me”; “He cried this time; I know that he’ll not do it again”) (Cervantes and Sherman, 2021; Raypole, 2020; Walker, 1979). When a victim has learned that no form of reaction will make a difference and it becomes too difficult to believe that any effort will change the situation, Walker (1977–​1978) identifies the victim as being in a state of learned helplessness. Despite an almost universal reference to Walker’s theoretical model in IPVA practice and research, there is dispute over its application in some

156  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave situations. Some practitioners believe there are no predictable or repetitive phases in relationships where IPVA is involved and that the loving behavior characterizing the honeymoon phase is actually more abuse, namely the perpetrator’s intent to manipulate the victim from leaving the relationship or disclosing the violence/​abuse (Owens, 2018). Others emphasize that IPVA victims do not necessarily “shut down” due to their adversities and that Walker’s learned helplessness theory of IPVA obliterates the agency or self-​determination enabling them to survive (Palker-​Corell and Marcus, 2004). Another issue is that leaving an abusive relationship can be hinged on barriers other than learned helplessness or related psychological constructs. Consider, for example, whether a victim determined to escape has ready access to cash, housing, a car, or an alternate mode of transportation to sustain autonomy after leaving. Also, living with both IPVA and socio-​economic insecurity may co-​exist with other marginalizing factors (i.e., sex, race/​ethnicity, and gender/​sexual minority status, rurality, disability, age, religion, and immigrant status) that might obstruct victims’ choices or access to supportive services. Power and Control

An illustration of abusers’ use of practical barriers and everyday contexts to pressure victims into remaining in an abusive relationship is the Power and Control Wheel, a diagram developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project of Duluth, Minnesota (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, 2022). As Figure 8.1 demonstrates, the Duluth Power and Control Wheel’s inner spokes identify and describe eight continual, sometimes subtle behaviors an abuser may impose on the victim over time: coercion and threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, minimizing/​ denying/​ blaming, using children, economic abuse, and male privilege. The sexual and physical violence represented in the wheel’s outer periphery illustrates the kinds of offenses the abuser uses to not only instill fear in the victim but also to reinforce the threats, isolation, gaslighting, gender-​related tactics, and other ongoing tactics cited in the wheel’s inner spokes. Like Walker’s model, the Duluth Model’s Power and Control Wheel has been criticized. The most vocal critique surrounds the model’s focus on IPVA perpetration and prevention from the context of male-​to-​female battering and patriarchal dominance over women. Some critics find its framework too inflexible for a problem as complex as IPVA and emphasize that other explanatory factors such as psychological anomalies or childhood exposure to parental violence/​abuse are neglected in the diagram. Others point out that the model neither recognizes men’s IPVA victimization nor that women in same and opposite-​sex relationships can be violent/​abusive without being self-​defensive (Cook, 2009).

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  157

Figure 8.1 Duluth power and control wheel. Reprinted with Permission from the DAIP.

Rationalizing Remaining

Victims often develop coping mechanisms that enable them and their families to function positively. Among the more adaptive scenarios, a person in an abusive relationship would be able to find respite in spaces in which having a voice, interacting with others, and self-​expression are experienced in a safe, respectful, and self-​affirming way (e.g., work, hobbies, support-​ based activities). This, however, is not always the case. Some victims’ reactions to the toll of IPVA can result in maladaptive or negative coping mechanisms that inadvertently promote more victimization. Based on their qualitative interviews with battered women, Kathleen Ferraro and John Johnson (1983) uncovered six coping mechanisms through which a victim might rationalize the decision to remain in an abusive relationship: an appeal to salvation ethic; the denial of victimizer; a denial of injury; a denial of victimization; a denial of options and an appeal to higher loyalties. In the appeal to salvation ethic rationalization, a victim views the abusive partner as sick or pathological and dependent on the victim’s care and attention. In the denial of victimizer rationalization,

158  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave relationship violence/​abuse and victimization are attributed to external issues such as work-​ related pressures beyond either partner’s control. Another rationalization, the denial of injury, occurs when a victim fails to acknowledge IPVA-​related injury, given that no formal medical intervention was required, or everyday routines were met without interruption. A denial of victimization is rationalized when a victim asserts some contribution to the abusive episode (i.e., provoking the abuser) and does not believe they have the right to leave the relationship. A denial of options results in a disregard for practical opportunities to escape because of uncertainties over abilities to survive outside the relationship. Finally, in the appeal to higher loyalties rationalization, religious doctrine on the permanence of marriage and reward in the afterlife may be a catalyst for some victims to further endure abusive marriages. Concerns Regarding Children

Women with children are concerned about the implications of broken family relationships or the idea of children growing up without fathers (Kelly, 2009; Shalansky et al., 1999). Worries over having to navigate the financial, material, or emotional support of children alone or whether the abusive intimate partner will win child custody can weigh heavily as well. Compounding all this is that many women in abusive relationships recognize the traumatic effects that exposure to violence/​abuse can have on children while feeling powerless to change the situation. Researchers in fact often advise that service providers be trained and aware of women’s concerns over the health and safety of their children and how they impress upon mothers’ decision to stay or leave (Amanour-​Bodeu et al., 2012). Battered men with children voice similar concerns. Many of the victimized husbands in Steinmetz’s (1977–​1978) study became personal targets of their wives’ abuse when trying to protect their children from harm. And while they contemplated leaving their abusers when relationship violence affected their children’s safety more so than their own, many were afraid to leave for fear that further violence might be directed toward the children. Keeping the family together at all costs for the sake of the children also was important. Love

One paradox of surviving IPVA is its conflicting mixture of love, hope, and memorable times coupled with manipulation, intimidation, and force. Many people in abusive relationships (including those who have left their abusers) say they love their partner (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.a). The honeymoon phase of Walker’s (1970) cycle of abuse,

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  159 a post-​violence period marked by subsided tensions and couple reconciliation, may offer some explanation on why an intimate might sustain that affectionate bond. It may also be that the victim wants to “fix” their abusive partner’s past or present trauma. Regardless, the fundamental hope for change in either scenario may encourage victims to remain in the relationship perhaps longer than they should. Fear

Evidence suggests that fear or insecurities experienced by victims of IPVA is both significant and justified. According to a review published by a National Institute of Justice journal, in the great majority of homicides, female victims underwent partner violence in the past year before they died. Increasingly frequent episodes of violence by an intimate posed a high risk of lethal violence for both the abuser as well as the victim, a factor linked with almost three-​fourths of women who murdered their abusive partners (Block, 2003). In another study of over 6,000 men and women in opposite-​sex and same-​sex relationships, alcohol and arguing prior to homicide were factors in a higher proportion of male than female homicide victims. Abuse preceded the homicide of many women in the same study with almost half of male suspects attempting or committing suicide at the time of IPH (Velopulos et al., 2019). Cultural Archetypes and Social Norms

IPVA literature suggests that some cultural archetypes and customs can be a liability for women in violent/​abusive relationships. An example is the ubiquitous “strong Black woman” archetype, one viewed by many African-​ Americans as epitomizing resilience from the effects of prejudice and discrimination: She is obligated to project strength; suppress emotions and feelings of vulnerability and dependence; succeed despite limited resources; and prioritize caregiving over self-​care. However, research also finds the archetype associated with negative attitudes toward seeking formal assistance for health-​related issues among Black women (Woods-​Giscombe et al., 2016), a decision fraught with complications for anyone in need of physical or psychological care. In a study of abused American Muslim women, cultural values affirming community and group loyalty were so important in shaping their experiences that many left their relationship only after physical violence and psychological abuse became too severe to tolerate (Hassouneh-​ Phillips, 2001). People in rural cultures similarly pride themselves on having a consensus of community values, and rural women are just as likely to share these principles. As a result, some may be reluctant to disclose IPVA, seek help, or leave an abusive partner (Riddell et al., 2009).

160  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave “Breaking Apart” How They Leave

Given the pain and confusion of being subjected to violence/​abuse by an intimate partner, it is important to emphasize that most victims are not simply passive sufferers. What might appear to outside observers as an “insufficient” response to violence/​abuse may not be the inaction presumed, but rather a strategic assessment of what it takes at that moment to survive (Heise et al., 1999). If possible, for example, a victim will try to talk their abuser out of being violent (Gelles and Strauss, 1988) or concede to the abuser’s demands, which may temporarily keep them from getting hurt (Love is respect, n.d.). Some victims fight back in self-​defense or exercise considerable stealth when planning out their safety and, if applicable, that of their children. If negotiating whether to end an abusive relationship altogether, a victim’s decision will likely be organized around two critical and often fearful unknowns: “Will I be better off?” and “Can I do it?” (Choice and Lamke, 1997). In this final section of the chapter, we address what intimates have done to disentangle themselves from an abusive intimate partner. We not only “break apart” how they strategize escape. We also uncover the emotional and practical challenges that shape their thinking, leading many to fluctuate between leaving and remaining with the abuser before permanently moving forward. First, we explore common factors that often motivate victims’ decision to leave. Motivations to Leave

As part of their research on how IPVA might be rationalized, Ferraro and Johnson (1983) also specify six factors that might motivate a victim’s escape: (1) a sudden, life-​threatening change in the level of relationship violence; (2) a reassessment of violence/​abuse based on the availability of IPVA-​ related resources; (3) decreasing emotional connectedness due to smaller periods between the acute battering and honeymoon phases; (4) despair or redefining the relationship as irreparable or “hitting rock bottom”; (5) having others witness or determine the existence IPVA; and (6) experiencing positive reinforcement from others that violence is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Chang and colleagues’ (2010) later investigation of factors motivating victims to assert against IPVA situation yielded five themes, several of which overlapped with those observed by Ferraro and Johnson (1983). They involve (1) protecting others from the abuse/​abuser; (2) increased severity/​humiliation with abuse; ((3) increased awareness of options/​access to support and resources; (4) fatigue and recognition that the abuser was not going to change and (5) the partner’s betrayal/​infidelity. In both studies, a turning point or dramatic shift in victims’ perceptions of themselves, their

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  161 partners and/​or their situations aligned to the thinking that maltreatment could no longer be withstood. Fluctuating between Leaving and Staying

Even after a turning point, many victims find themselves rethinking whether they should end the relationship. The IPVA survivors interviewed for Scheffer, Lindgren, and Renck’s (2008) study fluctuated between throwing their abusers out, moving to another town, or bringing up divorce due to increasingly severe relationship violence only to later return. For some who left and came back, part of the objective was to allay worries about their personal safety, namely being proximal enough to know where the abuser was or “would turn up next” (p. 119). One respondent explained, “So I have a motto, that it is better to have hell inside the door than outside, since I had no control if he was outside’’ (Scheffer Lindgren and Renck, 2008, p. 119). In most cases, however, the respondents asserted that their perpetrators refused to let go of the relationship and had worsened control over them (e.g., threatening to take the children, threatening to harm the respondents). Generally, these respondents retained their emotional bond with their perpetrators, a paradox some described as not only inexplicable but also self-​defeating with regard to permanently escaping the abusive relationship. Most who experience IPVA attempt to leave the situation or actually do (Anderson and Saunders, 2003), although likely after multiple attempts or years of violence/​abuse. About seven attempts may occur before permanently staying away (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n. d. b). The six-​month period after leaving appears to be the most vulnerable time, particularly for women, as an interest toward reconvening the relationship may still be high (Lerner and Kennedy, 2000). Leaving IPVA

The final act of permanent physical separation from an abusive intimate relationship is likely to follow some decisive event or experience in which a victim is forced to make a definitive break either immediately or in time. Scheffer, Lindgren, and Renck (2008) characterize this event as a releasing turning point. The researchers explain that the turning point instigating respondents’ release from abuse was provoked by what they identify as a final realization: an unshakable awareness that the abuser has a “deviating personality,” that “violence will never end” or “simply the fear for their own or their children’s lives” (p. 122). In Chapter 9, the final chapter, we introduce evidence-​based approaches and treatment models used to address the behavioral and psychological aftermath of IPVA.

162  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave Chapter Summary This chapter offers insight into why some partners perpetrate abuse, why some partners stay in abusive relationships, and how abused partners might escape. Childhood socialization, social attitudes regarding gender, power and control, along with the use of substances and sexual and gender minority-​based stressors are often-​studied factors of why some partners commit IPVA. While having its critics, Walker’s Cycle of Abuse and the Duluth’s Wheel of Control and Power models remain key references for helping expose the relationship dynamics that make it a challenge for some victims to “just leave.” Rationalizing the abuser’s actions, having a fear of or a love for the abuser, concerns over children’s well-​being and, in some cases, cultural depictions or norms endorsing gender or group resiliency are examples that may keep some victims in abusive relationships longer than they should. The last section of the chapter investigates the ambivalence that victims often experience before leaving an abusive relationship for good. Recommended Resource Learn more about the Power and Control Wheel as well as other Domestic Abuse Intervention Project diagrams. Website: www.the​dulu​thmo​del.org/​wheel-​gall​ery/​ Discussion Questions Based on your reading of the case study, Staircase Shove, what risk factors do you see regarding what happened in Jim and Mary’s relationship? How might Jim’s beliefs relate to those associated with Duluth’s Power and Control Model? What skills from the Equality Model might be most useful for Jim to learn? References Abbey, A., Ross, L., McDuffie, D. & McAuslan, P. (1996). Alcohol, misperception, and sexual assault: how and why are they linked? In D. M. Buss & N. Malamuth (Eds.) Sex, power, conflict: evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 138–​161). New York: Oxford University Press. Amanor-​Boadu, Y., Messing, J., Stith, S., Anderson, J., Sullivan, C., & Campbell, J. (2012). Immigrant and nonimmigrant women: factors that predict leaving an abusive relationship. Violence against women, 18(5), 611–​633. Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: an empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-​being. Trauma, violence & abuse, 4, 163–​191.

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  163 Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence in women’s same-​sex relationships: the role of minority stress. Psychology of women quarterly, 29(3), 258–​269. Block, C. R. (2003). How can practitioners help an abused woman lower her risk of death? National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 4–​7. Brinkerhoff, M. B., Grandin, E., & Lupri, E. (1992). Religious involvement and spousal violence: the Canadian case. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 31(1), 15–​31. Cervantes, M. V., & Sherman, J. (2021). Falling for the ones that were abusive: cycles of violence in low-​income women’s intimate relationships. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(13–​14). Chang, J. C., Dado, D., Hawker, L., Cluss, P. A., Buranosky, R., Slagel, L., McNeil, M., & Scholle, S. H. (2010). Understanding turning points in intimate partner violence: factors and circumstances leading women victims toward change. Journal of women’s health, 19(2), 251–​259. Choice, P., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). A conceptual approach to understanding abused women’s stay/​leave decisions. Journal of family issues, 18, 290–​314. Cook, P. (2009). Abused men: the hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2019). The development of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: an examination of key correlates among a sample of young adults. Journal of interpersonal violence, 34(7), 1357–​1387. Cruz, J. M. (2003). “Why doesn’t he just leave?” gay male domestic violence and the reasons victims stay. Journal of men’s studies, 11(3), 309. Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. (2022). Wheel information center. Retrieved from www.the​dulu​thmo​del.org/​whe​els/​ Edwards, K. M., & Sylaska, K. M. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: the role of minority stress. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(11), 1721–​1731. Ellington, J. E., & Marshall, L. L. (1997). Gender role perceptions of women in abusive relationships. Sex roles, 36(5–​6), 349. Ferraro, K. J., & Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: the process of victimization. Social problems, 30(3), 325–​339. Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: a meta-​analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 28(7), 1222–​1234. Gelles, R., & Strauss, M. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon & Schuster Trade Division. Graham-​ Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005). Investigating three explanations of women’s relationship aggression. Psychology of women quarterly, 29(3), 270–​277. Hassouneh-​Phillips, D. (2001). American Muslim women’s experiences of leaving abusive relationships. Health care for women international, 22, 415–​432. Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence against women. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Center for Communications Programs.

164  Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave Hubach, R. D., Currin, J. M., Giano, Z., Meyers, H. J., DeBoy, K. R., Wheeler, D. L., & Croff, J. M. (2019). Experiences of stigma by gay and bisexual men in rural Oklahoma. Health equity, 3(1), 231–​237. Kelly, U. A. (2009). “I’m a mother first”: the influence of mothering in the decision-​ making processes of battered immigrant Latino women. Research in nursing & health, 32(3), 286–​297. Lang, A. R., Broeckner, D. J., Adesso, V. T., & Marlatt, G. A. (1975). The effects of alcohol on aggression in male social drinkers. Journal of abnormal psychology, 84, 508−518. Lerner, F. C., & Kennedy, T. L. (2000). Stay-​leave decision making in battered women: trauma, coping and self-​efficacy. Cognitive therapy and research, 24, 215–​232. Love is respect. (n.d.). Why do I love my abuser? Retrieved from www.loveis​resp​ ect.org/​resour​ces/​why-​do-​i-​love-​my-​abu​ser/​ Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family relations, 35, 383–​388. Miller, S. L., & Meloy, M. L. (2006). Women’s use of force: voices of women arrested for domestic violence. Violence against women, 12(1), 89–​115. National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.a). Why do I love my abuser? Retrieved from www.the​hotl​ine.org/​resour​ces/​why-​do-​i-​love-​my-​abu​ser/​ National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.b). 50 obstacles to leaving. Retrieved from www.the​hotl​ine.org/​resour​ces/​get-​help-​50-​obstac​les-​to-​leav​ing/​ Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks, and Mexican Americans: the role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, and alcohol consumption. Journal of family violence, 10(1), 1–​21. Office for Victims of Crime. (2014). Victim issues: responding to transgender issues of sexual assault. Retrieved from ovc.ojp.gov/​sites/​g/​files/​xyckuh226/​files/​pubs/​ forge/​tips_​internalize.html Olson, L. N., & Lloyd, S. A. (2005). “It depends on what you mean by starting”: an exploration of how women define initiation of aggression and their motives for behaving aggressively. Sex roles, 53(7), 603–​617. Owens, J. (2018). The myth of the “cycle of abuse”. Retrieved from www.dom​esti​ cvio​lenc​eexp​ert.org/​new​slet​ter/​2018/​5/​9/​new​slet​ter-​may-​2018 Palker-​Corell, A., & Marcus, D. K. (2004). Partner abuse, learned helplessness, and trauma symptoms. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 23(4), 445. Raypole, C. (2020). Understanding the cycle of abuse. Healthline. Retrieved from www.hea​lthl​ine.com/​hea​lth/​relati​onsh​ips/​cycle-​of-​abuse Riddell, T., Ford-​Gilboe, M., & Leipert, B. (2009). Strategies used by rural women to stop, avoid, or escape from intimate partner violence. Health care for women international, 30(1–​2), 134–​159. Scheffer Lindgren, M., & Renck, B. (2008). Intimate partner violence and the leaving process: interviews with abused women. International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-​being, 3(2), 113–​124. Shalansky, C., Ericksen, J., & Henderson, A. (1999). Abused women and child custody: the ongoing exposure to abusive ex-​partners. Journal of advanced nursing, 29(2), 416–​426.

Why They Abuse, Why They Stay, and How They Leave  165 Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating: a test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and victims, 5(4), 257–​273. Steinmetz, S. K. (1977–​1978). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2(3–​ 4), 499–​509. Stephenson, R., & Finneran, C. (2017). Minority stress and intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men in Atlanta. American journal of men’s health, 11(4), 952–​961. Stuart, G. L., Meehan, J. C., Moore, T. M., Morean, M., Hellmuth, J., & Follansbee, K. (2006). Examining a conceptual framework of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of studies on alcohol, 67, 102–​112. Sugarman, D. B., & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-​assault: a meta-​analytic review. Journal of family violence, 11(1), 13–​40. Swan, S., Gambone, L., Caldwell, J., Sullivan, T., & Snow, D. (2008). A review of research on women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and victims, 23(3), 301–​314. Testa, M. (2004). The role of substance use in male-​to-​female physical and sexual violence: a brief review and recommendations for future research. Journal of interpersonal violence, 19(12), 1494–​1505. Velopulos, C. G., Carmichael, H., Zakrison, T. L., & Crandall, M. (2019). Comparison of male and female victims of intimate partner homicide and bidirectionality –​an analysis of the national violent death reporting system. The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 87(2), 331–​336. Walker, L. E. (1977–​1978). Battered women and learned helplessness. Victimology, 2(3–​4), 525–​534. Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row. Woods-​ Giscombe, C., Robinson, M. N., Carthon, D., Devane-​ Johnson, S., & Corbie-​Smith, G. (2016). Superwoman schema, stigma, spirituality, and culturally sensitive providers: factors influencing African American women’s use of mental health services. Journal of best practices in health professions diversity, 9(1), 1124–​1144. Yakubovich, A. R., Stöckl, H., Murray, J., Melendez-​ Torres, G. J., Steinert, J. I., Glavin, C. E., & Humphreys, D. K. (2018). Risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women: systematic review and meta-​ analyses of prospective–​longitudinal studies. American journal of public health, 108(7), e1–​e1.

9 “Breaking Apart” Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention

Intimate partner violence and abuse does not have to happen. In this chapter, we explore strategies designed to prevent the onset of violence/​ abuse in an intimate partner relationship or to minimize risk of intimate partner violence/​abuse. Of particular focus is the public health approach to IPVA prevention and its social ecological emphasis on how individual, relationship, community, and societal factors might be directed toward enhancing protections against partner violence/​abuse. First, we shed light on evidence-​ based models of IPVA intervention and actions designed to reduce the harmful consequences already existing in violent/​abusive intimate relationships. “Breaking Apart” Interventions for Perpetrators of IPVA Cognitive-​Behavioral Intervention

It is common for partners to rationalize their abusive behaviors by pointing out norms and beliefs that justify their maltreatment. Some batterers, for example, may appeal to rigid stereotypes and other gendered tropes to defend their violence/​abuse against a female intimate (e.g., “men should neither cook, clean nor do housework”) or a male intimate partner (e.g., “women should not work as well as cook, clean and do housework”). Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), a treatment approach applying learning principles to help battering clients modify their thoughts and behaviors, not only addresses these and other underlying thoughts but also outlines behavioral goals that reject acts of violence/​abuse (Arce et al., 2020). CBT has been shown effective in reducing criminal behavior and recidivism for juveniles and adults in the criminal justice system (Clark, 2011; Lipsey, 2009). But there is also evidence suggesting promising results for intervention efforts targeting IPVA batterers. In their meta-​analytical review of 25 primary studies on batterer intervention programs, Arce and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176961-9

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  167 colleagues (2020) found that more effective interventions include CBT and that long-​term intervention treatments based on CBT were effective on average. Group-​Based Intervention

Group-​based intervention modalities have been shown more effective than some individual-​based modalities of batterer treatment and are conducted in varying formats. Closed-​group formats maintain the same participants from beginning to end of treatment, allowing individuals to establish rapport with a cohort as they progress through therapy. Open group formats allow for new members to rotate into a group session as needed. A benefit of the open-​group format appears to be the flexibility in working in new referrals ordered by the courts or by child protection agencies in cases requiring mandated perpetrator treatment. An open group format also provides the opportunity for participants to take on leadership roles over time and to help incoming members to adapt as they learn (Murphy et al., 2020). One of the strongest benefits of group-​based batterer treatment is the often positive peer influence among members while in treatment. Minimizing, blaming, and denying violent/​abusive behaviors is a common psychological defense mechanism among batterers (Harsey and Freyd, 2020; Henning et al., 2005). In fact, many may try to make the violence appear less serious than it actually was (e.g., “It was just a slap”); attribute the violence to someone or something else (e.g., “I was nagged and provoked to slap”; “It’s the courts’ fault that I’m here”) or refute the violence/​abuse completely. In a group-​based therapeutic environment, however, peers with similar experiences are positioned to help others confront some of these defense mechanisms. Many male perpetrators report the positive influence of peers in their group treatment settings (Morrison et al., 2019). It is important to emphasize that batterers’ desire to change their behaviors plays a substantial role in the overall effectiveness of group-​based treatment (Alexander et al., 2010). Therefore, intervention practitioners are recommended to assess clients’ motivation to undergo change during the initial group meeting. Attempting to match group motivational strategies with clients’ personal level of readiness is one such approach. The assessment increases treatment compliance and the length of time an individual participates in therapy as well as helps clients think about and articulate why behavioral change is needed (Muldoon and Gary, 2011; Santirso et al., 2020).

168  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention Couples-​Based Intervention

Some studies suggest that relationships involving bouts of situational violence may benefit from couples’ therapy; however, critics caution the use of couples therapy even then (Karakurt, 2016). The argument is that couple-​ based intervention invariably shifts responsibility to the couple instead of placing accountability on the perpetrator’s violence/​abuse. Another concern is that couples therapy might increase a survivor’s vulnerability to partner maltreatment. For example, a perpetrator may retaliate due to something mentioned during therapy. Or, if too confident too soon, a survivor may develop a sense of false optimism, grow less vigilant in detecting maltreatment or otherwise interfere with their safety planning (Maharaj, 2017). Many states issue standards of care for IPVA treatment; some prohibit or caution against couples counseling (Hamel, 2014; Murphy and Meis, 2008). Such standards, perhaps, explain the consensus that couple-​based therapy for IPVA should only occur after a comprehensive screening for its appropriateness (Hurless and Cottone, 2018; Maharaj, 2017; Stith et al., 2011) and when couples are ready to convey a commitment to non-​ violence (Stith et al., 2011). Domestic Abuse Program Intervention

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (DAIP) is commonly referred to as the Duluth Model. Based on a 40-​year history and the patriarchal perspective of IPVA, DAIP proponents assert that the dominant pattern of violence/​abuse between couples is male perpetrators directing aggression against female victims and that societal norms endorse women’s subordination to men (McPhail et al., 2007; Rothenberg, 2003). Others, however, criticize the Duluth model for “eliminating the psychology of violence from treatment and replacing it with ‘gender politics’ ” (Snead et al., 2018, p. 271), along with downplaying that women as well as men perpetrate IPVA (Babcock et al., 2003). As part of the Duluth Model’s psychoeducational strategy of batterer intervention, facilitators integrate principles aligned with the program’s signature Power and Control Wheel (see Figure 8.1 in Chapter 8) in concert with DAIP’s Equality Wheel (see Figure 9.1). The goal of intervention is to eliminate abusers’ controlling, violent behaviors as identified by the Power and Control Wheel and to replace them with non-​controlling, non-​ violent relationship skills as illustrated in the Equality Wheel (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, 2017; Pence and Paymar, 1993). To address a client identified by the Power and Control Wheel’s description as “Using Emotional Abuse” (e.g., humiliating and putting down a partner, playing

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  169

Figure 9.1 Duluth Equality Wheel. Reprinted with permission from the DAIP.

mind games), for example, a professional may defer to and facilitate the more affirming behavioral traits identified in the Equality Wheels’ corresponding module, “Respect” (e.g., listening non-​judgmentally, being encouraging and emotionally understanding, and valuing a partner’s points of view). As a mode of batterer intervention, Duluth’s Power and Control/​Equal Wheel combination is intended to improve the lives of women who experience male-​ to-​ female relationship violence, another stipulation that has been met with ongoing criticism (Cook, 2009). But as the DAIP website asserts, the context of violence against women tends to differ from violence against men: women’s primary use of violence against men is said to respond to and resist the abuse against them and has a comparatively lesser effect on men than that of male-​on-​female violence (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, 2017). Therefore, the abusive behaviors identified, explored, and addressed during treatment are intended for male batterers of women, who are ready to progress to non-​violent behaviors (Pence and Paymar, 1993).

170  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention Box 9.1  Debate in IPVA Intervention: Mandatory Arrest Polices A debated legal approach to intervening in IPVA situations and recognizing IPVA as a crime has been the implementation of mandatory arrest policies (MAPs) or nondiscretionary statutes that require law enforcement officers to arrest suspected batterers, if there is probable cause that domestic violence has occurred. Enacted as part of aggressive criminal justice response to IPVA intervention, mandatory arrest laws have been coupled with mandatory no-​drop prosecution policies (MNDPP) in some jurisdictions. MNDPP require that, once a survivor has filed formal court changes against an offender, the individual can no longer withdraw the complaint and the prosecution of the charge continues independent of the petitioner’s wishes. Historically, the implementation of MAPs was a response to what was argued as a lapse in perpetrator and law enforcement accountability regarding IPVA, especially against women. The early 1970s Battered Women’s Movement had seen successes with the creation of battered women shelters and hotlines established nationwide (White et al., 2005). Legally, however, domestic violence was viewed as a minor offense and subjected to responding officers’ discretion (Hirschel et al., 2007). In addition to bias against the seriousness of domestic violence was the assumption that police were relatively lenient with men who assaulted their wives (Avakame and Fyfe, 2001). Despite their original intent to curb IPVA and recognize victim’s needs, MAPs and MNDPPs have been met with mixed reactions. Perhaps the most vocal disagreement is that MAPs and MNDPPs remove victims’ power to make decisions about police involvement, arrest, and prosecution (Smith, 2001) and that the probability of women reporting IPVA is reduced if police involvement is considered to result in more costs than benefits (Novisky and Peralta, 2015). In fact, MAPs appear to benefit those women who desire the arrest of their abusers, which may be mediated by victims’ marital status, the extent of their injuries, as well as race/​ethnicity. In a sample of women in emergency shelters, 79% and 53% of White and Black women, respectively, were supportive of MAPs (Smith, 2001, p. 102). On the other hand, MAPs advocates argue that domestic violence has been long viewed as a private matter and that a zero-​tolerance law enforcement response is warranted. Advocates add that relieving

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  171 the victim from making arrests and prosecutorial decisions protects them from retaliation by their abuser, who might have otherwise coerced the victim to drop the charges entirely (Smith, 2000). Also, mandatory arrests are prefaced on the probable cause of a crime, not the individual discretions of law enforcement officers addressing domestic violence situations.

Risk Assessment-​Based Interventions

An important part of intervention practice is assessing the risk of endangerment in violent/​abusive relationships. Risk assessments are not a prediction of future behaviors. However, as a preventative tool, risk assessments can be a useful in evaluating the potential for intimate partner homicide, the most serious of IPVA outcomes, and implementing anti-​violence strategies tailored to the levels of danger scored. As a result, professionals are provided with evidence-​based validation when discussing the severity and potential harm of IPVA with perpetrators as well as safety planning with victims (Campbell et al., 2009). One example of an evidence-​based risk assessment inventory is IPVA researcher Jacquelyn Campbell’s (2004) Danger Assessment. The Danger Assessment is a 20-​question screening instrument designed to help assess risk factors associated with the intimate partner homicide of men and women (Campbell et al. 2009; see Figure 9.2). Questions about weapons are included, as women assaulted or threatened with guns or weapons are 20 times more likely to be murdered at the hands of an intimate partner (Campbell et al., 2009). “Breaking Apart” Trauma-​Informed Care for Survivors of IPVA Trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-​being (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014). Decades of research show high rates of exposure to trauma, most notably childhood abuse, among individuals who engage in IPVA. Meanwhile, there is a growing awareness that IPVA treatment models that fail to factor in trauma might not only be “incomplete” but also an impediment to treatment and prevention efforts (Taft et al., 2016, p. 4).

172  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention

Figure 9.2 Campbell’s Danger Assessment. Source: Campbell, JC. 2004.

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  173 In this section, we explore the significance of evidence-​based trauma-​ informed therapeutic models in treating victims of IPVA. But, before we do, we “break apart” the life-​ changing health consequences that frequently accompany that experience. We begin with the interview excerpt, “Interview with a Trauma Therapist.” Box 9.2  Interview with a Trauma Therapist Q1: What are some common symptoms experienced by victims of intimate partner violence? A1: Victims may meet the clinical criteria for a depressive, anxiety, or trauma-​related disorders. Even if victims do not meet the criteria for a formal diagnosis, they often still struggle with one or more symptoms such as low self-​ esteem, shame, sadness, hopelessness, sleep problems, worry, dissociation, and difficulty with trust. They may also have problems with substance use, self-​harm behaviors, and suicidal ideation. The psychological symptoms can make it even more difficult to escape a violent situation. Additionally, if a survivor has left an abusive relationship, they may continue to struggle with fear and anxiety about money, child custody, religious beliefs, or retaliation from the offender. Q2: Does previous childhood trauma impact victims in their current experience of intimate partner violence as adults? A2: Victims of IPV have all too often had past adverse childhood experiences during their lifetime, such as growing up in a home where they witnessed interpersonal violence between their parents or were victims of childhood physical or sexual abuse. These instances, in which trauma is layered or complex, create special challenges. Previous childhood abuse is also the same type of relational abuse where children do not have a safe and secure living environment. Q3: What are the most helpful therapeutic treatment approaches for helping victims of IPVA? A3: It is important to establish a safe, comfortable, and inviting environment, such as soft lighting, comfortable seating, and soothing background sounds. I am also conscious of going at the victim’s own pace, and I never want a victim to feel like I’m more intent on completing paperwork than I am on hearing their story. It is important

174  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention to maintain transparency about the difficult subject material and know that when they are ready to talk about traumatic events, difficult emotions, thoughts, memories, or images may arise. If the individual is still in the abusive relationship or has left and is at any risk, safety planning for themselves and their children may be necessary. Psychological education on interpersonal violence is usually beneficial as well. Treatment should be individualized to the needs of each person…. Something that I see as critical is helping survivors to empower themselves. I work with them on developing interpersonal skills so that they can advocate for themselves and be assertive in personal and professional relationships. I also refer survivors, with their permission, for services such as case management and peer support that can help them practice skills, enhance their social skills, and provide support as they work toward their goals and build their own natural support system. (Lynn Geurin, PhD., Personal Interview, October, 2021)

Understanding Trauma

The fear, anxiety, and common symptoms reflected in the above excerpt (i.e., Q1/​A1) closely match those of recent findings on the effects of IPVA-​ related trauma. At focus is the body’s reaction to stressors, which may lead to these and other trauma-​related symptoms like depression, concentration issues, a lack of interest, hypervigilance, numbing, and other avoidance behaviors. Post-​traumatic stress disorder may result from an extreme startle or an intense reaction when reminded of or retriggered by a memory, sound, smell, word, tone of voice, or body movement resembling a past traumatic event (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, Warshaw et al., 2013). Further, the anticipation of stress or stress from violence/​abuse can generate physiological reactions affecting the immune and other bodily systems (e.g., chronic pain/​headaches, gynecological and gastrointestinal difficulties) and increasing susceptibility to eating disorders, substance disorders, and self-​harm (Ferencik and Ramirez-​ Hammond, 2019). It is perhaps not surprising that changes occurring in the brain and body during trauma can lead to effects that are both long term and significant. Socially, for example, a person’s interpersonal relationships, work performance, and other important areas of life may experience disruption. Thinking patterns may be altered to such that a person may begin to believe that he or she deserves what is happening (Guerreiro, 2019).

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  175 Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA

It is important that any trauma survivor develop the physical and emotional security needed to cognitively process and recover from traumatic occurrences. If a survivor of IPVA, seeking the services of intervention practitioners or agencies guided by a Trauma-​Informed Care (TIC) model may present a therapeutic advantage. As a therapeutic practice, TIC begins with the assumption that an individual is more likely than not to have a history of trauma (Harris and Fallot, 2001). Helping survivors recognize clusters of symptoms analogous to trauma and to acknowledge their harm are key goals, along with helping survivors reframe unhelpful thoughts about themselves or otherwise cope with their emotional reactions and defenses in less upsetting ways (Guerrero, 2019; Harris and Fallot, 2001). Research suggests that trauma-​ focused treatments designed for IPVA survivors hold some promise in reducing at least some symptomatology over time. Improvement in PTSD and depressive symptoms has been shown among women who have completed TIC (Warshaw et al., 2013). Research supportive of TIC intervention in contexts of ongoing violence/​abuse in the relationship urge that helping professionals prepare for the gamut of concerns associated with treating the trauma of IPVA. Survivors of IPVA endure a number of issues (e.g., concerns over safety, confidentiality, coercive control, parenting, custody, legal issues, immigration, social support, and economic independence, social prejudice) that can influence a person’s participation in and response to treatment. Not only must practitioners understand and integrate these complications into survivors’ treatment planning, but also other IPVA-​related challenges, some of which might stress even the most committed help provider/​survivor relationship. An abuser might isolate or otherwise undermine the individual from accessing treatment, for example, or a survivor’s treatment participation might be used to undermine their credibility or child custody arrangements. Further, in therapies emphasizing that clients express their feelings, it will be important to address safer ways in which to remain “on guard” when returning home to an abusive partner. As with any intervention that enhances survivors’ sense of self-​esteem and empowerment, in fact, additional safety planning may be required (Warshaw et al., 2013). “Breaking Apart” the Public Health Preventative Approach against IPVA The CDC Foundation describes public health as the science of protecting and improving the health of people and their communities (CDC Foundation, 2022). Unlike medical practitioners (e.g., doctors, nurses), who focus primarily on treating individuals after they become sick or injured, public

176  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention health professionals are multi-​disciplinary (e.g., medicine, epidemiology, sociology, psychology, criminology, social work, education, and economics) in their efforts to prevent health-​related problems from happening or recurring by recommending policies, conducting research, implementing educational programs, and administering services (Dahlberg, 2002). Social Ecological Model

Rooted in the scientific method, the Public Health approach to averting violence/​abuse is based on an incremental process in which one course of preventative action informs the next. That is (1) to define and identify the magnitude of the problem through data assessing the number of violence-​related behaviors, injuries, and deaths; (2) to identify aspects increasing (risk factors) and decreasing (protective factors) the likelihood of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence/​abuse; (3) to develop and rigorously test strategies designed to prevent violence/​abuse and, finally, (4) to assure the widespread adoption and implementation of those strategies shown to be effective in violence prevention (Centers for Disease Control, n.d.). A framework guiding the public health approach’s overall violence prevention initiative is the Social Ecological Model (SEM) (Centers for Disease Control, 2022). Based on a four-​tier model representing individual, relationship, community, and societal-​level factors, the SEM centers on key contexts that influence abusive behaviors and discusses the mutual relationship between them. By identifying the processes through which abusive behaviors are learned or developed, the model can help expose what risks might lead to the perpetration of violence and what protective strategies might be useful in reducing victimization (see Figure 9.3; Centers for Disease Control, 2022).

Figure 9.3 Social ecological model for violence prevention.

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  177 Individual-​Level Factors

The first of SEM’s four-​tier approach, individual, seeks to identify aspects of one’s personal history (e.g., age, education, income, substance use, prior history of aggression, impulsivity, low educational attainment) that might increase the likelihood of being a victim or a perpetrator of violence/​abuse (Krug et al., 2002). At this level, effective violence prevention will require strategies that promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that counteract use of violence/​abuse. Preventive efforts may take the form of conflict resolution or life skills training and instruction on safe dating (Dahlberg and Krug, 2002). Relationship-​Level Factors

Even unwittingly, an individual’s closest social circle can influence behaviors that contribute to experiences with victimization and perpetration. At the second SEM level, relationships, the objective is to learn how proximal social relationships (e.g., peer groups, intimate partners, family members) might increase such risks (Krug et al., 2002). Prevention strategies are likely to include parenting/​family-​focused prevention programs and peer/​mentoring initiatives designed to strengthen parent–​child communication along with promoting positive peer norms, problem-​solving skills, and healthy relationships (Dahlberg and Krug, 2002). Community-​Level Factors

Research on violence shows that areas of poverty, physical deterioration, and few institutional supports can present greater opportunities for exposure to violence. At the third level, community, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods are examined, along with other community-​ based environments where social relationships are often embedded. The focus is to identify which environmental characteristic might be associated with being victims or perpetrators of violence/​abuse (Krug et al., 2002). Prevention strategies aimed at improving the physical and social environment and creating spaces where people can safely live, learn, work, and play are important. Also addressed are social conditions attributed to escalating community violence (e.g., neighborhood poverty, residential segregation/​ instability, high density of alcohol outlets; Dahlberg and Krug, 2002). Societal-​Level Factors

The fourth and final SEM level, societal, requires a close examination of the social and cultural factors that help to create a climate in which

178  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention violence/​abuse is encouraged, uninhibited, or perceived as an acceptable way of problem-​solving. This includes health, economic, educational, and social policies: all significant in facilitating economic or social disparities between social groups. Prevention efforts may involve programs that promote social norms that protect against violence, while strengthening financial security, education, employment opportunities and other structural determinants affecting public health outcomes (Dahlberg and Krug, 2002; Krug et al., 2002). The demanding level of cooperation between the various tiers and institutions can hinder any health-​ promotion progress. One innovative recommendation toward addressing the issue is to develop a sort of “science of cooperation.” The discipline would investigate how effective partnerships for health promotion might be forged, despite barriers (Wold and Mittelmark, 2018, p. 25). Other IPVA Prevention Initiatives Youth-​Related IPVA Preventions

The CDC’s Dating Matters is an evidence-​ based, SEM-​ informed anti-​ violence program targeting the prevention of teen dating violence/​abuse. Dating Matter’s curricula are designed to teach students ages 11 to 14 years about safe, healthy relationship skills prior to dating, to reduce behaviors that increase the risk for dating violence (i.e., substance abuse, sexual risk-​ taking), and to reinforce protective factors. Dating Matters’ programs are created to be delivered in schools by teachers or prevention educators. Programming for parents, peers, educators, and community stakeholders has been developed, as the program targets IPVA prevention across the social ecosystem. Gender-​Related Anti-​Violence Preventions

Men Stopping Violence (MSV) is a metro Atlanta-​based organization that uses the SEM’s community-​accountability component to map out contexts in which male violence against women occurs and to work with individuals and community resources to end the problem. MSV is designed to address five interlocking levels of community influence: (a) the individual; (b) the individual’s primary community (e.g., the family of origin, school friends, clubs, gangs, or any group that fulfills a familial role); (c) the micro community (e.g. faith-​based groups, school systems, civic groups, social service agencies); (d) the macro community (e.g., religion, governments, mass media, the court system, corporations); and (e) the global community

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  179 (patriarchal cultural systems reinforced by community interactions between communities, men and boys (Douglas et al., 2008). RESPECT

The World Health Organization/​U.N. Women’s RESPECT Women framework is designed to prevent violence against women, including IPVA. Developed for gender violence policymakers and program organizers, RESPECT Women focuses on the creation, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of violence interventions in a global context. At its core are seven evidence-​based anti-​violence strategies (World Health Organization, 2019). Relationship Skills Strengthened

Refers to strategies aimed at individuals or groups of women, men, or couples to improve skills in interpersonal communication, conflict management, and shared decision-​making. Empowerment of Women

Refers to strategies intended to empower women both economically and socially through mentoring and training in inheritance and asset ownership, microfinance, gender empowerment and collective action. Services Ensured

Refers to the coordination of survivor-​ related service providers and agencies, including police, legal, health, and social services. Poverty Reduced

Refers to strategies intended for women or households with the goal to alleviate poverty through options such as cash transfers, microfinance loans, and labor force interests (e.g., employment policies, employment training). Environments Made Safe

Refers to strategies to create safe schools, public spaces, and work environments.

180  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention Child and Adolescent Abuse Prevented

Refers to strategies establishing nurturing family relationships and the prevention of child abuse. Transformed Attitudes, Beliefs, and Norms

Refers to strategies that challenge discriminatory gender attitudes, beliefs, norms, and stereotypes that justify violence against women and stigmatize survivors. Inclusive and General Population-​Based Anti-​Violence Prevention

The National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) is a toll-​free 24-​hour hotline that offers free information, advocacy, and confidential assistance to adult and youth regarding IPVA as well as family violence and domestic violence. The information provided includes crisis intervention, domestic violence education, safety planning, direct referrals to local service providers, and referrals to agencies providing legal, economic self-​sufficiency, sexual assault, elder abuse, children, and other related services. The NDVA also works with domestic violence advocates, government officials, law enforcement agencies, and the public (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.). The US Family Violence Prevention and Services Act provides funding for the on-​going operation of the NDVH. Because callers are provided advocacy and referral services regardless to race/​ ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability (including deaf and hard of hearing), or gender/​sexual identity, the NDVA in many ways addresses a critical gap in IPVA-​related services for minority populations. However, referrals to local IPVA-​related agencies with few culturally competent resources or services may pose a problem for some socially marginalized victims in need of culturally inclusive assistance. Chapter Summary This chapter “breaks apart” current evidence-​based approaches designed to address the traumatic toll of surviving an abusive relationship as well as modifying the behaviors and attitudes of abusive partners. The chapter examines cognitive-​ behavioral, group-​ based, and couples-​ based interventions, in addition to feminist domestic violence program approaches, screenings assessing the risk of partner endangerment, and trauma-​informed treatment approaches. This chapter also introduces the social ecological model, an evidence-​ based, public health approach that integrates individual, relationship,

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  181 community, and societal factors into training and other anti-​ violence prevention strategies. The social ecological model can be used to identify aspects increasing the risk of IPVA victimization and the likelihood of becoming a perpetrator of violence/​abuse. Existing youth, gender, and population-​based anti-​violence initiatives, including those that address the needs of abused and socially marginalized groups, also reflect a concerted effort to either mitigate or end IPVA. Recommended Resource Preventing Intimate Partner Violence Across the Lifespan: A Technical Package of Programs, Policies, and Practices. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Website: www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​ipv-​techni​calp​acka​ges.pdf Taft, C. T., Murphy, C. M., & Creech, S. K. (2016). Trauma-​informed treatment and prevention of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Discussion Question Based on the Social Ecological Model, what IPVA prevention strategies do you think would be appropriate for your own community and why? References Alexander, P. C., Morris, E., Tracy, A., & Frye, A. (2010). Stages of change and the group treatment of batterers: a randomized clinical trial. Violence and victims, 25(5), 571–​587. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Trauma and stressor-​related disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (5th ed.), pp. 265–​290. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Press. Arce, R., Arias, E., Novo, M., & Farina, F. (2020). Are interventions with batterers effective? A meta-​analytical review. Journal of psychosocial intervention, 29(3), 153–​164. Avakame, E. F., & Fyfe, J. J. (2001). Differential police treatment of male-​on-​female spousal violence: additional evidence on the leniency thesis. Violence against women, 7(1), 22–​45. Babcock, J. C., Miller, S. A., & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: differences between partner-​only and generally violent women in the use of violence. Psychology of women quarterly, 27(2), 153–​161. Campbell, J. C. (2004). Danger assessment. Retrieved from www.dange​rass​essm​ ent.org/​

182  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., & Glass, N. (2009). The danger assessment validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of interpersonal violence, 24(4), 653–​674. CDC Foundation. (2022). What is public health? Retrieved from www.cdcfou​ndat​ ion.org/​what-​pub​lic-​hea​lth Centers for Disease Control. (2022). The social-​ecological model: A framework for prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Division of Violence Prevention. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​about/​soc​ ial-​ecol​ogic​almo​del.html Centers for Disease Control. (n.d.). Public health approach to violence prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Division of Violence Prevention. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/​vio​lenc​epre​vent​ion/​pdf/​PH_​A​pp_​V​iole​ nce-​a.pdf Clark, P. M. (2011). Cognitive-​behavioral therapy: an evidence-​based intervention for offenders. Corrections today, 73, 62–​64. Cook, P. (2009). Abused men: the hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. Dahlberg, L. & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence: a global public health problem In Krug, E.G., et al. (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 1–​21). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Douglas, U., Bathrick, D., & Perry, P. A. (2008). Deconstructing male violence against women: The men stopping violence. Violence against women, 14(2), 247–​261. Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. (2017). FAQs about the wheels Retrieved from www.the​dulu​thmo​del.org/​whe​els/​faqs-​about-​the-​whe​els/​ Ferencik, S. D., & Ramirez-​Hammond, R. (2019). Trauma-​informed care: promising practices and protocols for Ohio’s domestic violence programs. Ohio domestic violence network, 4, 35–​169. Retrieved from www.odvn.org/​wp-​cont​ ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​05/​ODVN​_​Tra​uma-​Inform​ed_​C​are_​Manu​al_​2​020.pdf Guerreiro, R. (2019). Trauma-​Informed Therapy. Retrieved from www.gen​esis​shel​ ter.org/​tra​uma-​infor​med-​ther​apy/​ Hamel, J. (2014). Gender-​inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse: evidence-​ based approaches. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Harris, M. E., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. San Fransico: Jossey-​Bass/​Wiley. Harsey, S., & Freyd, J. (2020). Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender (DARVO): what is the influence on perceived perpetrator and victim credibility? Journal of aggression maltreatment and trauma, 29(8), 897–​916. Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: an investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal justice and behavior, 32(6), 612–​642. Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., & Faggiani, D. (2007). Domestic violence and mandatory arrest laws: to what extent do they influence police arrest decisions. Journal of criminal law and criminology, 98, 255–​298. Hurless, N., & Cottone, R. R. (2018). Considerations of conjoint couples therapy in cases of intimate partner violence. The family journal, 26(3), 324–​329.

Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention  183 Karakurt, G., Whiting, K., van Esch, C., Bolen, S. D., & Calabrese, J. R. (2016). Couples therapy for intimate partner violence: a systematic review and meta-​ analysis. Journal of marital and family therapy, 42(4), 567–​583. Krug, E. G., (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, World Health Organization. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: a meta-​analytic overview. Victims and offenders, 4(2), 124–​147. Maharaj, N. (2017). Perspectives on treating couples impacted by intimate partner violence. Journal of family violence, 32, 431–​437. McPhail, B. A., Busch, N. B., Kulkarni, S., & Rice, G. (2007). An integrative feminist model: the evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence against women, 13(8), 817–​841. Morrison, A. S., Mateen, M. A., Brozovich, F. A., Zaki, J., Goldin, P. R., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J. J. (2019). Changes in empathy mediate the effects of cognitive-​ behavioral group therapy but not mindfulness-​based stress reduction for social anxiety disorder. Behavior therapy, 50(6), 1098–​1111. Muldoon, J. P., & Gary, J. (2011). Enhancing treatment compliance among male batterers: motivators to get them in the door and keep them in the room. Journal of mental health counseling, 33(2), 144–​160. Murphy, C. M., Eckhardt, C., Clifford, J. M., LaMotte, A. M., & Meis, L. A. (2020). Individual versus group cognitive-​behavioral therapy for partner-​violent men: a preliminary randomized trial. Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(15–​ 16), 2846–​2868. [CE: Murphy, C. M., Eckhardt, C. I., Clifford, J. M., LaMotte, A. D., & Meis, L. A. (2020). Individual versus group cognitive-​behavioral therapy for partner-​violent men: A preliminary randomized trial. Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(15-​ 16), 2846-​2868.] Murphy, C. M., & Meis, L. A. (2008). Individual treatment of intimate partner violence perpetrators. Violence and victims, 23(2), 173–​186. National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). National Domestic Violence Hotline. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/​fysb/​progr​ams/​fam​ily-​viole​nce-​pre​vent​ion-​ servi​ces/​progr​ams/​ndvh Novisky, M. A., & Peralta, R. L. (2015). When women tell: intimate partner violence and the factors related to police notification. Violence against women, 21(1), 65–​86. Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: the Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Rothenberg, B. (2003). “We don’t have time for social change”: cultural compromise and the battered woman syndrome. Gender and society, 17(5), 771–​787. Santirso, F. A., Lila, M., & Gracia, E. (2020). Motivational strategies, working alliance, and protherapeutic behaviors in batterer intervention programs: a randomized controlled trial. The European journal of psychology applied to legal context, 12(2), 77–​84. Smith, A. (2001). Domestic violence laws: the voices of battered women. Violence and victims, 16, 91–​111.

184  Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Intervention and Prevention Snead, A. L., Bennett, V. E., & Babcock, J. C. (2018). Treatments that work for intimate partner violence: beyond the Duluth Model. In New frontiers in offender treatment (pp. 269–​285). Springer, Cham. Stith, S. M., McCollum, E. E., Amanor-​Boadu, Y., & Smith, D. (2011). Systematic perspectives on intimate partner violence treatment. Journal of marital and family therapy, 38(1), 220–​240. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-​Informed Approach (HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-​4884). SAMHSA. Taft, C. T., Murphy, C. M., & Creech, S. K. (2016). Trauma-​informed treatment and prevention of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Warshaw, C., Sullivan, C. M., & Rivera, E. (2013). A systematic review of trauma-​ focused interventions for domestic violence survivors. National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health, 1–​27. Retrieved from www.natio​ nalc​ente​rdvt​raum​amh.org/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2013/​03/​NCDVT​MH_​E​BPLi​ tRev​iew2​013.pdf Wold, B., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2018). Health-​promotion research over three decades: the social-​ ecological model and challenges in implementation of interventions. Scandinavian journal of public health, 46(20_​suppl), 20–​26. World Health Organization. (2019). RESPECT-​seven strategies to prevent violence against women: key messages (No. WHO/​ RHR/​ 19.11). World Health Organization.

Appendix I Domestic Violence Personalized Safety Plan

The following steps represent my plan for increasing my safety and preparing in advance for the possibility of further violence. Although I do not have control over my partner’s use of violence, I do have choices about how to respond to him/​her and how to best get myself and my children to safety. STEP 1: Safety during a violent incident. Victims cannot always avoid violent incidents. In order to increase safety, victims use a variety of strategies. I can use some of the following strategies: A If I decide to leave, I will. (Practice how to get out safely. What door, windows, elevators, stairwells, or fire escapes would you use?) B I can keep my purse and car keys ready and put them (location) in order to leave quickly.–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ C I can tell nearby neighbors about my partner’s use of violence and request if he or she hears suspicious noises coming from my house to call 911 and _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​. D I can teach my children how to use the telephone to contact 911 or the police and fire department. E I will use–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​as my code with my children or my friends so they can call for help. F If I have to leave my home, I will go to–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ (Decide this even if you do not think there will be a next time.) G I can also teach some of these strategies to some or all of my children. H When I expect violence may be used, I’ll try to move myself and my children to a place that is low risk, (Try to –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​avoid interactions in the bathroom, garage, kitchen, near weapons, or in any rooms without access to an outside door.)

186  Appendix I I

I will use my judgment and intuition. If the situation is very serious, I can give my partner what he/​she wants to calm him/​her down. I have to protect myself until I/​we are out of danger.

STEP 2: Safety when preparing to leave. Battered women frequently leave the residence they share with the person using violence (PUV). Leaving must be done with a careful plan in order to increase safety. PUVs often strike when they believe their victim is leaving. I can use some or all of the following strategies: A I will leave money and an extra set of keys –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​with so I can leave quickly. B I will keep copies of important documents or keys at –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. C I will open a savings account by –​–​–​–​––​, to increase my independence. D Other things I can do to increase my independence, include: –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ E I will consider the best way to handle my phone calls. If I have a cell phone on the same plan as my partner I will not use it for calls related to our safety. I will consider getting a separate phone just for myself or see if there are phones available from law enforcement. F I will check with–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ and –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​to see who would be able to let me stay with them or lend me some money. G I can leave extra clothes or money with –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. H I will review my safety plan every week –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ to plan the safest way to leave. (domestic violence advocate or friend’s name) has agreed to help me review this plan. I I will rehearse my escape plan and, as appropriate, practice it with my children. STEP 3: Safety in my own residence. There are many things that a woman can do to increase her safety in her own residence. It may be impossible to do everything at once, but safety measures can be added step by step. Safety measures I can use: A I can change the locks on my doors and windows as soon as I can. B I can replace wooden doors with steel/​metal doors. C I can install security systems, including additional locks, window bars, poles to wedge against doors, an electronic system, and so on. D I can purchase rope ladders to be used for escape from second-​floor windows. E I can install smoke detectors and fire extinguishers from each floor of my house/​apartment.

Appendix I  187 F I can install an outside lighting system that activates when a person is close to the house. G I will tell the people who take care of my children which people have permission to pick up my children and that partner is not permitted to do so. The people I will inform about pick-​up permission include: –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​(name of school) –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​(name of babysitter) –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​(name of teacher) –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​(name of Sunday-​school teacher) –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​(name[s]‌ of others) H I can inform–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ neighbor) and –​––​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​– friend) that my partner no longer resides with me and that they should call law enforcement if he/​she is observed near my residence. STEP 4: Safety with an Order of Protection. Many batterers obey protection orders, but one can never be sure which violent partner will obey and which will violate protective orders. I recognize that I may need to ask law enforcement and the courts to enforce my protective order. The following are some steps I can take to help the enforcement of my protection order: A I will keep my protection order–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ (location). Always keep it on or near your person. If you change purses, that’s the first thing that should go into the new purse. B I will give copies of my protection order to law enforcement departments in the community where I work, in those communities where I visit friends or family, and in the community where I live. C There should be county and state registries of protection orders that all law enforcement departments can call to confirm a protection order. I can check to make sure that my order is on the registry. The telephone numbers for the county and state registries of protection orders are: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​(county) and _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ (state). D I will inform my employer; my minister, rabbi, etc.; my closest friends; and that I have a protection order in effect. E If my partner destroys my protection order, I can get another copy from _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​. F If law enforcement does not help; I can contact an advocate or an attorney and file a complaint with the Chief of Police Department of the Sheriff. G If my partner violates the protection order; I will call 911 or law enforcement and report the violation.

188  Appendix I STEP 5: Safety on the job and in public. Each battered woman must decide if and when she will tell others that her partner has harmed her and that she may be at continued risk. Friends, family, and co-​workers can help to protect women. Each woman should carefully consider how to invite others to help secure her safety. I might do any or all of the following: A I can inform my boss, the security supervisor, and –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​– at work. B I can ask –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​– to help screen my telephone calls at work. C When leaving work, I can –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​––​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​––​–​–​. D If I have a problem while driving home, I can –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–––. E If I use public transit, I can –​–​–​–​–​–​–​​–​–​–​––​–​–​–​–​–​–​​–​–​–​––​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–––. F I will go to different grocery stores and shopping malls to conduct my business and shop at hours that are different from those I kept when residing with my partner. G I can use a different bank and go at hours that are different from those I kept when residing with the PUV. STEP 6: Safety and drug or alcohol use. Most people in this culture use alcohol. Many use mood-​altering drugs. Much of this is legal, although some are not. The legal outcomes of using illegal drugs can be very hard on battered women, may hurt their relationship with their children, and can put them at a disadvantage in other legal actions with their battering partner. Therefore, women should carefully consider the potential cost of the use of illegal drugs. Beyond this, the use of alcohol or other drugs can reduce a woman’s awareness and ability to act quickly to protect herself from her battering partner. Furthermore, the use of alcohol or other drugs by the batterer may give him/​her an excuse to use violence. Specific safety plans must be made concerning drugs or alcohol use. If my partner has used alcohol or substances, or if both of us have, I can enhance my safety by some or all of the following: A If I am going to use, I can do so in a safe place and with people who understand the risk of violence and are committed to my safety. B If my partner is using, I can–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ and/​or –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. C To safeguard my children I might–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. STEP 7: Safety and my emotional health. Being targeted by a partner for physical violence or verbal abuse is usually exhausting and emotionally

Appendix I  189 draining. The process of building a new life takes much courage and incredible energy. To conserve my emotional energy and resources and to avoid hard emotional times, I can do some of the following: A If I feel down and am returning out of loneliness and not because there has been real change, I can –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​– ​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. B When I have to communicate with my partner in person or by telephone, I can –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​. C I will try to use “I can …” statements with myself and be assertive with others. D I can tell myself, “–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–” whenever I feel others are trying to control or abuse me. E I can read –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​– to help me feel stronger. F I can call –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​– and for support. G I can attend workshops and support groups at the domestic violence program or –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ to gain support and strengthen relationships. STEP 8: Items to take when leaving. When women leave battering partners it is important to take certain items. Beyond this, women sometimes give an extra copy of papers and an extra set of clothing to a friend just in case they have to leave quickly. Money: Even if I never worked, I can take money from jointly held savings and checking accounts. If I do not take this money, he/​she can legally take the money and close the accounts. Items on the following lists with asterisks (*) are the most important to take with you. If there is time, the other items might be taken, or stored outside the home. These items might best be placed in one location, so that if we have to leave in a hurry, I can grab them quickly. When I leave, I should take: • • • • • •

Identification for myself My birth certificate School and vaccination records Checkbook, ATM card Keys –​house, car, office Medications

• • • • • •

Children’s birth certificates Social security cards Money Credit cards Driver’s license and registration Copy of protection order

190  Appendix I • Passport(s), divorce papers • Medical records –​for all family members • Lease/​ rental agreement, house deed, mortgage payment book • Bank books, insurance papers • Welfare identification, work permits, green cards

• • • • •

Address book Pictures, jewelry Children’s favorite toys and/​or blankets Items of special sentimental value

• _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ • _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ • _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ • _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Telephone numbers I need to know: Police/​sheriff’s department (local) –​ 911 or––​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ –​ ​ Police/​sheriff’s department (work)–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ Police/​sheriff’s department (school) –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ Prosecutor’s office–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ Battered women’s program (local) –​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ National Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-​799-​SAFE (7233) 800-​787-​3224 (TTY) www.the​hotl​ine.org County registry of protection orders–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ State registry of protection orders–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ Work number–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ Supervisor’s home number–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​–​ I will keep this document in a safe place and out of reach of the person who has used violence against me.

Appendix I  191 Review date: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Reprinted with permission from: The National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence 4612 Shoal Creek Blvd. Austin, Texas 78756 Tel: 512.407.9020 Fax: 512.407.9020 www.ncdsv.org

Appendix II Teen Safety Plan Template

Use the following template to plan in advance for possible intimate partner violence/​abuse and to increase your safety in different environments. A professional can help you to further develop your personal plan and can recommend places to secure your information that are inaccessible to others. Also important, stay aware of any updates or features provided by your mobile device’s manufacturers that might protect your location or any saved personal information (e.g., a pin-​protected private/​secure folder embedded in your mobile device). A Safety Planning for School Environments 1 If I experience an emergency at school, what nearby places or adults might I go to feel safer? School Security Personnel: Name: _​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Office Phone: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Office Location: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ School Counselor: Name: _​__​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Office Phone: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Office Location: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ School Administrator: Name: _​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Office Phone: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Office Location: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​

Appendix II  193 School Faculty/​Staff Member: Name: _​_​__​_​_​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Office Phone: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Office Location: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Other Safe Persons and Campus Locations: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 2 If at school, what friend can I trust to talk about my situation, walk with me to safe places on campus, or reveal where I am and what I am doing? How might I reach them? Name: _​__​​_​_​_​_​_​__​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Name: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 3 If at school, what places on campus might my abusive partner or my abusive partner’s friends are likely to be and how might I avoid them? _​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ B Safety Planning for Home and Neighborhood Environments 1 What family members or neighbors might I turn to when I need help and support? (e.g., to alert me of my abusive partner’s proximity to my home or neighborhood; to contact law enforcement when I feel I am in danger; to help me petition domestic violence protection services or restraining orders against my abusive partner; etc.)

194  Appendix II Name: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Name: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 2 What might be my safest way to travel to and from home? _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 3 If at home alone, whom can I trust to stay with me without my abusive partner knowing about it? Name: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Name: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 4 What emergency code word, phrase, or symbol might I use to secretly alert family, friends, neighbors, or other adults that I am concerned about my safety? Emergency Code Word/​Phrase: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ Emergency Symbol: _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 5 If I experience an emergency alone at home, what places at home or in my neighborhood that are unknown to my abusive partner might I go to feel safer? _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​

Appendix II  195 6 If I feel unsafe and have to leave my home, is there a secret place where a friend, neighbor, or family member might agree to pick me up? _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ C Safety Planning for Work or Public Environments 1 If I experience an emergency at work, what employee/​employer might I turn to for help and support? (e.g., to screen my abusive partner’s calls to my workplace; to alert me when my abusive partner surveils me from the parking area or another nearby location; to escort me to/​from my vehicle before/​after work; to contact law enforcement when I feel I am in danger, etc.) Name: _____​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Name: _​_​_____​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ Phone/​Text Number: _​_​_​_​_​_​___​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ 2 If I am concerned about having a problem with my abusive partner while driving alone, using public transportation, or seeing them in public, the following actions may help me feel safer (e.g., to map out alternate routes to my destinations; to shop and conduct my business during hours different from those known to my abusive partner; to maintain close proximity to populated spaces, including those monitored by security or law enforcement personnel, etc.). _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​__​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​__​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​

196  Appendix II D Digital Safety Awareness and Tips o Turn off the location-​sharing feature on your mobile device apps and accounts, if you suspect your current device is being used to monitor you. An alternative may be to get a new mobile device completely or a “pay-​as-​you-​go” option (e.g., a “burner” phone), which is likely less expensive. o Be careful not to link your new mobile devices to existing cloud accounts (e.g., Google; iCloud, Dropbox) or Bluetooth technologies, if you suspect your abusive partner has access to them. o After creating new social media accounts, be selective about whose friend requests you accept. If “friending” an individual opens the possibility of your being located or monitored, you may want to reconsider accepting the request. o Create strong passwords for all your new and old digital devices. Not only keep all passwords private but also easy for you to remember, hard for others to guess, and different from previous passwords. o Consider keeping all new digital devices a secret. Your abusive partner may not try to access your new device, if under the impression that you are still using the old one. o Be selective of what you post on your social media accounts. Instead of publicly responding to online invites, for example, a safer alternative may be to privately inform the sender. Also, keep in mind that “tagging” where you are can occur in sometimes inconspicuous ways, including your personal web-​based videos, photos, or stories. E Other Resources For Local Emergencies: o Call 911 o Number for County/​State Registry of Protection Orders _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​​ o Number for Local Domestic Violence Services _​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​_​ For National Helplines: o Call: National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline: 1-​866-​331-​9474 o Text: LOVEIS to 22522 o Website for Love is Respect (National Domestic Violence Hotline): www.loveis​resp​ect.org/​

Index

advocacy: alcohol’s role in IPVA 153; disabled persons 122–​123; faith-​ based cultures 141, 143; immigrant and refugee cultures 139–​140; later-​ life adults 118; mobile 135–​136; National Domestic Violence Hotline 180; rural cultures 135–​136; self-​ advocacy 174; teens 103–​104; women 57–​58 age: disabled persons 119; later-​life adults 115; men 77; rural cultures 130; teens 87, 95; women 40–​41 alcohol use/​dependency: as female IPVA risk factor 53–​54; homicide 159; later-​life adults 116; as male IPVA risk factor 70, 75–​77; as reason for IPVA 152–​153; safety plan 188; theories of IPVA 21–​22 American Disabilities Act (ADA) 123 Ammar, N. H. 142 anonymity: immigrant and refugee cultures 139; rural cultures 134; see also confidentiality antisocial personality 19–​20 anxiety-​based disorders 20 appeal to higher loyalties 158 Arce, R. 166–​167 Archer, J. 154 Armour, B. S. 119 backlash hypothesis 27 Bailey, R. K. 26 Bandura, A. 23 barriers to help-​seeking see help-seeking barriers​ Bates, E. A. 26

Benson, M. L. 42 bisexual females 49, 50; stressors as reason for IPVA 153; teens 96–​100; see also gender/​sexual minority status bisexual males 71–​72; help-​seeking barriers 73–​75; protective factors 77; risk factors 76; stressors as reason for IPVA 153–​154; teens 96–​100; see also gender/​sexual minority status Bjelland, H. F. 21 Bograd, M. 22 borderline personality disorder 20 Brandl, B. 118 Breiding, M. J. 119 Brinkerhoff, M. B. 151–​152 Brown, J. 50 Brown, K. 18 Bureau of Justice Statistics 70 Burke, T. 1 bystander intervention programs 103 Caetano, R. 70 Campbell, J. C. 171–​172 causes of abuse see reasons for IPVA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 27–​28; Dating Matters 178; later-​life adults 114; National Violent Death Reporting System 55; NISVS see National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS); physical IPVA against men 68; public health 175; rural cultures 131; sexual IPVA against men 68–​69; stalking

198 Index IPVA against men 70; teen dating violence and abuse 87, 96–​97; Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) 87–​88, 91, 96–​98 Chang, J. C. 44, 160 Chen, J. 72 child abuse, prevention of 180 child custody: male IPVA victims 78; staying in the relationship 158; Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 175 childhood socialization, as reason for IPVA 150, 152; see also intergenerational transmission of IPVA childhood trauma: as female IPVA risk factor 53; in IPVA perpetrators 70, 150, 171; as later-​life adult IPVA risk factor 116; as male IPVA risk factor 76; as rural culture IPVA risk factor 133; sexual abuse 68 children of IPVA victims: immigrant and refugee cultures 136–​137, 139; male victims 66, 70, 78; safety plan 185, 188; social learning theory 23–​24; staying in the relationship 158; Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 173 Choi-​Misailidis, S. 93 Christianity 140–​142, 151–​152 clinical-​based interventions: disabled persons 122–​123; later-​life adults 117; men 78–​79; rural cultures 135; teens 103; women 57 closed group-​based interventions 167 coercive control 5; cultural norms and attitudes 26; later-​life adults 112; men 69, 72; reasons for 153; Trauma-​Informed Care 175; women 46–​47, 50 cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) 166–​167 Coker, A. L. 93 communication technology limitations, in rural cultures 134–​135 community-​based supportive services: disabled persons 123; immigrant and refugee cultures 140; later-​life adults 113, 117–​118; men 79; public health preventative approach 177; rural

cultures 135–​136; teens 103–​104; women 57–​58 confidentiality: immigrant and refugee cultures 139; National Domestic Violence Hotline 180; rural cultures 134; Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 175; see also anonymity Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS/​CTS2) 34 consequences of IPVA: men 76–​77; teens 101–​102; women 54–​55 control see coercive control; power and control coping mechanisms 157–​158 Copp, J. E. 152 couples-​based interventions 78, 168 COVID-​19 pandemic 24–​25 Crane, C. 54 Crenshaw, K. 12 Cruz, J. M. 155 cultural factors influencing IPVA 129–​130, 144; faith-​based cultures 140–​144; gender inequalities 27; gender norms and attitudes 26–​27; immigrant and refugee cultures (IMR) 136–​140; media and technology 26; Men Stopping Violence 179; National Domestic Violence Hotline 180; psychological IPVA against men 69, 73; rural cultures 130–​136; staying in the relationship 159; toxic masculinity 90 cyberstalking 8 cycle of abuse 154–​156, 158–​159 Danger Assessment 171–​172 Dating Matters 178 Davis, V. 1 defense mechanisms 167 defining IPVA 3–​4; research methodologies 28 DeKeseredy, W. S. 132 denial: of injury 158; of options 158; of victimizer 157–​158 dependency, as disabled person IPVA risk factor 121 deportation 136, 138–​139 depression 20 Desmarais, S. L. 41 Dietz, N. A. 48

Index  199 digital IPVA 6; reasons for 153; teen digital dating abuse (TDDA) 95, 100; teen safety plan 196; transgender women 51 disabled persons 111, 118–​119, 123–​14; help-​seeking barriers 120–​121; later life 114; men 119; prevalence of IPVA 119; protective resources 122–​123; risk factors 121–​122; rural cultures 131; women 119–​120 disclosure/​non-​disclosure of IPVA: disabled persons 120; later-​life adults 113; teens 100–​101 Dobash, R. E. 34 Dobash, R. P. 34 Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (DAIP) 156, 162, 168–​169 domestic violence 3 Domestic Violence Evidence Project (DVEP) 35 Drijber, B. C. 67, 73 drug use see substance use/​ dependency Duluth Equality Wheel 168–​169 Duluth Model 168–​169 Duluth Power and Control Wheel 156–​157, 162, 168–​169 Eckhardt, C. 54 education levels 18; as female IPVA protective factor 55–​56; later-​life adults 116; parental, and teen IPVA risk 89, 94; reasons for IPVA 152; rural cultures 130, 132 Edwards, K. M. 25, 131 Ehrensaft, M. 23–​24 elderly people see later-​life adults emotional IPVA see psychological (emotional) IPVA empowerment 174–​175, 179 Equality Wheel 168–​169 ethnicity/​race see race/​ethnicity exchange theories of IPVA 20–​21 Facebook 26 faith-​based cultures 130, 140–​141, 144; protective resources 143–​144; reasons for IPVA 151–​152; risk factors 141–​143; rural areas 132; staying in the relationship 159;

Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 173 Faith Trust Institute 144 family histories, rural cultures 133 family violence 3; research 28–​29 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act 180 fear, as reason for staying in the relationship 159 female teen dating violence and abuse: LGBTQ relationships 97–​100; physical 87–​90; psychological 92–​93; sexting 95–​96; sextortion 95; sexual 90–​91; stalking 94 feminism 28; CTS criticism 34; faith-​ based cultures 141; history of IPVA resistance 10–​11; intersectionality 12; later-​life adults 115; models of IPVA 22–​23, 25; reasons for IPVA 151; sexting 95–​96; sexual teen dating violence and abuse 90, 95–​96 Ferraro, K. J. 9, 157, 160 financial IPVA: disabled persons 111; immigrant and refugee cultures 137; later-​life adults 112; rural cultures 131; women 51 Finn, M. A. 112 Finneran, C. 76 firearms: Danger Assessment 171; men 79; rural cultures 134; teen dating violence and abuse 86 Fix, R. L. 88 Foran, H. M. 54 Foshee, V. A. 89, 91, 93 Fox, G. L. 42 Frankel, S. L. 151 Frankland, A. 50 Freedner, N. 96 gaslighting 5 gay men 71–​72; coercive control 9; help-​seeking barriers 73–​75; protective factors 77; risk factors 76; situational couple violence 9; staying in the relationship 155; stressors as reason for IPVA 153–​154; see also gender/​sexual minority status gay teens 96–​100; see also gender/​ sexual minority status Gelles, R. 11

200 Index gender, social attitudes regarding 54 gender inequalities 27 gender/​sexual minority status 13; later-​life adults 115; physical IPVA 97–​98; psychological IPVA 99–​100; sexual IPVA 98–​99; staying in the relationship 155–​156; strain theories 25; teens 96–​97, 101; see also bisexual females; bisexual males; gay men; gay teens; lesbian teens; lesbian women; transgender females; transgender males gender symmetry 12–​13; CTS criticism 34; later-​life IPVA 113; teen dating violence and abuse 87–​88 geographic isolation, in rural cultures 133–​134 Gerino, E. 115 Goode, W. 21 Gracia, E. 27 Graham-​Kevan, N. 154 Green Dot program 103–​104 group-​based interventions 167 Guerin, D. L. 173–​174 guns see firearms Guthartz, S. A. 141–​142 Halpern, C. T. 100 Hass, G. A. 137 health consequences of IPVA: female 54–​55; male 76–​77; teens 102; Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 173–​175 health risk factors for IPVA: later-​life adults 116; male 76; teens 101 help-​seeking barriers: disabled persons 120–​121; later-​life adults 113–​115; men 73–​75; rural cultures 133–​134; women 51–​52 heteronormativity 74 history of IPVA resistance 10–​12 HIV status 74–​75; IPVA-​related infection 153 Hogan, K. F. 69, 74 homicide: by IPVA victims 159; of men 77; risk assessment-​based interventions 171–​172; in rural cultures 129, 131; strain theories 24; of teens 86–​87, 101–​102; of women 41, 53, 55

homophobia as reason for IPVA 153; later-​life adults 115; men 75; women 51–​52 Hornung, C. A. 21 Horton, A. L. 144 illegal drugs see substance use/​ dependency immigrant and refugee cultures (IMR) 130, 136, 144; later-​life adults 115; prevalence of IVPA 136–​137; protective resources 139–​140; risk factors 137–​139; Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 175 individual safety plans see safety plans information technology: abuse via see digital IPVA; influence on IPVA 26; limitations, in rural cultures 134–​135 intergenerational transmission of IPVA: later-​life adults 116; as reason for IPVA 152; rural cultures 133; theory 23–​24; women 44 Internet limitations, in rural cultures 134–​35 intersectionality 12, 22–​23; later-​life adults 116; physical IPVA against women 43; sexual IPVA against women 45; stalking IPVA against women 48; teen dating violence and abuse 88–​89, 91, 94 interventions for IPVA perpetrators 166, 180; cognitive-​behavioral 166–​167; couples-​based 168; Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (DAIP) 168–​169; group-​ based 167; mandatory arrest policies (MAPs) 170–​171; risk assessment-​ based 171–​172 interventions for IPVA survivors 171–​175, 180 intimate partner homicide (IPH) see homicide intimate terrorism (IT) 8–​9, 23, 28; men 78–​79 Islam 141–​142, 159 Jain, S. 89 Johnson, J. M. 157, 160 Johnson, M. P. 8–​9, 23, 28 Judaism 141–​142

Index  201 Kingree, J. B. 75 Lady Gaga 1 language proficiency, immigrant and refugee cultures 138, 140 Lanier, C. 133 later-​life adults 111–​112, 123–​124; disabled persons 123; help-​ seeking barriers 114–​115; men 113; prevalence of IPVA 112–​113; protective resources 116–​118; risk factors 115–​116; women 113–​114 Laundrie, B. 40 law enforcement: immigrant and refugee cultures 136, 139–​140; later-​life adults 115; mandatory arrest policies (MAPs) 170–​171; men 73; rural cultures 133–​134; teens 101 learned helplessness 155–​156 leaving an abusive relationship 151, 160–​162; faith-​based cultures 144; later-​life adults 115; motivations 160–​161; rural cultures 132; and staying, fluctuating between 161 lesbian teens 96–​100; see also gender/​ sexual minority status lesbian women 49–​50; coercive control 9; help-​seeking barriers 51; situational couple violence 9; stressors as reason for IPVA 153; see also gender/​sexual minority status LGBTQ see gender/​sexual minority status Logan, T. K. 29–​30, 31–​33, 131 love, as reason for staying in the relationship 158–​159 Love is Respect 104–​105 Lysova, A. 47 made to penetrate (MTP) 68–​69 Makepeace, J. M. 154 male teen dating violence and abuse: LGBTQ relationships 96–​100; physical 87–​90; psychological 92–​93; sexting 96; sextortion 95; sexual 90–​91; stalking 94 mandatory arrest policies (MAPs) 170–​171 mandatory no-​drop prosecution policies (MNDPPs) 170

marianismo 142 marital histories, rural cultures 133 marital status, as female IPVA risk factor 53 Martin, P. Y. 48 masculinity: archetypes, as help-​seeking barrier 73; toxic 90 Maume, M. O. 133 Mechem, C. C. 67 media influence on IPVA 26 Mele, M. 79 Meloy, M. L. 154 Menjívar, C. 137 men’s experiences with IPVA 13, 66–​67, 79–​80; consequences 76–​77; cultural factors 26; disabled men 119–​120, 122; feminist models 23; gender symmetry 12–​13; help-​ seeking barriers 73–​75; interventions 169; intimate terrorism 9; later-​life 113, 115; patriarchal theories 22; physical 41–​42, 67–​68; protective factors 77; protective resources and strategies 78–​79; psychological 69–​70; race/​ethnicity 70; reasons for abuse 154; research 28, 34; resource theories 21; risk factors 75–​79; rural cultures 131–​132; SES 70–​71; sexual 7, 68–​69; situational couple violence 8; social exchange theories 21; stalking 70; staying in the relationship 158; strain theories 24; see also bisexual males; gay men; transgender males Men Stopping Violence (MSV) 178–​179 Merlo, J. 27 Mervosh, S. 1–​2 #MeToo 1–​2 Milano, A. 1 Miller, S. L. 154 minority stress theory 25; teens 98 mixed methods research 32–​33 mobile advocacy 135–​136 Muñoz, J. 1 mutual violent control (MVC) 9, 78 Myhill, A. 47 National Center for Domestic and Sexual Violence 57, 185–​191 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) 2

202 Index National Coalition of Anti-​Violence Programs 51 National Crime Victimization Survey 118 National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) 80, 180; Love is Respect 104–​105 National Elder Mistreatment Study 112 National Family Violence Survey 67, 69 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 102, 159 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 33–​34, 40; lesbian women 49; men 67, 71–​72; physical IPVA against women 40, 41, 43; psychological IPVA against women 46; sexual IPVA against women 44; stalking IPVA against women 48 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health 91–​92 National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 35 National Violence against Women (NVAW) survey 28, 29, 30–​31 National Violent Death Reporting System 55 non-​disclosure see disclosure/​non-​ disclosure of IPVA non-​national status see immigrant and refugee cultures (IMR) non-​probability-​based sampling strategies 29–​30 Nordic Paradox 27 Nybergh, L. 68 older people see later-​life adults O’Leary, K. D. 54 open group-​based interventions 167 Orpinas, P. 93 outing: double 74–​75; fear of 74; teens 96 patriarchy: Domestic Abuse Intervention Program 168; faith-​ based cultures 140–​143; later-​life adults 115; Men Stopping Violence 179; Power and Control Wheel 156; as reason for IPVA 151–​152; rural cultures 132; theories 22, 23

Peek-​Asa, C. 131 personality traits 19–​20 personalized safety plans see safety plans Petito, G. 40 Pfouts, J. 20–​21 physical IPVA 4; disabled persons 119–​121; faith-​based cultures 140; immigrant and refugee cultures 136–​138; interventions for perpetrators 167–​172; later-​life adults 112–​114, 117; leaving the relationship 160; mandatory arrest policies 170; men 66–​68, 70–​73, 76–​79; public health preventative approach 176–​178; reasons for 150–​154; rural cultures 129–​131; staying in the relationship 154–​159; teen dating violence and abuse 86–​90, 92, 96–​98, 101–​102; women 41–​44, 49–​50, 53–​54, 55 Pierce, B. 18 Policastro, C. 112 police see law enforcement polyvictimization 4, 41 post-​traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 20 power and control: reasons for IPVA 151–​152; staying in the relationship 156–​157 Power and Control Wheel 156, 162, 168–​169 pregnancy: as risk factor 53, 55; reproductive coercion 7 prevalence of IPVA: disabled persons 119; immigrant and refugee cultures 136–​137; later-​life adults 112–​113; physical IPVA against men 67–​68; physical IPVA against teens 87, 97; physical IPVA against women 41–​42; psychological IPVA against men 69; psychological IPVA against teens 91–​92, 99; psychological IPVA against women 46; rural cultures 131; sexual/​gender minority men 71; sexual IPVA against men 67, 68; sexual IPVA against teens 90–​91, 98–​99; sexual IPVA against women 44; stalking IPVA against men 67, 70; stalking IPVA against teens 94; stalking IPVA against women 48

Index  203 prevention of IPVA 166, 180–​181; gender-​related 178–​180; inclusive and general population-​based 180; public health approach 175–​178; youth-​related 178 privacy concerns, in rural cultures 134 probability-​based sampling strategies 29, 30 protection orders see protective orders protective factors: female IPVA 55–​56; male IPVA 77; public health preventative approach 176; teen dating violence and abuse 102; youth-​related IPVA prevention 178 protective orders: men 79; non-​ probability-​based sampling strategy 30; rural cultures 131, 134; safety plan 187; violations 150; women 57–​58 protective resources and strategies: disabled persons 122–​123; faith-​ based cultures 143–​144; immigrant and refugee cultures 139–​140; later-​ life adults 116–​118; men 78–​79; rural cultures 134–​136; teen dating violence and abuse 102–​104, 192–​196; women 56–​58 psychiatric models of IPVA 19–​20 psychoeducation 168, 174 psychological (emotional) IPVA 3, 4–​6; disabled persons 119–​120; faith-​ based cultures 140; immigrant and refugee cultures 137; later-​life adults 112–​113; leaving the relationship 160; men 68–​70, 72–​73; reasons for 152; staying in the relationship 155, 159; teen dating 87, 91–​94, 99–​101; women 46–​47, 49, 51 public health preventative approach 175–​176; social-​ecological model (SEM) 176–​178 qualitative research methods 31–​33 quantitative research methods 30–​31, 32–​33 questioning persons 13; teens 96–​99 race/​ethnicity: cultural archetypes 159; later-​life adults 115; mandatory arrest policies (MAPs) 170; men 67, 70, 75; staying in the relationship

156; teen dating violence and abuse 88–​89, 91, 93–​94, 98–​99; women 43–​45, 47–​49, 55; see also intersectionality Raj, A. 137 rape 7; disabled persons 119–​120; laws 11; marital 45; men 67, 69, 71–​72, 76; women 44–​45, 49, 50 reasons for IPVA 150–​151, 162; alcohol 152–​153; attitudes regarding gender, power, and control 151–​152; childhood socialization 152; self-​ defense 154; sexual and gender minority-​based stressors 153–​154; see also risk factors for IPVA reasons for staying see staying in an abusive relationship refugees see immigrant and refugee cultures (IMR) Reid, R. J. 77 relationship skills 179 religion see faith-​based cultures remaining see staying in an abusive relationship Renck, B. 161 Rennison, C. M. 132 reproductive coercion 6–​7; disabled persons 120 research methodologies 27–​28; definitions and theories 28–​29; mixed methods 32–​33; qualitative methods 31–​32; quantitative methods 30–​31; sampling methods 29–​30; survey instruments 33–​34 resource theories of IPVA 21–​22 RESPECT Women 179 restraining orders: firearm restricted access 55; male IPVA victims 68, 78 Ringrose, J. 95 risk assessment-​based interventions 171–​172 risk factors for IPVA: disabled persons 121–​122; faith-​based cultures 141–​143; female IPVA 53–​54; immigrant and refugee cultures 137–​139; later-​life adults 115–​116; male IPVA 75–​79; public health preventative approach 176; rural cultures 132–​134; teen dating violence and abuse 101;

204 Index youth-​related IPVA prevention 178; see also reasons for IPVA Risser, J. M. 51 Roberts, L. 89 Rolle, L. 49 Rothman, E. F. 94 rural cultures 129–​131, 144; prevalence of IPVA 131; protective resources 134–​136; reasons for IPVA 153; risk factors 132–​134; staying in the relationship 159; teen dating violence and abuse 89–​90 safe environments 179 safety plans 185–​191; disabled persons 122; later-​life adults 116–​117; men 78; National Domestic Violence Hotline 180; rural cultures 134–​135; teens 102–​103, 192–​196; Trauma-​ Informed Care for IPVA survivors 174–​175; women 56–​57 Salcidolso, O. 137 salvation ethic 157 sampling methods 29; non-​probability-​ based 29–​30; probability-​based 29, 30 Scheffer Lindgren, M. 161 Schofield, T. 26 Scott, M. 138 screening: for couples therapy appropriateness 168; disabled persons 122; later-​life adults 117; men 77, 79; rural cultures 135; teens 103; women 57–​58 self-​defense 154, 160 service providers: men 74–​75, 79; transgender women 52 services ensured 179 SES see socio-​economic status (SES) sexting 95–​96 sextortion 95 sexual coercion 6 sexual IPVA 6–​7; disabled persons 119–​120, 122; faith-​based cultures 143; immigrant and refugee cultures 137, 139; later-​life adults 112–​114; men 67–​72; reasons for 152–​153; rural cultures 131; staying in the relationship 155, 157; teens 90–​92, 98–​99, 101; women 44–​46, 49–​51, 54

sexual minority status see gender/​ sexual minority status signs of IPVA 10 Silverman, J. G. 137 situational couple violence (SCV) 8, 9, 23, 28–​29; interventions for perpetrators 168 Snead, A. L. 168 Snow, D. L. 26 social attitudes regarding gender 54 social-​ecological model (SEM) 176–​178 social exchange theories of IPVA 20–​21 social isolation: disabled persons 121; immigrant and refugee cultures 137–​138 social learning theories 23–​24, 152 social media: influence on IPVA 26; teen safety plan 196 social norms, as reason for staying in the relationship 159 social-​psychological models of IPVA 23–​25 social services: disabled persons 120, 123; immigrant and refugee cultures 136, 138; later-​life adults 115; men 75 social support: disabled persons 122; as female IPVA protective factor 56; as male protective factor 77; Trauma-​ Informed Care for IPVA survivors 174–​175 socio-​economic status (SES): disabled persons 120–​121; immigrant and refugee cultures 138; intersectionality 12; later-​life adults 116; men 70–​71; Nordic Paradox 27; poverty reduction 179; public health preventative approach 177–​178; reasons for IPVA 152; resource theories 21; rural cultures 131–​132; staying in the relationship 156; teen dating violence and abuse 89–​91, 93–​94; women 42–​43, 45–​47, 49, 53, 55–​56 sociological models of IPVA 20–​22 stalking IPVA 7–​8; disabled persons 119–​120; later-​life adults 112; laws 11; men 67, 70–​72, 76; teens 94, 100; women 48–​51

Index  205 staying in an abusive relationship 150–​151, 162; children, concerns regarding 158; cultural archetypes and social norms 159; cycle of abuse 154–​156; faith-​based cultures 143; fear 159; and leaving, fluctuating between 161; love 158–​159; power and control 156–​157; rationalizing 157–​158; rural cultures 132; teens 100–​101 Steinmetz, S. K. 11, 158 Stephenson, R. 76 stigma 2 strain theories 24–​25 Straus, M. A. 34 Strauss, M. 11 Stuart, G. L. 152 substance use/​dependency: as consequence of male IPVA 76; in IPVA survivors 173–​174; as later-​life adults IPVA risk factor 116; as male IPVA risk factor 75–​76; as reason for IPVA 152–​153; safety plan 187; as teen dating violence risk factor 101; theories of IPVA 21–​22 suffragists 10 Sugarman, D. B. 151 suicide/​suicidal ideation: IPVA perpetrators 72, 86, 129, 159; IPVA survivors 54, 57, 76, 173 supportive and community-​based services see community-​based supportive services support networks see social support survey instruments 33; CTS 34; NISVS 33–​34 Swan, S. C. 26 Swanberg, J. E. 31–​32 Sylaska, K. M. 25 technology: abuse via see digital IPVA; influence on IPVA 26; limitations, in rural cultures 134–​135 teen dating violence and abuse (TDVA) 86–​87, 104; consequences 101–​ 102; digital dating abuse 95, 100; disclosure of 100–​101; LGBTQ relationships 96–​100; physical 87–​90; prevention 178; protective factors 102; protective resources and strategies 102–​104; psychological

91–​94; risk factors 101; safety plans 102–​103, 192–​196; sexting 95–​96; sextortion 95; sexual 90–​91; stalking 94, 100 telephone limitations, in rural cultures 134 theories of IPVA: feminist models 22–​23; psychiatric models 19–​20; research methodologies 28–​29; social-​psychological models 23–​25; sociological models 20–​22 Thoennes, N. 29, 30–​31 Thompson, M. P. 75 Tjaden, P. 29, 30–​31 transgender females 13, 49, 50–​51; help-​seeking barriers 51–​52; stressors as reason for IPVA 153; see also gender/​sexual minority status transgender males 13, 71–​73; help-​ seeking barriers 73–​75; stressors as reason for IPVA 153; teens 96–​100; see also gender/​sexual minority status transphobia as reason for IPVA 153; men 75; women 51, 52 transportation limitations: rural cultures 133–​134; staying in the relationship 156 Trauma-​Informed Care for IPVA survivors 171–​175 Trevor Project 98 turning points 160–​161 types of IPVA 4; intimate terrorism 8–​9; mutual violent control 9; physical violence 4; psychological abuse 4–​6; sexual violence 6–​7; situational couple violence 8; stalking 7–​8; violent resistance 9 United Nations Women 179 University of Kentucky, Green Dot program 103–​104 Urban Institute 100 U.S. Census Bureau 130 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 139, 144–​145 U.S. Office of Disability Employment Policy 120 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 11, 139 violent resistance (VR) 9

206 Index Walker, L. E. 154–​156, 158 Warden, M. 18 Websdale, N. 134 Weinstein, H. 1 West, C. M. 138 women’s experiences with IPVA 40–​41, 58; consequences 54–​55; cultural factors 26–​27; disabled women 119–​120, 122; faith-​ based cultures 140–​144; feminist models 23; gender-​related anti-​ violence preventions 178–​179; gender symmetry 12–​13; history of resistance 10–​12; immigrant and refugee cultures 136–​140; intersectionality 12, 22; interventions 166, 168–​170; intimate terrorism 9; later-​life 113–​116; leaving the relationship 161; patriarchal theories 22; physical 41–​44; polyvictimization 4; protective factors 55–​56; protective resources

and strategies 56–​58; psychological 46–​47; reasons for IPVA 151–​154; research 27–​28, 34; resource theories 21; risk factors 53–​54; rural cultures 130–​136; sexual 7, 44–​46; situational couple violence 8; social exchange theories 21; stalking 48–​49; staying in the relationship 154–​159; strain theories 24–​25; Trauma-​Informed Care 175; see also bisexual females; lesbian women; transgender females Wood, E. R. 1 World Health Organization (WHO) 2; clinical-​based interventions 57; RESPECT Women 179; social attitudes regarding gender 54 Yakubovich, A. R. 151 youth-​related IPVA prevention 178 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) 87–​88, 91, 96–​98