Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence: The Role and Experiences of Female Victim-Survivors 3031329503, 9783031329500

Citation preview

Hayley Boxall

Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence The Role and Experiences of Female Victim-Survivors

Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence

Hayley Boxall

Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence The Role and Experiences of Female Victim-Survivors

Hayley Boxall Australian Institute of Criminology Barton, ACT, Australia

ISBN 978-3-031-32950-0    ISBN 978-3-031-32951-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For my family members who were targets of abuse perpetrated by people who they loved.

Preface

This study was inspired by two key questions that have grown in my mind during my 10-year career conducting research focused on intimate partner violence (IPV). First, how do some men ‘stop’ using abuse against their partners when the evidence suggests that so much of what we do to intervene with them at best has no impact? Arrest doesn’t reduce reoffending, or protection orders or incarceration, and Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (MBCPs) which are the ‘go-to’ in most Western jurisdictions when attempting to address the underlying causes of IPV have minimal or no impact. And let’s not forget that the majority of men who are violent will never have contact with the police, or participate in an MBCP. So when behaviour change occurs, the question remains – how? The second question was borne from a conversation I had with someone from my personal life who had been subjected to IPV from their male partner. My friend in speaking about the IPV she had experienced was highly defensive of her relationship with her abuser, noting that they got along very well most of the time and she genuinely enjoyed spending time with him. However, she also believed that he would have been physically abusive had she not been so good at ‘establishing boundaries’ with him, and believed that she had been very good at making his life ‘very nice’. She had never had contact with the police because of the abuse, or any form of counselling, and he had never participated in treatment. After a number of these conversations with my friend, I started to wonder whether her experiences were an outlier, or if like her, other women in abusive relationships were consciously acting in ways and using different strategies to affect their partner’s behaviours in a positive way. This study aimed to interweave these two questions; by answering the second could we answer the first? Could victims-survivors of IPV have a role in bringing about and supporting the desistance of abuse perpetrated against them? While I was fascinated by these questions, I also found the topic unnerving as did I did not want to responsibilise women in any way. At the end of the day, ending IPV is the sole responsibility of the people who use these behaviours. However, women are often motivated to stay in relationships with their abusers for very long periods of time before they leave, if they ever do. This is for emotional reasons, as well as structural. vii

viii

Preface

Supporting women experiencing IPV may involve empowering them to have the relationships that they want, safely. Hopefully what comes through in this study is the amazing agency of the women who chose to participate in this study, and the complexity of their actions, strategies and motivations for supporting their partner to desist in their use of violence. However, what always sticks with me when reflecting on the participants’ narratives is the huge amount of labour and effort women expended in supporting their partners to desist, and how oftentimes they were the only ones in the lives of their partners helping them to become non-violent. By excluding victims-survivors’ voices and experiences when we ask male perpetrators about their desistance journeys, we are likely missing out on an important piece of the puzzle which can help us to understand the processes by which non-violence becomes possible. Barton, ACT, Australia

Hayley Boxall

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my PhD supervisors: Professor Lorana Bartels, Professor Jason Payne and Mr Anthony Morgan, whose knowledge and depth of critical thinking helped guide my thought processes around this thesis. My amazing husband Tim for facilitating my studies and protecting my mental health when everything was getting on top of me, and my kids for not resenting me too much when I had to spend weekends at ‘big kid school’. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Australian Institute of Criminology, including Dr Rick Brown, for giving me the space to complete this study including dropping everything when I had to conduct an interview. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude and admiration to the women who self-selected to participate in this study and took the time to share their experiences and knowledge with me. For some of you, this was the first time you had disclosed the abuse you experienced, and I treasure the stories that you have gifted me. I only hope that I have done them justice and can do something meaningful and practical with them to improve the lives of women and children with lived experiences of abuse and violence.

ix

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1

2

Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    7 2.1 Desistance Theory����������������������������������������������������������������������������    8 2.1.1 Ontogenetic Models of Desistance ��������������������������������������    8 2.1.2 Sociogenic Models of Desistance ����������������������������������������    9 2.1.3 Agentic Models of Desistance����������������������������������������������   10 2.1.4 Integrated Desistance Models ����������������������������������������������   11 2.2 The Relevance of Desistance Theories to IPV����������������������������������   12 2.2.1 Differences in the Underlying Motivations of Acquisitive Offences and IPV������������������������������������������   12 2.2.2 The Dyadic Element of IPV��������������������������������������������������   14 2.3 What Do Existing Frameworks Say About the Role of Social Relationships in Desistance Processes?��������������������������������������������   15 2.4 The Role of Victims of Crime in Desistance Processes��������������������   18 2.5 A Theoretical Justification for Including Victims of Crime in Desistance Frameworks������������������������������������������������   19 2.5.1 Routine Activities Theory ����������������������������������������������������   19 2.5.2 Restorative Justice����������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.6 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   22

3

 esistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role D of Victims-­Survivors��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   25 3.1 Offender Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance ��������������   25 3.2 Victim-Survivor Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance��������������������������������������������������������������������������   27 3.3 Relationship Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance��������������������������������������������������������������������������   28 3.4 Characteristics of the Violence and Abuse Associated with IPV Desistance��������������������������������������������������������������������������   29

xi

xii

Contents

3.5 The Mechanisms Underpinning Behaviour Change ������������������������   31 3.6 The Role of Victims-Survivors in IPV Desistance Processes ����������   34 3.7 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 4

Study Methods������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 4.1 Operational Definitions of Desistance and Persistence��������������������   40 4.2 Recruitment Processes����������������������������������������������������������������������   41 4.2.1 Recruitment Site: The Australian Capital Territory (ACT)��������������������������������������������������������������������   42 4.3 Interview Process������������������������������������������������������������������������������   44 4.4 Analysis��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   45 4.4.1 Ethics������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   45 4.5 Final Sample ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   45 4.6 Limitations����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   48 4.7 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   49

5

Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children and Its Impact������������������������������������������   51 5.1 Types of Violence and Abuse Experienced by Women��������������������   52 5.1.1 Physical Violence������������������������������������������������������������������   52 5.1.2 Sexual Violence and Reproductive Coercion������������������������   54 5.1.3 Emotional/Psychological Abuse and Gaslighting����������������   54 5.1.4 Coercive Controlling Behaviours������������������������������������������   56 5.1.5 Threatening Behaviours and Self-Harm ������������������������������   58 5.1.6 Property Damage������������������������������������������������������������������   59 5.1.7 Financial Abuse��������������������������������������������������������������������   60 5.1.8 Stalking ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   60 5.2 Violence Experienced by Children ��������������������������������������������������   61 5.3 Experiences of Intergenerational and Other Violent Behaviours����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 5.3.1 Male Partners������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 5.3.2 Female Participants��������������������������������������������������������������   66 5.4 The Impact of Violence and Abuse on Participants��������������������������   68 5.5 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   71

6

Strategies Used by Female Victims-­Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate and Support Desistance Processes��������   73 6.1 Strategies Focused on Adapting or Changing Participant Behaviour������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 6.1.1 Compliance and Being the Perfect Partner ��������������������������   73 6.1.2 Avoiding Triggers ����������������������������������������������������������������   75 6.2 Strategies Focused on Changing Their Partner’s Behaviour������������   78 6.2.1 Talking About the Violence and Its Impact��������������������������   78 6.2.2 Asking Their Partner to Get Help ����������������������������������������   80 6.2.3 Establishing Boundaries�������������������������������������������������������   81

Contents

xiii

6.3 Third-Party Help-Seeking ����������������������������������������������������������������   83 6.3.1 Talking to Friends and Family����������������������������������������������   83 6.3.2 Talking to the Partner’s Friends and Family ������������������������   85 6.3.3 Relationship Counselling������������������������������������������������������   87 6.3.4 Government and Non-government Services: The Police and Domestic Violence and Child Protection Services���������������������������������������������������������������   88 6.4 Differences in Strategies Used by Participants Who Experienced Persistence and Desistance������������������������������������������   91 6.5 The Impact of Strategies: Views of Participants ������������������������������   94 6.5.1 Measuring Desistance – What About Deceleration?������������  100 6.6 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  101 7

 he Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female T Victims-­Survivors������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  103 7.1 Defining Desistance��������������������������������������������������������������������������  104 7.2 Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours ��������������������������������������������������������������������  109 7.2.1 Increasing Consequences and Risk of Detection������������������  109 7.2.2 Capable Guardianship and Target Hardening ����������������������  112 7.2.3 Appeasing Men’s Desire for Control and Dominance����������  113 7.2.4 Dissolution of the Abuser’s Attachment to their Partner����������������������������������������������������������������������  116 7.2.5 Mitigation of Emotional Stressors – Gender Role Strain and Shame������������������������������������������������������������������  117 7.2.6 Mitigation of Mental Health Issues That Exacerbated Violent Behaviours – Abuser Involvement in Mental Health Support and Treatment����������������������������������������������  119 7.2.7 Evoking Feared Selves����������������������������������������������������������  121 7.3 Resumption of Violence and Abuse��������������������������������������������������  123 7.4 False Desistance – Is It Desistance if It Is Dependent on Women Doing All the Heavy Lifting? ����������������������������������������  124 7.4.1 Desistance in the Absence of a Motivated Abuser����������������  126 7.5 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  130

8

Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female Victims/Survivors��������������������������������������������������  133 8.1 Were Participants Aware of Their Role in Desistance Pathways?�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  134 8.2 Belief in Men’s Redeemability – Helping Men to Find Their ‘True Selves’ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  138 8.2.1 The Role of Attributions and Emotional Affect on Redeemability ����������������������������������������������������������������������  140 8.2.2 Prospective Redemption Scripts ������������������������������������������  141

xiv

Contents

8.3 Did Participant’s Motivations and Thought Processes Impact Desistance? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  147 8.4 Chapter Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  148 9

 iscussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female D Victims-­Survivors in the Desistance of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence? ��������������������������������������������������������������������  149 9.1 Victims-Survivors Were Agentic and Motivated to Support Their Partner’s Behavioural Change Processes��������������  149 9.2 Where Desistance Did Occur, Victims-Survivors Played an Important Role ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  152 9.3 The Selection of Strategies and Their Impact on Desistance Was Mediated by a Range of Factors������������������������������������������������  153 9.4 IPV Desistance Involves Multiple Trajectories at Any Point in Time������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  155 9.5 IPV Desistance Processes Have a Dyadic Component��������������������  156 9.6 Strategies Used by Victims-Survivors Were Highly Consistent with Desistance Theory��������������������������������������������������  158 9.6.1 Misconceived Theories of Change: Strategies Exacerbated Rather than Mitigated Risk of IPV������������������  159 9.6.2 The Perceived Legitimacy of Victims-Survivors as Agents of Change in the Eyes of Abusers was Limited��������������������������������������������������������������������������  162 9.6.3 The Unmotivated Abuser������������������������������������������������������  164 9.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  164

Attachment A: Interview Schedule����������������������������������������������������������������  167 Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet����������������������������������������������  171 Attachment C: Consent form for Participants����������������������������������������������  177 Attachment D: Online Survey������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  187 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  203

Acronyms

ABS ACT AIHW IPV LGBTQI+ MBCP NSW PTSD RAT RJ TTM US

Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Capital Territory Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Intimate partner violence Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex Men’s Behaviour Change Program New South Wales Post-traumatic stress disorder Routine activities theory Restorative justice Trans-theoretical model of change United States of America

xv

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Population characteristics of the Australian Capital Territory and Australia ������������������������������������������������������   43 Table 4.2 Final sample, by group ������������������������������������������������������������������   46 Table 4.3 Characteristics of the final sample, by group (%)��������������������������   47 Table 4.4 Relationship characteristics, by group (%)������������������������������������   47 Table 5.1 Violence and abuse experienced by participants, by group������������   53 Table 5.2 Violence experienced by the children of participants, by group������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   62 Table 5.3 Prior experiences of violence among participants’ partners, by group����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   64 Table 5.4 Prior experiences of intimate partner and family violence among participants, by group ��������������������������������������������������������   67 Table 6.1 Strategies used by participants, by group ��������������������������������������   74 Table 7.1 Period of reported desistance, by participant ��������������������������������  104 Table 7.2 Trajectories of violence and abuse, by participant and type of violence and abuse reported ������������������������������������������������������  106 Table 7.3 Attributed and possible mechanisms for desistance, by participant����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  110

xvii

List of Case Study

Case Study 1: Paula’s Story ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 57 Case Study 2: Jackie’s Story���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Case Study 3: Leslie’s Story���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 92 Case Study 4: Bella’s Story��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 107 Case Study 5: Elaine’s Story�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 114 Case Study 6: Chelsea’s Story ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 136 Case Study 7: Alison’s Story������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 144

xix

Chapter 1

Introduction

They don’t understand, my best friends don’t understand…People, my relatives probably don’t understand. I don’t know how people actually understand. They just don’t understand how you can stay with a person [who is abusive]. I’ve had a lot of great life experiences; I kept my life going as best I could. But yes, I managed it. And that’s never seems to be on the agenda that the public talk about. Public don’t talk about the female managing the situation. What they say, ‘Oh if you don’t like this, you just leave’. Leave and go where? (Mary, 72 years old)1

For good reason,  intimate partner violence (IPV)  perpetrated by men against their female partners in Australia has been referred to as our ‘national shame’ (Fitz-­ Gibbon, 2021). Approximately one in four Australian women have been subjected to physical or sexual violence and/or emotional abuse perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner during their lifetime (since the age of 15; ABS, 2017), At the most serious end of IPV behaviours, on average, one woman is murdered every 11 days by a current or former partner (Bricknell, 2020). IPV can have a range of negative consequences for female victims-survivors, their families and the community more broadly. IPV is a leading cause of hospital admissions and emergency room presentations among women in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2019a), homelessness (AIHW, 2019b; Mission Australia, 2019) and the removal of children from their home (AIHW, 2019a). Survivors of IPV also frequently experience declining health and wellbeing as a result of the violence and abuse, including the development or exacerbation of mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety and depression (Fedovskiy et al., 2008; Griffing et al., 2006; Krause et al., 2008). Modelling undertaken by KPMG estimated that in 2015–2016, violence against women and their children (including IPV) cost the Australian economy $22 billion (KPMG, 2016). In light of its prevalence and harms, it is not surprising then that there is a large and growing body of research examining IPV, and significant policy interest in identifying interventions that can reduce the recurrence of IPV and minimise its impact. However, even after 40  years of research, the evidence supporting common

 The names of participants have been changed to protect their anonymity.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_1

1

2

1 Introduction

responses to IPV abusers2 is underwhelming at best. Several reviews of Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (MBCP) have shown they are only marginally better than doing nothing at all (Akoensi et al., 2013; Arias et al., 2013; Feder et al., 2008). Meanwhile, traditional criminal justice and civil law responses like arrest and protection orders appear to only be effective in reducing reoffending under specific circumstances, such as when victims-survivors have separated from abusers and have no reason for ongoing contact with them (Dowling et al., 2018a, b; Trevena & Poynton, 2016). However, despite the apparent failure of traditional responses to IPV abusers having any kind of consistent and wide-scale impact, there is a lot of evidence that IPV abusers do stop or at least reduce the level of violence and abuse they perpetrate against their partners. This is despite the widely held belief that once it starts, abusers are not likely to stop of their own accord (i.e., spontaneously). In the early 1980s, family violence researcher Mildred Pagelow stated, ‘one of the few things about which almost all researchers agree is that batterings escalate in frequency and intensity over time’ (Pagelow, 1981, p. 45). This statement has been repeated by numerous authors since then, many of whom have suggested that persistence and subsequent escalation is characteristic of most, if not all, abusive relationships (Feder et al., 2008). So how do we reconcile these three seemingly inconsistent realities? 1 . IPV is characterised by persistence and is unlikely to stop spontaneously. 2. What we are doing to bring about change in IPV abusers is not working. 3. There is a large body of evidence that IPV does stop and is actually relatively common. Over the past 25  years, there has been considerable growth in criminological research focused on desistance from offending – the processes by which the cessation or reduction of established patterns of offending behaviours occurs.3 Broadly

 I acknowledge that there are ongoing debates within the desistance literature regarding terms that label individuals as inherently ‘deviant’, such as ‘abuser’, ‘perpetrator’ and/or ‘offender’. In the broader desistance literature, some have argued that we need to move beyond terms which define and label people by the behaviours we wish them to desist from, noting that these terms are stigmatising and more ‘person-first’ language should be used. These critiques are acknowledged, but I have chosen to retain these terms, as they reflect the terminology employed by the women I interviewed and are commonly adopted in the feminist and IPV literature that has informed this thesis. 3  The desistance literature emerged in response to increasing recognition that medical and specific deterrence explanations for the cessation of offending were unable to account for the majority of desistance. As Shadd Maruna argued: 2

This well-known fact that ‘they’ frequently do ‘come back’ after being ‘corrected’ or ‘deterred’ is precisely the reason both stories have been assigned a minor role in the scientific understanding of desistance. Although no-one believes that the state plays no role in the desistance process of ex-abusers, criminologists tend to look elsewhere, to forces like the labor market, to the family, and to the abuser himself or herself, to account for this highlypredictable change in behavior. (2001, p. 2)

1 Introduction

3

divisible into three schools of thought – ontogenetic, sociogenic and agentic – desistance research aims to understand why some abusers ‘go straight’, while the offending trajectories of others stabilise or escalate over time (i.e., persistence), and how abusers maintain their desistance on a day-to-day basis. Historically, these frameworks have been developed based on the analysis of in-depth narrative life-history interviews with predominantly white, male, property abusers who self-identify as either desisting or persisting in their offending (Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Maruna, 2001) or the analysis of longitudinal datasets and panel studies (Giordano et  al., 2002; Laub & Sampson, 2001). The relevance of desistance frameworks for IPV is currently unclear. Of particular note is that IPV has some unique dimensions that differentiate it from acquistive crimes which have primarily informed the development of desistance frameworks. In particular, IPV occurs within a domestic context and involves ongoing interactions between the victim-survivor4 and the abuser before, during and after episodes of violence and abuse. Further, due to the intimate nature of their relationship, the victim-survivor has detailed knowledge about the abuser and their offending patterns and triggers (Downs et al., 2007). As such, it has been hypothesised that IPV victims-survivors are in a unique position to influence the behaviour of their abusive partner, including the cessation of violence, in a way that victims of other forms of crime may not be (Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Feld & Straus, 1989; Timmons Fritz & Smith Slep, 2009; Vickerman & Margolin, 2008; Walker et al., 2013a). When IPV desistance does occur, what if any role do victims-survivors have in these processes? This question has largely gone unanswered, due to the little research that has explored the role of victims-survivors of IPV in abuser desistance pathways, as perceived by either the victims-survivors themselves or the abusers (Bowker, 1983). This research gap may be due to concerns about victim-blaming; by including victims-survivors in discussions about desistance processes, there are concerns that the focus will shift from abuser accountability to making victims-survivors responsible for their own safety. However, this has been strongly refuted by numerous researchers who have argued that focusing solely on abusers, as opposed to dyads (i.e., the victims-survivors and the abuser together), provides only limited information about how IPV begins, persists and ends (Aldarondo, 1996; Brown, 1997; Goodman et al., 2003, 2005; Iverson et al., 2013; Krause et al., 2006; Kuijpers et al., 2012b; O’Leary & Smith Slep, 2003; Pandya, 2009). More importantly, by removing or sidelining victims-survivors from discussions about how they can support their partners to change their behaviours, we risk disempowering women who want to be part of the change process, particularly when they want (or need) the relationship to continue (Brown, 1997; Cattaneo & Goodman,  The victimology literature has consistently identified that the term ‘victims’ may not reflect the lived experiences of individuals who have experienced crime. However, ‘victims’ is used throughout this thesis to refer to individuals who have experienced crime as a broad category. Victims/ survivors is used to refer to individuals who have lived experiences of IPV specifically. 4

4

1 Introduction

2005; Horton & Johnson, 1993; Krause et al., 2006; Lempert, 1996; Mannon, 1997; Marsden et  al., 2021; Mills, 1985; Presser & Gaarder, 2000). Victims-survivors often remain in relationships with abusers for years, or even decades, before they either leave the relationship or the violence ends (Horton & Johnson, 1993; Meyer, 2016). Victims-survivors need to be supported to stay safe while they are still partnered with abusers. This book contributes to the current knowledge about the processes through which the violence and abuse occurring within intimate relationships may reduce or stop entirely, by engaging directly with victims-survivors of IPV. By speaking to victims/survivors, it is not only possible to understand and describe their role in the desistance of IPV behaviours perpetrated against them, but also the broader range of factors that may influence abuser behaviours. More specifically, this book will try to answer the following research questions: 1. What is the role of female victims/survivors of IPV in male abuser desistance pathways? 2. What factors may differentiate between desistance and persistence pat terns of IPV? 3. How can desistance theory assist in understanding the cessation or reduc tion of IPV? 4. What does IPV tell us about the limitations of current desistance theories for explaining the cessation or reduction of IPV and other forms of crime? Because the nature, causes and impact of IPV are highly gendered (Boxall et al., 2020; Hamberger, 1997; Hulme et al., 2019; Kernsmith, 2005; Melton & Belknap, 2003; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Stuart et al., 2006), the focus was on women’s experiences of male-perpetrated IPV.  In order to address these research questions, in-­ depth narrative interviews were conducted with 40 women recruited from the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding areas who self-reported that they had experienced male-perpetrated IPV. This book is comprised of nine chapters. Chapter 2 provides an overview of common definitions and theories for understanding the cessation or reduction of criminal behaviours. Noting that most desistance research has been informed by the analysis of interviews conducted with male property offenders, in this chapter I also discuss the relevance of current desistance frameworks for understanding IPV, focusing on the dyadic dimension of IPV. Chapter 3 describes the findings from the research that has examined IPV desistance processes and the mechanisms underpinning IPV desistance that have been identified. In this chapter, I also discuss the role of social relationships and victims-survivors in the cessation and reduction of violence and abuse within relationships. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the current study research design and methods, describing the 40 women who participated in the study and their relationships. Critically, this chapter also provides the definitions of desistance and persistence used for this study and the justification for these definitions, as well as the limitations associated with the research design. The findings from the analysis of the 40 participant narratives are presented in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8. First, Chap. 5 describes the nature of the violence and abuse experienced by

1 Introduction

5

participants and its impact, as well as the presence of historical violence and abuse in the lives of both victims-survivors and abusers. This information is essential for understanding both the context within which participants may have been attempting to initiate and support the desistance of IPV targeted at them, as well as to explore whether variation in desistance outcomes within the sample could be attributed to the ‘type’ of violence experienced by women. Chapter 6 provides a detailed overview of the various strategies participants used to mitigate their risk of serious violence and support longer-term behaviour change within their partners and the impact of these strategies. Chapter 7 describes the findings from a detailed analysis of the narratives of participants who experienced the desistance of violence and abuse while they were still partnered with their abusers. This includes an overview of the mechanisms that may have contributed to the observed behaviour change, as well as how the participants themselves experienced and defined desistance. Chapter 8 focuses on the motivations of women when they were implementing strategies and explores the extent to which women were aware of their role in the initiation and maintenance of desistance. Finally, Chap. 9 synthesises the key findings from this study by providing an overview of the perceived role of victims/survivors in IPV desistance processes and commenting on the limitations and benefits of traditional theories in explaining IPV desistance processes.

Chapter 2

Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

Traditionally conceptualised as the complete cessation of offending, since the early 2000s, desistance has been described as a gradual maintenance process that never really ends, potentially involving periods of relapse and remission (Fagan, 1989; Gadd & Farrall, 2004; Maruna, 2001; Walker et al., 2013a). In this way, offenders may never completely stop but de-escalate or reduce their involvement in crime over time. Desistance has primarily been described as a measure of behaviour, or rather, non-behaviour (Maruna, 2016). In turn, most studies have operationalised desistance by focusing on ‘what a person is or is not doing’ (Graham & McNeill, 2017, p. 436). However, there is ongoing discussion as to whether definitions of desistance should involve a cognitive element as well, in particular the individual’s transition to a non-offender identity. In an attempt to settle this debate, Maruna and Farrall (2004) proposed a dual taxonomy of desistance: primary and secondary. Primary desistance is behavioural in focus, involving the cessation or a significant reduction in offending for any observed period of time. Secondary desistance refers to the process whereby an offender’s cognitive state or view of self changes, so they no longer view their criminal behaviours as consistent with who they are (or should be). The definition of desistance has been extended by the recent work of Fergus McNeill and others, who have proposed a third type of desistance – tertiary desistance. Tertiary desistance refers to the process of social (re)integration, whereby offenders may become members of or view themselves as affiliated with, a moral and/or political community (McNeill, 2016). Whereas primary and secondary desistance are personal or individualistic, tertiary desistance is social and relational in nature (Weaver, 2013), emphasising the offender’s sense of belonging to a society where the stigma associated with their criminal pasts has been forgiven or forgotten (Graham & McNeill, 2017).  Most studies have operationalised desistance by focusing on ‘what a person is or is not doing’ (emphasis added; Graham and McNeill, 2017, p.  436), rather than their cognitive state or sense of ‘we-ness’ (Weaver, 2013, p.  206). This is perhaps appropriate considering the observation © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_2

7

8

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

made by various authors that many offenders proclaim that they are ‘going legit’ or ‘making good’, but only some follow through with an actual change in behaviour and are able to maintain it when confronted with barriers and challenges that may sabotage their attempts to desist (Barr, 2019; Bottoms & Shapland, 2010; Farrall et al., 2014; Maruna, 2016). Further, Bottoms et al. (2004) argued that definitions of secondary desistance were limited because identity change may not be necessary for desistance to occur. The authors suggested that in some situations, desistance starts without the offender even being aware of it, and these desisting offenders may only retrospectively speak about identity change as a means of minimising cognitive dissonance (Bottoms et al., 2004). As such, understanding desistance processes necessarily involves a focus on behavioural change. That said, criticisms have also been levelled at definitions of primary desistance. In particular, by focusing on behaviour change in isolation, it has been suggested that we may only be capturing naturally occurring lulls in offending behaviour, as opposed to true desistance (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2004; Maruna & Ramsden, 2004). As such, while the absence of offending is an essential component of definitions of desistance, understanding the contexts within which it occurs is also vital. This allows us to not only identify factors that are associated with the initiation and maintenance of desistance, including the role of offenders (and others) in these behaviour change processes, but also whether they are likely to be sustainable in the longer term.

2.1 Desistance Theory In attempting to understand why some offenders make good and others do not, three primary frameworks have been described by desistance researchers: • Ontogenetic models: as individuals age, they become less able to commit crimes. • Sociogenic models: offenders are acted upon by exogenous environmental and situational forces. • Agentic models: offenders are active agents of change, taking purposive steps to alter their behaviour, attitudes and identities (also referred to as subjective or phenomenological models.

2.1.1 Ontogenetic Models of Desistance Within the literature, researchers primarily associate ontogenetic models of desistance with the work of Gottfredson and Hirschi (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983), who, in their analysis of the age-crime curve, argued that the effect of age on involvement in crime was stable and constant across populations. As argued by the authors: ‘with the exception of minor fluctuation in mode, the essential feature of the age distribution is extraordinary stability’ (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983, p. 572).

2.1  Desistance Theory

9

Hirschi and Gottfredson primarily attributed individuals’ involvement in offending to low levels of self-control, which, they argued, were established during early stages of life and remained constant over time (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). However, Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983) also pointed to the ageing of the organism, suggesting that propensity for crime became overshadowed by declining levels of ability. Although self-control theory continues to be hugely influential within criminology (Franklin et al., 2012; Holt et al., 2012), Hirschi and Gottfredson’s age-­invariant hypothesis for desistance has been largely discredited and so does not feature in most contemporary desistance frameworks (Farrall et  al., 2014). That said, as described in the next chapter, there is consistent evidence that age is positively associated with IPV desistance – as offenders age, they are less likely to persist (Caetano et al., 2005; Jasinski, 2001; Johnson, 2003; Whitaker et al., 2010). In light of this, academics like Michael Rocque (2015) have encouraged desistance researchers to re-engage with ontogenetic theories of desistance but to take a broader view than Hirschi and Gottfredson do of the mechanisms that may underpin the observed relationship between age and crime and variations in these general trends.1

2.1.2 Sociogenic Models of Desistance Sociogenic models of desistance argue that criminal behaviours change over the life course, influenced in part by the individual’s characteristics, life events and environment (Doherty & Ensminger, 2013; Warr, 1998). The most widely cited example of this school of thought is Laub and Sampson’s (1993) age-graded theory of informal social control. Centred on the analysis of longitudinal datasets originally collected by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck for 500 delinquent male adolescents who were interviewed at age 25 and 32 (Glueck & Glueck, 1950) and then 70 years old (Sampson & Laub, 2003), Laub and Sampson’s central thesis was that desistance is brought about by ‘turning points’, defined as ‘an alteration or deflection in a long-­ term pathway or trajectory that was initiated at an earlier point in time’ (Sampson & Laub, 2005, p. 16). Commonly identified turning points included marriage, having children, attending reform school and enrolling in military service (Laub & Sampson, 1993). Critically, turning points were characterised as ‘chance events’ that occurred in the absence of any agentic moves by the offender (Laub et al., 1998, p. 225). As such, the offender’s role in desistance was largely passive, with changes in behaviour brought about by the influence of situational and environmental factors that they had little or no role in facilitating (Skardhamar & Savolainen, 2014).

 Rocque (2015) noted that Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck actually wrote about the role of maturation in desistance in the 1940s and 1950s and that the authors at this point highlighted the need for additional research to define maturation with some level of specificity and to determine its ‘components’. 1

10

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

In explaining why turning points brought about desistance, Sampson and Laub suggested that major life events such as getting married or having children created attachments to, and investments in, conventional social bonds and institutions (Laub & Sampson, 1993, 2001). These social bonds made crime more costly – if someone offended, they could lose their job or their partner could leave them (Laub et al., 1998; Skardhamar & Savolainen, 2014; Warr, 1998). Alternatively, Warr (1998) suggested that it was not marriage or other turning points per se or the bonds that are formed with others that reduced crime, but their effect on re-organising offenders’ social milieu and routines. Warr’s (1998) hypothesis was supported in part by his analysis of longitudinal data collected through the National Youth Survey (US), which found that unmarried participants spent twice as many hours a week with their friends than participants who were married (10 vs 23). This led Warr to argue: ‘The transition from criminal to conventional behaviour (or vice versa)…is not merely an individual conversion, but rather a social transformation that entails the destruction of old relations or social networks and the creation of new ones’ (Warr, 1998, p. 212).

2.1.3 Agentic Models of Desistance While acknowledging the importance of social structures in understanding pathways in and out of crime, agentic models place the individual at the centre of the analyses, exploring the cognitive work undertaken by offenders at different stages of the desistance process. Despite significant variation across agentic models of desistance, several key themes can be identified. First, the desistance process typically involves offenders re-assessing their current situations and lives,2 which can be triggered by negative events linked to their engagement in crime. Such negative events could include criminal victimisatio, imprisonment, the loss of family and relationship dissolution (Bottoms & Shapland, 2010; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Vaughan, 2006). These events are disorienting and distressing and may serve as a motivation for offenders to consider the benefits and consequences associated with their lifestyles (Vaughan, 2006). Another trigger for this deliberation process could be the offender being presented with a ‘hook for change’ (e.g. employment offer or a romantic partner), which in turn facilitated the evocation of a replacement self (Giordano et  al., 2002, p.  1000). Some authors have also highlighted the role of third parties (e.g. family members and friends) in triggering the re-evaluation process or, more accurately, offenders becoming aware of or imagining that others think badly of them because of their criminal behaviour (Farrall et  al., 2014; Vaughan, 2006; Weaver, 2012; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). Second, many agentic models involve some consideration of the role of identity change (or re-imagining of identity) in the desistance process. This typically

 Giordano et al. (2002) suggest that this re-assessment occurs towards the end of the desistance process. 2

2.1  Desistance Theory

11

involves the replacement (or reinterpretation) of past criminal selves for more pro-­ social and positive future selves. For example, Paternoster and Bushway suggested that desisting abusers are able to link their current negative circumstances to their criminal working identities, which are then projected into the future as a ‘feared self’ (2009, p. 1119). Offenders are therefore motivated to take purposive action to avoid this feared self, working towards other more positive possible selves. Rather than creating a replacement self, Maruna’s (2001) analysis of the redemption scripts of desisting offenders suggested that they were adept at ‘mining’ their past for evidence that supported their current views of themselves (and associated narratives) as essentially good people whose deviance was a response to a set of circumstances largely outside their control (Maruna, 2001; Maruna & Ramsden, 2004; Maruna & Roy, 2007). In particular, these narratives frame the cessation of crime as consistent with their real self rather than an abrupt departure (Maruna, 2001). As Maruna argued, ‘Instead of discovering a “new me”, the desisting ex-­ offender reaches back into early experiences to find and re-establish an “old me” in order to desist’ (Maruna, 2001, p. 88). Finally, inextricably interwoven with the role of changing identities (or indeed self-narratives) is the idea that desisting offenders need to be able to envision a future where they are not engaged in offending (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009). This means that offenders require a level of self-efficacy or human capital and control over their lives (Bottoms & Shapland, 2010; Farrall et al., 2014; Giordano et al., 2002; Maruna, 2001). For example, Maruna’s (2001) comparison of the narratives of persistent and desisting offenders found that the former viewed their circumstances as beyond their control and their situation as unassailable.

2.1.4 Integrated Desistance Models Although previous reviews of desistance frameworks have cast sociogenic and agentic models as inconsistent with each other, most desistance scholars actually acknowledge the necessity of considering both agentic and structural factors in the desistance process (Farrall et al., 2014). Even Laub and Sampson (2001), in later works, extended their analyses to hypothesise that the formation of social bonds could impact desistance by encouraging offenders to accept new pro-social roles and identities that come with different expectations and behaviours. The works of Peggy Giordano, Stephen Farrall and Anthony Bottoms are explicit attempts to integrate agentic and sociogenic models of desistance. For example, while acknowledging the importance of the offender’s desire to change in desistance processes, Giordano et al. (2002, 2003) argued that offender motivation was mediated by their access to key structures and resources. In particular, the authors suggested that offender motivation is more important in situations where they do not have easy access to pro-social structures and systems such as employment and were less important when offenders had higher levels of social capital. Further, Bottoms and colleagues have in various papers described an integrated model of desistance comprised of five components: programmed potential, social

12

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

structures, culture and habitus, situational contexts and agency (Bottoms, 2006; Bottoms et  al., 2004; Bottoms & Shapland, 2010). Within this framework, the authors argued that offenders bring an intention to desist into a social context that challenges and supports that decision to varying extents (Bottoms et al., 2004).

2.2 The Relevance of Desistance Theories to IPV The applicability of the above-described frameworks for explaining IPV desistance has only just started to be explored (Giordano et  al., 2015; Walker et  al., 2017). Since its emergence as an area of inquiry in the 1970s, IPV has largely developed in isolation from life-course criminology (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Fagan, 1989). Certainly, very few studies have examined the criminal career trajectories of IPV abusers or attempted to understand how these behaviours change over time and what factors may account for these variations (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Piquero, 2000; Richards et al., 2014). The absence of research examining IPV through a life-course lens may be attributable to the ideological preferences of many IPV researchers, and that desistance theory was initially developed through the analysis of longitudinal datasets and life-­history interviews conducted with (primarily) white male property offenders (Graham & McNeill, 2017), as opposed to IPV abusers. Fagan noted 30 years ago that IPV is ‘viewed as an idiosyncratic crime, much like white-collar crime, and remains outside the mainstream of criminological theory and research’ (Fagan, 1989, p. 414). Although this quote is outdated and there are certainly numerous examples of research where IPV has been examined using mainstream criminological theories (see, e.g. Boxall et al., 2018; Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2013), the point remains that there was, and still is, an unresolved question as to whether IPV is different from other forms of criminal behaviour and whether it can be understood using theories which are often derived from information collected from or about offenders who may not perpetrate IPV (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Giordano et al., 2015).

2.2.1 Differences in the Underlying Motivations of Acquisitive Offences and IPV There are important differences in the underlying motivations of IPV compared to other crime types that need to be recognised. Over the last 50 years, the dominant paradigm through which IPV has been examined is feminist criminology/theory. Feminist scholars argue that IPV can be understood by looking at macro-level factors, particularly the patriarchal systems that reinforce the subjugation of women, through structures and processes that prioritise and reinforce male dominance in social, economic and political spheres (e.g. Heise & Kotsadam, 2015; McPhail et al., 2007). At an individual level, IPV is seen as attributable to the internalisation

2.2  The Relevance of Desistance Theories to IPV

13

of patriarchal systems and processes among men and women, which results in adherence to traditional gender norms (particularly hegemonic masculinities) and attitudes that are supportive of violence against women and male violence more generally (McCarthy et al., 2018; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009; Santana et al., 2006). Feminist theories are supported by evidence that IPV is highly gendered – the majority of abusers are male, while most victims-survivors are female (Hulme et al., 2019). Further, several studies have identified a positive association between  the perpetration of IPV and abuser and victim-survivor adherence to traditional gender norms (McCarthy et al., 2018; Santana et al., 2006), attitudes supportive of IPV and violence against women (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015; McCarthy et al., 2018; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009) and the onset and persistence of IPV within relationships. Further, other research has shown that community- and country-level IPV prevalence rates are associated with macro-level measures of gender equity, such as the level of property and land ownership rights afforded to women (Heise & Kotsadam, 2015), the proportion of positions of power and authority occupied by women in a community (e.g. as elected lawmakers) (Whitaker, 2014) and the size of the gender wage gap (Aizer, 2010).3 This stands in direct contrast to acquisitive offences, such as property offending, which are described as being underpinned by the offender’s desire to maximise utilitarian benefit, particularly financial gain (Clarke & Felson, 1993). The commission of these offences is often viewed through a rational choice lens, and so their prevention may be achieved by increasing the consequences associated with offending behaviours, target hardening (i.e. making it harder for abusers to gain access to crime targets) and surveillance. Critics of opportunity theories, especially the rational choice perspective,4 have argued that these frameworks have limited applicability to expressive crimes like IPV because perpetrators of these behaviours are less likely to act rationally (Hayward, 2007). This argument has been strongly refuted (Farrell, 2010) on the basis that offenders committing expressive crime still make decisions that they think will benefit them in some way beyond financial gain. This holds true even if none of the decisions being made by offenders are seemingly rational (Clarke & Felson, 1993; Farrell, 2010; Felson, 2013; Jacobs & Wright, 2010).

 In light of the above-cited evidence, primary prevention policy and programs have aimed to reduce the onset of IPV by addressing gender inequity at a societal level through various mechanisms (see, e.g. Australia’s National Action Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (Department of Social Services, 2019) and Goal 5 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2021). 4  Although desistance theory was initially developed based on studies drawn from the experiences of property abusers, the rational choice framework is only one of many theories that have been used to explain the desistance processes undergone by some offenders. For example, desistance scholars have explicitly situated their analyses in theories that have also been used to explore IPV.  This includes feminism (Barr, 2019), symbolic interactionism (Anderson & Rouse, 1988; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009) and relational sociology. 3

14

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

2.2.2 The Dyadic Element of IPV Arguably, the main difference between IPV and many other forms of offending is that the latter occurs within the context of an intimate relationship. As such IPV has an important dyadic component that is crucial for understanding the onset, persistence and desistance of these behaviours (Giordano et  al., 2015; Pandya, 2009; Walker et al., 2017). Informed by coercion and social learning theories (Timmons Fritz & Smith Slep, 2009), dyadic theories frame IPV as a pattern of learned behaviour established through repeated interactions between the victim and abuser during the life of the relationship. As such, understanding IPV necessarily involves looking at both individuals in the relationship, exploring the interactions between them and the meaning and purpose of the violence within the context of the relationship (Burman et al., 1993; Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Gordis et al., 2005; Lempert, 1996; Moffitt et al., 2001). Research informed by dyadic models have mainly attempted to identify relationship-­level factors that can differentiate between abusive and non-abusive relationships. In particular, studies have focussed on identifying factors that influence the ability of one or both partners within a relationship to interact with each other in functional and healthy ways. This includes the level of empathy that individuals have for others (Péloquin et al., 2011), negative emotional affect (Kuijpers et  al., 2012a, b; Moffitt et  al., 2001) and symptoms associated with a borderline personality disorder5 (Maneta et al., 2013). Numerous studies have demonstrated that the primary attachment style6 of victims-­survivors and abusers is associated with the occurrence of IPV within relationships (Babcock et al., 2000; Craparo et al., 2014; Péloquin et al., 2011). The fear of rejection and need for validation from their partners, which are common traits of individuals with preoccupied or insecure attachment styles, means that for some  Primitive defences include splitting, idealisation, devaluation and projective identification which could distort the individual’s view of others’ motivations and behaviours. Reality testing refers to the ability of individuals to assess situations and behaviours based on social criteria of reality; low levels may mean that someone is unable to pick up on cues that a situation is escalating and impairs their ability to diffuse conflicts. Identity diffusion refers to difficulties that an individual may experience distinguishing between their own thoughts and feelings and those of others. High levels of identity diffusion impair someone’s ability to identify causes of conflict or view the problem from someone else’s perspective, which could lead to violence (Craparo et al., 2014; Maneta et al., 2013). 6  Attachment research has identified four types of attachment: 5

• Dismissing (compulsive self-reliance and defensive downplaying of the importance of intimate relationships, minimises needs of others) • Fearful (afraid of intimacy, views self as unworthy of love and expects others to reject them, need for validation and closeness with others) • Preoccupied (low self-worth and esteem, dependence on others to validate self, demanding interpersonal style) • Secure (high self-esteem, able to maintain close bonds without losing a sense of self; Doumas et al., 2008; Péloquin et al., 2011) Insecure attachment styles are dismissing, fearful and preoccupied.

2.3  What Do Existing Frameworks Say About the Role of Social Relationships…

15

abusers, violence is a strategy to manage perceived emotional threats triggered by feelings of abandonment and to maintain proximity to their partner (Babcock et al., 2000; Kuijpers et al., 2012a, b). Ironically, their partner attempting to de-escalate a fight by walking away from them could actually result in the onset or continuation of violence (Babcock et al., 2000; Boxall et al., 2018; Kuijpers et al., 2012a, b). Other research has focused on the communication and problem-solving skills of both partners to understand why violence and abuse occurs within some relationships. Laboratory observations of couples discussing a topic of conflict within the relationship have consistently identified that both partners within abusive relationships have higher levels of negative emotional affect and dysfunctional communication traits than those in non-violent relationships (Cordova et al., 1993; Gordis et al., 2005; Ronan et al., 2004). Within relationships characterised by poor communication, problems remain unsolved, solutions are not mutually satisfactory and so are not accepted fully by one or both partners, and partners become frustrated because they feel that their points of view are not being acknowledged (Feldman & Ridley, 2000). Dyadic models of IPV situate the abuse within a relationship which is marked by repeated interactions, actions and reactions. Within this lens, it could be hypothesised that something that the victim-survivor did or did not do at some stage influenced their partner’s desistance trajectory in intended and unintended ways. However, the impact of victim-survivor strategies and actions are unlikely to be one way or even direct. Rather, it will be part of a larger sequence of actions and interactions involving both parties, which over time may ultimately lead to desistance. By situating IPV within the context of a domestic relationship between the victim-­survivor and the abuser, dyadic frameworks highlight the tension that women who are experiencing IPV are inevitably required to contend with; not only are they the targets of the abuse and violence, but they are also a source of support for their partners. As such, women who experience IPV may exert some form of influence over their partners in two domains: as the victim of the abuse but also as a social connection or relationship.

2.3 What Do Existing Frameworks Say About the Role of Social Relationships in Desistance Processes? In contrast to dyadic models of IPV, desistance frameworks are predominantly offender-centric, aiming to understand how abusers experience and make sense of their desistance ‘journey’ and the cognitive and structural factors that bring about these changes. As such, these frameworks have typically not explored the role of social relationships in desistance processes in detail. However, this is starting to change (McNeill, 2016; Weaver, 2013; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). This historical gap in understanding may be partially attributable to the research methods used by desistance researchers  – in-depth narrative interviews with

16

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

offenders who self-identify as either desisting from or persisting with crime. Critically, very few researchers have sought the views of other parties in relation to offender desistance processes other than as a means of confirming whether potential participants have indeed desisted (i.e. validating recruitment parameters, see, e.g. Barr, 2019; Maruna, 2001). This is despite the acknowledgement of many researchers that the maintenance of desistance may be dependent on the efforts of other parties, particularly in the absence of therapeutic interventions (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2004; Weaver, 2013; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). As noted by Maruna and Immarigeon in their paper examining the consistencies between mechanisms underpinning rehabilitation and desistance processes in bringing about offender behaviour change: Whether or not one is undergoing professional treatment, change still feels like an agentic, individual pursuit to those undergoing it…Can it really be true that members of the control group really receive no assistance? Try telling that to the parents, friends, partners and children of ex-abusers and recovering addicts. NO person is an island. (2004, p. 12)

Considering that researchers have predominantly only sought the views of offenders, it is perhaps not surprising that offenders themselves minimise the role of other parties. The territoriality of desisting offenders in relation to their redemption narratives has been noted by a number of researchers, who highlight that offenders often blame others for their entry into criminal careers, but believe that they alone are responsible for leaving it behind (Maruna, 2001). Where social relationships are included in desistance research, their influence has typically been described as a one-way process; the actions or inactions of the individual had a direct impact on the offender, regardless of the intention of those actions. For example, social relationships may provide boundaries or limitations around offender behaviours, which can, in turn, initiate or support desistance processes. This could be through the communication of actual or perceived sanctions related to offending (Gadd, 2006; Laub & Sampson, 1993) and reducing opportunities for abusers to engage in crime because they divert their attention and time elsewhere (King et al., 2007; Sampson et al., 2006; Warr, 1998). In other descriptions of the role of social relationships in desistance processes, it is unclear whether the other person (e.g. friend, partner or family member) is even doing anything at all. Rather, all that is required is their presence or absence from the lives of the abuser. For example, social relationships provide a blueprint for offenders to role model pro-social behaviours (Giordano et  al., 2015; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). Alternatively, social relationships may encourage or sabotage desistance processes by encouraging or facilitating offending. Both agentic and sociogenic models highlight the need for offenders to distance themselves from negative peer groups in order for desistance to occur, at least during the initial stages of the process7 (Maruna & Roy, 2007; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Shapland & Bottoms, 2011).  Notably, the desisting offenders interviewed in Maruna’s (2001) seminal work scoffed at the idea that moving out of the area and not seeing their old friends was crucial for desistance. A number 7

2.3  What Do Existing Frameworks Say About the Role of Social Relationships…

17

However, consistent with dyadic models of IPV, Beth Weaver has argued that the social relationships between offenders and others influence desistance processes because they are reciprocal, involving the exchange of goods between members (e.g. positive affect, access to structural supports, loyalty, etc.; Weaver, 2015, 2013; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). As such, offenders may become motivated to change their behaviours as a means of maintaining their access to relational and individual goods. Offender motivation to maintain positive social relationships, and their associated fear or distress related to the perceived threat of losing access to relational goods, has been identified as a possible mechanism for supporting desistance (McAlinden et al., 2017). For example, Una Barr’s (2019) study of female offenders noted that, for some participants, their primary motivation for maintaining their desistance was their concerns about negatively impacting their children. For the women in Barr’s (2019) study, and others described by desistance researchers in various publications (Giordano et al., 2015; Laub et al., 1998; Laub & Sampson, 2001; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Sampson et  al., 2006; Weaver & McNeill, 2015), the loss of relational goods became a cost associated with offending that outweighed its perceived benefits, bringing about a change in behaviour. It has also been suggested that social relationships may impact desistance processes through the ability of others to reflect back to offenders evidence of their desistance, or at least a version of themselves that is capable of desistance (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Morran, 2013). Vaughan (2006), Giordano et  al. (2002), Bottoms et al. (2004), Maruna (2001) and Farrall et al. (2014) have all touched on the idea that an important trigger for offenders’ re-assessment of their current situation and formation of a new non-criminal identity is their perception of how others view them. As noted by Farrall and colleagues, ‘the re(fashioning) of an identity for oneself is dependent on considering one’s existing identity as others see it’ (2014, p. 47). Critically, social relations’ perceptions of abusers can be positive – ‘I believe that you are a good person’ – or negative: ‘I believe that you are a bad person’. Although both can potentially initiate or support the cessation or reduction of offending, desistance researchers have focused predominantly on the importance of social relations’ positive views of offenders in supporting identity change (Bottoms et  al., 2004; Gadd, 2006; Morran, 2013; Scott & Wolfe, 2000). For example, some desisting offenders who spoke to Maruna (2001) reported that having the support of someone who had faith in them made them more committed to desistance because they did not want to disappoint them. Symbolic interactionism provides a useful lens for understanding the role of social relations in the development of non-offender identities. A central tenet of symbolic interactionism is that we cannot know ourselves outside of people’s understanding and perceptions of us (Blumer, 1986; Goodrum et al., 2001). So, we may

argued that if desistance was dependent on the individual not seeing anyone from ‘the life,’ then they weren’t really committed to going straight.

18

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

have views of ourselves and act in ways that are consistent with how people perceive us and expect us to behave. Picking up on these ‘looking glass recovery’ processes (Maruna, 2001, p. 96), Pelikan and Hofinger (2016) argued that identity formation, including non-offending identities, requires engagement with others and the performance of self: Identity formation, self-narratives and efforts at desistance are interactional processes. Desistance is about these processes, the incorporation or ‘internal adoption’ of a changed identity and a changed self-narrative. It is a kind of Auseinandersetzung – a process comprising discussion, confrontation and examination, getting engaged with an ‘other’, an opposite. Further on these inner processes are shaped by a person’s social networks, her milieus and her relational context. (pp. 331–332)

2.4 The Role of Victims of Crime in Desistance Processes A small number of researchers have argued that interactions between victims of crime and offenders should be included within existing frameworks because of their potential impact on desistance processes (Gadd, 2002, 2006; Giordano et al., 2015; Vaughan, 2006). However, very little empirical research has actually explored the role of victims of crime in desistance pathways. To date, the primary role afforded to victims of crime has focused on their ability to evoke or relieve negative emotions associated with the crime, which can, in turn, initiate or support desistance processes. David Gadd, who has arguably written the most about this concept, has suggested that in some situations victims have symbolic value for offenders, often having been selected on the basis of some unconscious psychological process like splitting – the projection of unwanted traits onto an external other (Gadd, 2006; Gadd & Jefferson, 2007). For example, in his detailed case study of a British man who was frequently abusive towards his wife, Gadd (2006) noted that ‘Mark’s’ violence would escalate in severity when “Maria” became emotional or upset’. The author attributed Mark’s aggression to his own feelings of impotence and fear when he was unable to protect his mother from his father’s violence when he was a child. In this way, Mark’s aggression towards his wife was a violent rejection of attributes he saw in himself that he wanted to disavow and reject – emotionality and vulnerability. As Gadd (2006) argued, ‘For the perpetrators of many crimes, victimizing an “other” is often a symbolic process, over-laden with meaning that is embedded in their pasts’ (p. 196). When the victim of crime has a symbolic value for the offender, the way that the victim responds to the offence and the offender may impact the desistance process (Gadd, 2002, 2006). In particular, Gadd (2006) suggested that when victims move beyond their status as an aggrieved party and became a three-dimensional entity capable of autonomy, they may assist the offender to re-engage with traits which they may have rejected and move past their feelings of shame, anger and fear that contributed to the offending.

2.5  A Theoretical Justification for Including Victims of Crime in Desistance…

19

Vaughan (2006) similarly suggested that victims of crime may have a role in supporting desistance through acts of forgiveness, which may help offenders to envision alternative identities that are not involved in offending. However, he also suggested that victims may evoke negative emotions within offenders through their communication of the impact of the crime. By evoking negative emotions (e.g. shame) that become connected to criminal behaviours, offenders may become dissatisfied with working identities and, in turn, become motivated to desist (Vaughan, 2006).

2.5 A Theoretical Justification for Including Victims of Crime in Desistance Frameworks As demonstrated in the above discussion, historically, desistance frameworks have not accounted for the potential role of social relationships, and particularly victims of crime, in offender desistance processes. If, as dyadic models of IPV suggest, victims-survivors have a role in the cessation or reduction of IPV, existing frameworks may not be able to satisfactorily reflect and account for this.

2.5.1 Routine Activities Theory Although primarily focused on the prevention of crime events, rather than broader processes of desistance, routine activities theory (RAT) is a useful example of criminological research which has highlighted the role of victims in the occurrence and non-occurrence of crime. Proponents of RAT argue that crime events ‘originate in the routines of everyday life’ (Mannon, 1997, p. 11) and are more likely to occur in situations where a motivated offender converges in the same place and time as a suitable victim,8 in the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Since the 1980s, much crime prevention work has been underpinned by RAT and this deceptively simple configuration of elements with proponents arguing that altering just one of these means that crime is unlikely to occur (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Critically, RAT is relatively unconcerned with understanding the role of motivated offenders in the occurrence of crime. Instead, the presence of a motivated offender is viewed as constant: ‘…the theory presumes an abuser is predisposed to acting on his or her criminal inclinations…people are regarded as inherently self-­ centred and hedonistic’ (Herbig & Warchol, 2011, p. 7). As such, research informed  Suitability is a nebulous concept, but encompasses a range of factors that increases an individual’s perceived susceptibility to crime or attractiveness as a target, including ‘value…physical visibility, access, and the inertia of a target against illegal treatment by abusers’ (Cohen & Felson, 1979, p. 591). 8

20

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

by RAT has predominantly focused on the role of victim lifestyles (e.g. proximity to abusers, exposure, guardianship, attractiveness as a target) in explaining the occurrence and absence of crime9 (Franklin et al., 2012; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999). Correspondingly, many of the crime prevention techniques that are suggested by RAT adherents10 involve the victim changing their behaviour or immediate environment to effectively make them less attractive targets and so reduce opportunities for crime to occur (Cornish, 1994). Within RAT configurations of crime, everyday actions taken by victims can impact the decision-making of offenders and, in turn, potentially influence their behaviour. This is supported by research that has demonstrated the effectiveness of situational crime prevention methods like target hardening (e.g. changing locks), as well as qualitative studies that have involved asking offenders about the factors that they take into consideration when determining what places and people to target (e.g. Nee & Meenaghan, 2006). It is true that the impact of actions or inactions taken by victims of crime may not result in desistance per se – indeed, it may be more likely to displace crime to more suitable targets than encourage criminals to stop offending entirely. But what RAT research highlights is the day-to-day work that victims do to avoid crime and also the potential for their actions and behaviours to impact offenders at an incident level. Further, for some offenders, a series of frustration events where they have to abandon attempts to commit crime, choose less attractive targets or even experience negative consequences as a result of victim actions (e.g. being arrested by the police) could be enough to cause offenders to become dissatisfied with their criminal lifestyles (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Vaughan, 2006). Although IPV is described as a pattern of behaviour, some research suggests that the prevention of individual incidents of violence and abuse may have relevance for longer-term offending trajectories. For example, several studies involving the analysis of police administrative data have identified that risk of reoffending is cumulative and increases with every detected reoffence (Boxall & Morgan, 2020; Lloyd et al., 1994; Morgan et al., 2018). The findings from this research suggest that by increasing the amount of time between recidivism events (or preventing them entirely), it is possible to alter the longer-term offending trajectories of IPV abusers and bring about desistance.

 To date, RAT has been applied as a framework for predicting victimisation (and re-victimisation) for a range of crime types, including burglary (Johnson, 2008) and other property crime (Franklin et  al., 2012), cybercrime (e.g. phishing) (Hutchings & Hayes, 2008), stalking (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999), non-spousal assault of women (Rodgers & Roberts, 1995), sexual assault (Franklin et  al., 2012), homicide (Messner & Tardiff, 1985), IPV (Mannon, 1997) and animal poaching (Herbig & Warchol, 2011). 10  One of the most influential practical applications of RAT has been situational crime prevention. Situational crime prevention approaches aim to ‘prevent, constrain or disrupt criminal activity’ by reducing opportunities for crime to occur (Cornish, 1994, p. 153). This can be achieved through the implementation of strategies that increase the risk or efforts and/or reduce the rewards, provocations or excuses for offending. 9

2.5  A Theoretical Justification for Including Victims of Crime in Desistance…

21

2.5.2 Restorative Justice While RAT highlights the role of victims in the prevention of crime at an incident level, some restorative justice (RJ) research suggests they may also influence offender desistance trajectories more broadly. Reframing crime as a ‘violation’ of people and relationships, RJ processes such as victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing aim to heal the harm caused by crime, particularly the harm experienced by the victim (Ward et al., 2014). Although it is unclear what is meant by harm, many RJ processes focus on building the self-efficacy and agency of victims by providing them with the opportunity to talk about how they have been impacted by the crime, to hear from the offender why the offence occurred, to receive an apology and for the offender to make reparations (Robinson & Shapland, 2008; Ward et al., 2014). Perhaps because it has been positioned in opposition to traditional criminal justice processes, there is some controversy about assessing the impact of RJ using the metrics associated with traditional criminal justice responses, especially a reduction in reoffending (Claes & Shapland, 2016; Maruna, 2016; Robinson & Shapland, 2008).11 However, several studies have found that individuals who have participated in RJ processes, including victims of crime and offenders, have not only identified the potential of RJ for promoting desistance but also reported that they appear to have had a minor but positive impact on the desistance trajectories of some offenders (Claes & Shapland, 2016; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Pelikan & Hofinger, 2016; Robinson & Shapland, 2008). However, rather than acting as an impetus for the change process to commence, it appears more likely that RJ supports or consolidates the desistance work already being undertaken by offenders (Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Robinson & Shapland, 2008). Some authors have argued that victims have an important role in supporting the desistance trajectories of offenders participating in RJ. First, by telling their stories and the impact of the crime on them, survivors may evoke feelings of remorse and shame within abusers, in turn reaffirming their desire to change and not offend again in the future (Strang & Sherman, 2003). Alternatively, rather than evoking feelings of shame, victim participation in RJ may have the impact of helping abusers to discharge negative emotions associated with their behaviour – their ‘moral debt’– and, in turn, help to forgive themselves, reintegrate back into the community and move forward (McNeill, 2016; Strang & Sherman, 2003; Suzuki & Jenkins, 2020). Similarly, being able to apologise to victims and to demonstrate that they have changed can support offenders’ views of themselves as good people, which could be vital for maintaining non-offending  Within the scholarship, there is a concern that including such goals would make RJ processes offender-centric and result in the downgrading of victim’s goals. This has been challenged somewhat by authors such as Claes and Shapland (2016) who have argued that RJ is not a ‘zero-sum equation’ where benefits for offenders result in a loss for victims (p. 303). Rather, many victims involved in RJ processes view their participation as contributing to desistance, which they view as a necessary component for inclusion in their conferences. 11

22

2  Desistance Theory and Its Relevance to Intimate Partner Violence

(Claes & Shapland, 2016; Lauwaert & Aertsen, 2016; Robinson & Shapland, 2008). Reflecting on their experiences interviewing a sample of incarcerated offenders who participated in RJ processes, Claes and Shapland (2016) argued that: Apologising to the victim was much more future-oriented than focused on repairing the harm caused in the past. For them it was an important element…in breaking with the past and creating for themselves thinking space about a non-criminal life. (p. 313)

Lauwaert and Aertsen (2016) also highlighted the role of RJ in providing offenders with a platform to ‘perform’ their redemption, particularly in front of victims, and reject negative labels attached to them by their offending and contact with the criminal justice system. This is consistent with ‘looking glass recovery’ processes (Maruna, 2001, p.  96), whereby offender identity formation is triggered or supported by the positive affirmations and views of others. Arguably, the victim of the crime is the individual who is most negatively affected by the actions of the offender. This may elevate victims-survivors to a symbolic status in the mind of the offender, as the person to whom they have to make amends in order to move forward or even convince that they have changed. In these situations, victims of crime who are present when the offender demonstrates that they are ‘making good’ and can reflect this back to them through a show of forgiveness or confirmation that they believe that they have changed for the better could have an important role in assisting offenders to move past their criminal selves. However, this also suggests that in situations where the victim of the crime is not able to fulfil this role because they may be – understandably – angry, upset or distressed, they may become a barrier to offenders moving forward and away from their criminal pasts and identities.

2.6 Chapter Summary As demonstrated from the above review, desistance research and theory has changed significantly over the past 40 years. Initially described as a point in time where criminal offending stopped, primarily because of emotional and physical maturation processes (i.e. ageing out of crime) and the reduction of opportunities, we now understand and describe desistance as being a process. This process may involve periods of relapse and remission and will be influenced by various social and cognitive factors at different points over the life course. Despite its rapid expansion and theoretical development, the empirical underpinnings of desistance research have remained relatively constant. The majority of desistance research has been informed by the analysis of interviews conducted with male property abusers and longitudinal datasets. This is starting to change, with several studies published over the past 10 years exploring the desistance pathways of female offenders (Barr, 2019) and offenders from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Calverley, 2009; Robinson-Edwards & Pinkney, 2018), as well as offenders engaged in expressive crimes, such as sexual offending and IPV (Giordano et al., 2015; Harris, 2017).

2.6  Chapter Summary

23

However, it is important to acknowledge that there are unique dimensions associated with IPV, which may raise some challenges when exploring the relevance of existing desistance theory to this crime. In particular, IPV occurs within the context of an intimate relationship, and so victims-survivors, through their actions and inactions, may intentionally or unintentionally impact the abuser’s desistance pathway. Existing desistance theories have not fully attended to the role of social relationships and victims of crime in desistance processes. This, I have argued, not only has implications for the relevance of desistance frameworks for describing IPV desistance processes but also other forms of offending. By exploring the role of victims-­ survivors of IPV in desistance processes, it is not only possible to identify mechanisms that may explain the cessation or reduction in abusive behaviours (as perceived by victims-survivors) but also to make a meaningful contribution to existing desistance theory more generally.

Chapter 3

Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

Very few studies have explored the factors associated with – and mechanisms underpinning – the desistance of IPV (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Walker et al., 2013a, b). The research that has been undertaken has typically involved the analysis of interviews conducted with men participating in IPV treatment programs who are reported to have stopped perpetrating violence and abuse against their partners (e.g. MBCPs; Alexander & Morris, 2008; Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Morran, 2013; Pandya, 2009; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2017). This research has primarily focused on identifying the mechanisms underpinning desistance processes, as articulated by male abusers themselves. A significantly larger body of research has involved the analysis of longitudinal data collected at multiple time points in relation to individuals who are reported to have engaged in IPV  at some point during the life course. These studies have focused on identifying which abusers are more or less likely to desist or persist (typically defined as a reoffence occurring within a defined observation period) and under what circumstances (see, e.g. Belfrage et  al., 2012; Dowling and Morgan, 2019; Hilton et al., 2004; Kropp & Hart, 2000; Mason & Julian, 2009; Storey et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2019). Although these studies utilise definitions of desistance which are narrower than research undertaken within a desistance lens (described below), they still provide valuable information about the conditions under which persistence and desistance are more likely to occur.

3.1 Offender Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance Overall, most of the information we have about factors associated with IPV desistance relates to the characteristics of abusers. This is understandable to a certain extent, considering the relevance of this information for actuarial risk assessment processes (Barnham et  al., 2017; Belfrage et  al., 2012; Bland & Ariel, 2015; © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_3

25

26

3  Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Dowling & Morgan, 2019; Storey et al., 2013). Firstand second-responder agencies such as the police, mental health and domestic violence services have contact with numerous IPV abusers and victims/survivors on a daily basis and so may undertake some form of triage to identify which dyads should be prioritised for intervention and the nature of that response (Campbell et al., 2003; Dowling & Morgan, 2019; Sabri et al., 2014). Identifying factors that differentiate between abusers who do and do not desist, particularly those factors that can be detected by a third party like the police (e.g. gender), is critical for these processes. The literature identified a number of abuser-level factors associated with IPV desistance. These included: • Gender – females were more likely to desist than males (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Caetano et al., 2005; O’Leary & Smith Slep, 2003). • Age – older men were more likely to desist than younger men (Caetano et al., 2005; Jasinski, 2001; Johnson, 2003; Whitaker et al., 2010). • History of violent or non-violent offending – abusers who had not engaged in non-violent offending (e.g. property offending) were more likely to desist (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008). • Ethnicity  – specific minority groups were more likely than others to desist (Caetano et al., 2005; Jasinski, 2001). • Place of usual residence  – abusers living in areas that were less urbanised (Woffordt et  al., 1994) and characterised by low levels of social disadvantage were more likely to desist (Emery et al., 2011). • Experiences of intergenerational violence  – abusers with self-reported experiences of witnessing physical violence or threats in their families of origin were more likely to desist (Caetano et al., 2005). Further, several studies have found that abuser readiness to change and desire to adopt a non-violent identity was positively associated with desistance (Alexander & Morris, 2008; Daniels & Murphy, 1997; Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Pandya, 2009; Walker et al., 2017). Readiness to change is a concept central to the transtheoretical model of change (TTM), which describes the processes by which individuals stop their involvement in undesirable behaviours, including crime (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998). In particular, TTM posits that individuals progress through a series of stages in order for change to occur, with each stage representing varying (but increasing) levels of motivation and willingness on the part of the individual to alter their behaviour and to take agentic action to bring about the desired change. These stages are precontemplation (the individual has no intention to change their behaviour), contemplation (the individual is interested in changing but has made no commitment to action), preparation (the individual is committed to change and is making active decisions about how to facilitate the change process), action (the individual actively attempts to modify behaviours/experiences or their environment to overcome problem behaviours) and maintenance (the individual has achieved change and is now focused on maintenance). The further along the continuum of stages an individual is, the more likely they are to desist.

3.2  Victim-Survivor Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance

27

Further, Tolman et al.’s (1996) analysis of interviews conducted with 179 men attending MBCPs in Baltimore (USA) found that in addition to readiness to change, abusers who believed that they had higher levels of control over their behaviours were more likely to desist.1 What this suggests is that, consistent with the findings from other desistance research, it is not only important for IPV abusers to change but perceive that they are capable of doing so (Giordano et al., 2002).

3.2 Victim-Survivor Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance Relative to abuser studies, there has been much less research examining the characteristics of victims-survivors that are positively or negatively associated with IPV desistance (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Krause et al., 2006). This has been attributed in part to concerns about victim-blaming and making victims accountable for their own safety within intimate relationships (Goodman et al., 2005; Iverson et al., 2013). However, this concern has been refuted by numerous authors, who suggest that the collection of this information can empower victims-survivors to implement strategies to protect themselves and mitigate their risk of re-abuse. As noted by Cattaneo and Goodman: Researchers are loath to include victim-related variables in studies exploring risk factors for re-abuse. Researchers may worry that identifying victim behaviours that are associated with being revictimized places the responsibility for stopping the violence too much at the victim’s door. The other side of this point, however, is that identifying things the victim can do to reduce her vulnerability can also be empowering. (2005, p. 168)

Several studies identified that women with access to structural (i.e. financial) and social resources were more likely to experience desistance (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Goodman et al., 2003; Johnson, 2003). Similarly, Iverson et al.’s (2013) analysis of longitudinal data collected from women recruited through IPV shelters and community agencies found that, after controlling for a number of other factors, there was a positive association between the participant’s coping style and re-­ victimisation at follow-up (6 months later). In particular, women who were assessed as having a disengagement style of coping (e.g. wishful thinking, social withdrawal, problem avoidance) were more likely to experience re-victimisation, while women with an engagement style of coping (e.g. reaching out to social supports and problem-­solving) were less likely to do so.  That abuser readiness to change and their perceived ability to implement the strategies to make the desired change are positively associated with desistance is important considering they are dynamic rather than static (i.e. unchangeable) factors. Certainly, intervention programs attempting to initiate and support IPV desistance processes are unable to influence the gender and age of individuals, but they may be able to impact any abuser’s cognitive state. This highlights the importance of identifying dynamic factors that are associated with desistance, rather than simply focusing on those that are immovable. 1

28

3  Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

Although there is very little research examining the sociodemographic characteristics of women who have experienced the desistance of their partner’s violence, one study undertaken by Holly Johnson (2003), which involved the re-analysis of data collected as part of the Canadian National Violence Against Women Study, identified that women who were retired or not actively seeking work were more likely to experience desistance (defined as 12 months of non-violence). However, women with higher levels of education were less likely to experience desistance. Johnson (2003) explained this finding by suggesting that this cohort of women may have been unwilling to seek help for the IPV behaviours they were experiencing due to high levels of associated shame. This is supported by other research, which has suggested that women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds have difficulty identifying themselves as victims-survivors of IPV because they associate these experiences with women from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds. Berg (2014) refers to this phenomenon as ‘internalised superiority’ among women of privilege (p. 148). Other victim-survivor factors that are positively associated with desistance include having attitudes that are not supportive of violence against women (Johnson, 2003), high levels of confidence in their ability to assess their own level of risk for re-victimisation (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005), absence of emotional ‘numbing’ symptoms (Krause et  al., 2006), non-avoidant attachment styles (Kuijpers et  al., 2012a) and positive communication style (Kuijpers et  al., 2012b). That many of these factors are directly relevant to the ways in which victims-survivors interact with and communicate with their partners further highlights the dyadic nature of IPV.

3.3 Relationship Characteristics Associated with IPV Desistance There is also very little research that has looked at the characteristics of relationships or dyadic interactions that may increase or decrease the likelihood of IPV desistance occurring (Pandya, 2009). A small number of studies have included length of relationship within statistical models aimed at predicting desistance, producing different results. For example, Cattaneo and colleagues (2005) found that shorter relationships were positively associated with IPV desistance, while others have found that shorter relationships were negatively associated with desistance (Johnson, 2003; Krause et al., 2006). There is some evidence that the perceived quality, emotional closeness and satisfaction of partners with relationships influenced desistance outcomes. For example, a systematic review conducted by Walker (2013b) found that communication style and deficits within relationships were negatively associated with desistance. Further, Gordis et al.’s (2005) analysis of data collected from laboratory observations of conflicts between 90 couples found that among those experiencing IPV, persistence (at 18-month follow-up) was positively associated with a negative communication style

3.4  Characteristics of the Violence and Abuse Associated with IPV Desistance

29

in both partners. In particular, female partners of men who continued to abuse them (i.e., persisters) were more likely to be hostile and less likely to be warm or positive during interactions when compared with wives of men who desisted or reduced their use of violence. Men who persisted in their use of violence were also more hostile and less positive, flexible (e.g. able to see their partner’s point of view) and willing to compromise (Gordis et al., 2005). Further, research conducted by Aldarondo and Sugarman (1996) found that low levels of marital conflict and disharmony were positively associated with desistance among a sample of 500 men and women who participated in the National Family Violence Survey and completed a follow-up interview two years later. Meanwhile, Jacobson et al.’ (1996) analysis of surveys completed by female victims/survivors in highly abusive dyads found that relationships in which female partners were assessed as showing higher levels of affection towards their partner were more likely to experience desistance at follow-up two years later. Finally, power dynamics within the relationship have also been shown to influence desistance pathways. For example, Quigley and Leonard (1996) identified that men living in households characterised as more egalitarian (defined as an equitable division of household labour and chores among members) were more likely to desist. However, Whitaker et  al.’s (2010) analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that relationships where one partner was more educated than the other were less likely to experience desistance.

3.4 Characteristics of the Violence and Abuse Associated with IPV Desistance A large body of evidence indicates that the nature of violence and abuse reported within relationships is a significant predictor of desistance. In particular, several studies showed that abusers who engaged in moderate and less severe forms of violence were more likely to desist (Caetano et al., 2005; Feld & Straus, 1989; Jacobson et al., 1996; Johnson, 2003; Walker et al., 2013a; Whitaker et al., 2010; Woffordt et al., 1994). For example, Feld and Straus’ (1989) interviews with 420 married couples found that while only 58% of dyads experiencing serious forms of violence at baseline had desisted at follow-up (12 months later), this increased to 90% among couples experiencing minor violence. Further, Aldarondo’s (1996) analysis of three years of panel data collected from a sample of male IPV abusers identified that abusers who were reported to be violent at each time point were engaged in the most serious forms of psychological aggression, compared to desisters. In explaining comparable findings from their own study Caetano et al. (2005) suggested, ‘It is probable that couples who resort to severe violence at some point in time have fewer coping skills to deal with conflicts and, as such, are more easily caught in a perpetuating cycle of violence’ (p. 1052). Similarly, other research found that ‘first-time’ abusers, or those whose offending careers were relatively short, were more likely to desist when compared to

30

3  Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

abusers who had been violent over a number of years (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Goodman et al., 2003; Johnson, 2003; Quigley & Leonard, 1996). For example, in their analysis of data collected as part of the Buffalo Newlywed Study, a longitudinal study of drinking and marital violence among newlywed couples, Quigley and Leonard (1996) identified that variation in experiences of desistance across the sample was influenced by the frequency of reported violence in the 12-month period prior to the survey. Although 35% of couples reporting one incident of minor physical aggression at baseline experienced desistance at follow-up, this decreased to 26% for those reporting multiple minor incidents and again to 14% for those experiencing multiple serious incidents of violence (Quigley & Leonard, 1996). Cumulatively, the findings from this research suggested that abusers whose offending was infrequent or minor and had not escalated into serious and harmful forms of violence were more likely to desist. Two hypotheses could be suggested to explain these findings. First, these abusers may have been detected at the start of their offending careers, and so the behaviours have not become entrenched or established patterns within and across relationships. As such, these abusers may be more likely to be influenced by a range of factors, including external interventions and disruption attempts. Alternatively, the low-level, infrequent and minor patterns of violence and abuse exhibited by abusers who were more likely to desist may be indicative of traits that made them different from other IPV abusers in the first place. Certainly, a large body of typological research has consistently identified discrete groups of IPV abusers that are distinguishable using key information about the abusers and their offending patterns (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998; Johnson, 2010; Johnston & Campbell, 1993). Although researchers have suggested different means by which to classify abusers, frequently identified factors include the presence, extent and impact of coercive controlling behaviours, the abuser’s involvement in violent behaviours in other domains which may be indicative of a generally violent personality and the severity of violence perpetrated against victims-survivors. A small number of studies provide evidence that typological models may be helpful for explaining variation in IPV abuser trajectories. For example, Carbajosa et al. (2017) interviewed 210 IPV abusers court-mandated to attend an MBCP and classified them into groups using the typology developed by Holtworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994): family-only violence, borderline/dysphoric and violent-antisocial.2

 In the early 1990s, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart conducted a review of extant IPV typologies to identify consistencies between them. Three major dimensions were used to distinguish between groups of abusers: severity of marital physical violence and related abuse (e.g. frequency and type), generality of the violence (e.g. family-only) and related variables such as criminal behaviour and legal involvement and the presence of a psychopathology or personality disorder. The authors’ typology describes three abuser sub-types: 2

• Family-only • Dysphoric/borderline • Generally violent/antisocial

3.5  The Mechanisms Underpinning Behaviour Change

31

The study found that abusers in the violent-antisocial group were more likely to re-­ offend during the 2-year follow-up period, followed by borderline/dysphoric and then family-only (Carbajosa et al., 2017). Petersson and Strand’s (2017) analysis of the recidivism rates and trajectories of a sample of abusers classified as either antisocial or family-only produced similar results. One in four antisocial abusers (27%) perpetrated further violence during the follow-up period (average = 28 months), compared to one in ten family-only abusers (13%). Further, although both groups were most likely to re-offend within 12 months, antisocial abusers were more likely than those in the family-only group to continue to offend after the initial 12-month period (Petersson & Strand, 2017). What this indicates is that some IPV abuser ‘types’ may be more likely to desist than others. I will return to this idea again in later chapters.

3.5 The Mechanisms Underpinning Behaviour Change Identifying who is more likely to desist and under what circumstances is essential for the development of risk assessment processes, as well as identifying the most appropriate response(s). However, to better design interventions and programs that may be effective in initiating and supporting IPV desistance processes, it is necessary to delve into the theory of change underpinning any observed desistance. Researchers have attempted to do this primarily by undertaking in-depth interviews with male IPV abusers identified by either their practitioners or partners as having desisted in their offending. These men have typically, but not exclusively, been recruited from MBCP populations (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Morran, 2013; Pandya, 2009; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2013b). Several consistent themes emerged from the literature. First, several researchers have suggested that the development of empathy for their partners was central for abuser desistance processes and recognising that their partner is an autonomous Family-only abusers were described as being involved in the least severe forms of marital violence. Their abusive behaviours were restricted to family members, and they were the least likely to engage in violence outside of the home. As such, they had fewer related legal problems and also had lower rates of mental illness. The authors suggested that this group of abusers would comprise 50% of abuser populations if researchers recruited from the community. Dysphoric/borderline abusers engaged in moderate to severe abuse, including psychological and sexual abuse. Although abuse was primarily targeted at family members, low levels of extra-familial violence and other criminal behaviour were occasionally evident as well (e.g. drug use), as were higher rates of dysphoric, psychological distress and emotional volatility, as well as problems with alcohol and drugs. It was estimated that this group comprised approximately 25% of IPV abuser samples. Finally, generally violent/antisocial abusers were engaged in moderate to severe abusive behaviours, including psychological and sexual violence. They were engaged in frequent extra-familial violence and had the highest rates of criminal behaviour and legal involvement and drug and alcohol abuse. This group also had the highest rates of antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. It was estimated that this group comprised approximately 25% of IPV abuser samples (HoltzworthMunroe & Stuart, 1994).

32

3  Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

individual with emotional needs and feelings (Morran, 2013; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2017). By challenging the ability of abusive men to deny and minimise the impact of their behaviour on their partner, abusers became more committed to desistance to avoid perpetrating this harm again. Related to the development of empathy and emotional maturity more broadly, some researchers argued that in order for some IPV abusers to change their behaviours they had to take responsibility for the violence and its impact on their partners and others (Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2017). Interestingly, Walker et al. (2017) interviewed 13 desisting male MBCP clients, 9 MBCP facilitators and 7 female victims-survivors and found that taking responsibility involved more than abusers simply identifying the behaviours as violent and harmful.3 Instead, taking responsibility for the violence involved the abuser shifting their mindset from ascribing any level of blame to their partners and taking agentic action to develop an understanding of their violence and the factors that increase the likelihood of its occurrence. As part of this process, Walker et al. (2017) suggested that desisting abusers attempted to understand and mitigate the impact of environmental stressors (e.g., the consumption of alcohol and work-related stress) as a means of keeping their partners safe. Further, consistent with the findings from agentic desistance scholars more broadly (see previous chapter), several studies suggested that identity change, or a re-evaluation of the self, had an important role in some abusers’ IPV desistance processes. For example, Morran’s (2013) analysis of interviews with 11 men who had voluntarily participated in an MBCP in the UK found that participants often referred to improved understanding of themselves and viewing themselves as individuals with feelings, as critical for their assessed behavioural change. In particular, these men noted that this shift in their view of self assisted them to better monitor their moods and emotions and in turn identify when they were more likely to become violent and implement de-escalation techniques (Morran, 2013). Morran (2013) hypothesised that, by giving themselves permission to have emotional lives, the men in his study were also engaging in processes that involved dismantling hegemonic masculine tropes, which reinforced their use of violence against their female partners (see previous chapter). Several of the men interviewed for this study spoke about their compulsion to control their partners as being inextricably intertwined with their beliefs regarding what it meant to be masculine and a protector within the family unit. This, in turn, influenced their behaviour towards their partner and children and the power dynamics within the relationship (Morran, 2013). In their study of 12 men who had participated in a batterers’ treatment program and had not been violent for 10 months (as confirmed by their partners), Gondolf  Certainly, several authors have argued that bringing about desistance by changing abusers’ attitudes towards their behaviour is likely to have a limited impact, primarily because the majority of abusers do not view their behaviour as positive to begin with (Giordano et al., 2015; Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Tolman et al., 1996). As such, the possible margin of change for abusers’ attitudes will be minimal, and in turn behavioural change will be unlikely to occur (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987). 3

3.5  The Mechanisms Underpinning Behaviour Change

33

and Hanneken (1987) also highlighted the importance of hegemonic masculinity ideologies in both the persistence and desistance of male-perpetrated IPV. The authors found that, within their cohort, the men reported high levels of insecurity and low self-esteem, which they attributed to their perceived failure to live up to the masculine ideal modelled for them by their own abusive and absent fathers (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987). Critical to the desistance observed for the men in the study, was expanding their definitions of masculinity and recognising that the violence was caused by their feelings of inadequacy and self-hatred. For other men, the assumption of parenting roles and associated responsibilities were important factors linked with the initiation of desistance processes (Giordano et al., 2015; Walker et al., 2017). In particular, men referred to their desire to be a good role model for their children and the re-ordering of priorities and needs as associated with their decision to stop offending. Similarly, the desire to resume relationships with their children, which had become strained because of the violence, motivated some men to change their behaviour (Walker et al., 2017). When speaking about the role of identity change in desistance processes, the men who participated in these studies reflected on the importance of their new self being acknowledged by external others (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Morran, 2013). For example, Morran (2013) noted that, after completing the MBCP, a number of the men in his sample had been asked by facilitators to be peer leaders and to serve as ‘success stories’ during subsequent treatment rounds. The men found these experiences incredibly gratifying, and it reaffirmed their commitment to abstain from violence. Further, Gondolf and Hanneken (1987) reported that several participants in their study referred to a turning point where they had almost become violent but chose to be non-violent instead. Critically, when these moments were identified and acknowledged by their partners, ‘[t]his seemed to confirm to them that they were assuming a new identity and encouraged them to continue’ (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987, p. 187). Finally, several of the studies referenced here noted the importance of changes in relationship dynamics for desistance processes (Giordano et  al., 2015; Pandya, 2009; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2017). For example, over half of the men who participated in Scott and Wolfe’s study (2000) spoke about their changing perception of the role of their partner in their lives and in particular their realisation that their partner was not responsible for the violence or their happiness. This, in turn, influenced how they interacted with their partners, as well as the overall quality of the relationship. These observations led the authors to suggest that interventions targeted at male perpetrators of IPV should focus more strongly on assisting clients to develop healthier and more functional relationships with their partners (Scott & Wolfe, 2000, p. 839). Similarly, Giordano et al.’ (2015) interviews with 89 young male and female IPV abusers who participated in the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study identified that micro-level changes within the abusers’ relationships were critical for desistance to occur. These included shifts in views regarding the desirability of violence as a means of resolving conflict within the relationship and the identification and

34

3  Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

mitigation of relationship-specific situational factors and stressors that increased the likelihood of violence occurring (e.g. infidelity, excessive consumption of alcohol and negative communication styles) (Giordano et al., 2015). The above discussion highlights that a range of factors including identity change, challenging masculine hegemonic ideologies, emotional maturation and the ability of abusers to manage and mitigate situational risk factors may help to explain why and how some IPV abusers desist. Interestingly, although changes in relationship dynamics were also identified as being important for desistance processes, this analysis primarily focused on the changes undergone by abusers, including the meaning and value they placed on the relationship and their perceptions of their partner. Whether the other partner in these abusive dyads – the victim-survivor – has a role to play in desistance and the changes that they may undergo as part of these processes is explored in the next section.

3.6 The Role of Victims-Survivors in IPV Desistance Processes There is consistent evidence that victims-survivors are highly active in their attempts to stop IPV within their relationship and protect themselves and their children (Aldarondo, 1996; Bachman & Carmody, 1994; Bowker, 1983; Boxall et al., 2018; Brown, 1997; Chang, 1989; Downs et al., 2007; Fagan, 1989; Feld & Straus, 1989; Follingstad et  al., 1992; Goodman et  al., 2003, 2005; Horton & Johnson, 1993; Jacobson et al., 1996; Mannon, 1997; Mills, 1985; Vickerman & Margolin, 2008; Wilcox, 2006). At an incident level, women use a range of physical and non-­physical strategies to avoid the onset of violent episodes, as well as promote de-escalation (Bachman & Carmody, 1994; Boxall et al., 2018; Downs et al., 2007). This includes fighting back with physical force, threatening to call the police, talking the perpetrator out of using violence, running away and compliance (i.e. agreeing or acquiescing to the abuser’s demands) (Bowker, 1983). Research examing the coping strategies of female victims-survivors of  IPV has also found that engagement or problem-solving strategies, such as attempting to identify reasons for the violence, making plans and seeking support from others, are common among female victims-­ survivors (Clements & Sawhney, 2000; Goodman et al., 2003; Horton & Johnson, 1993; Iverson et al., 2013; Taft et al., 2007). Within the very limited body of research that has looked at the impact of victim-­ survivor strategies on partners’ violence and abuse in the longer term (i.e. desistance), there is some evidence that victim-survivor strategies can have a positive influence (Bowker, 1983; Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Goodman et  al., 2005; Horton & Johnson, 1993; Pandya, 2009; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2017). For example, Bowker (1983) interviewed almost 200 female victims-survivors recruited from a US community who self-identified as experiencing desistance (defined as the cessation of physical violence for a period of 12 months or longer).

3.6  The Role of Victims-Survivors in IPV Desistance Processes

35

Respondents were asked about the strategies they had used to keep themselves safe and to assess how effective they were in both de-escalating incidents of abuse, as well as supporting longer-term reductions in violence within the relationship. Women rated personal strategies such as avoidance (e.g. walking away from an argument with their partner) and threats (to call the police and end the relationship) as very or fairly effective in over 50% of incidents where these strategies were utilised (Bowker, 1983). Further, 10 out of 12 men interviewed by Gondolf and Hanneken (1987) reported that their wife leaving them had initiated their desistance processes. Similarly, Walker et al. (2017) found that among their sample of male MBCP clients who had desisted, many believed victims-survivors had a key role in supporting their desire to change, predominantly by providing positive feedback for improved behaviours. Finally, Pandya (2009) interviewed 14 men participating in an MBCP in the USA and noted that all of the participants referred to changes in their interactions with their partners as having a key role in their non-violence, both as a source of support or potential trigger for relapse. However, other research suggested that actions taken by women experiencing abuse either had no impact on their partners’ use of violence (Carmody & Williams, 1987; Iverson et al., 2013; Jacobson et al., 1996; Mills, 1985; Tolman et al., 1996) or, more worryingly, may have actually increased the risk of re-abuse and serious violence and injury (Bachman & Carmody, 1994; Chang, 1989; Downs et al., 2007; Feld & Straus, 1989; Goodman et al., 2005; Iverson et al., 2013; Jacobson et al., 1994; Kuijpers et al., 2012a). For example, Tolman et al.’ (1996) secondary analysis of data collected from 179 men convicted of IPV offences found no evidence that the perceived likelihood or severity of any sanctions – including partner-initiated – reduced reoffending during the 4-month follow-up period (measured using partner self-report). Meanwhile, Goodman et al. (2005) interviewed 329 women recruited from a domestic violence shelter every three months, finding that women who fought back against their partner physically or attempted to placate them were more likely to be re-abused than women who did not (3.2 OR and 1.3 OR, respectively) (Goodman et al., 2005). Similarly, Downs et al.’s (2007) analysis of interviews with women engaged with IPV support services or substance abuse treatment found that participants who used physical means of self-protection (e.g. pushing, slapping) typically experienced higher levels of repeat violence from their male partners. The perceived ineffectiveness of strategies used by women experiencing severe abuse in their own study led Jacobson et al. (1996) to suggest, ‘It may be that the only reliable pathway that women have for [the] cessation of violence is to leave the relationship....there is little, if anything, that women can do to diffuse their partner’s violent behavior’ (p. 389). How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings regarding the impact of victim-survivor strategies on IPV offending patterns and desistance? Different explanations could be suggested, but perhaps this disparity can be attributed to the overall focus of the studies and the related research questions. Specifically, studies that found victim strategies had a positive impact on their partner’s use of violence were desistance-focused, aiming to identify factors that contributed to the

36

3  Desistance from Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Victims-Survivors

cessation of offending in the longer term. In comparison, the studies that found a null or negative effect were more narrowly focused on recidivism, particularly identifying victim-level and situational factors statistically related to the occurrence of re-abuse events within a defined period of time. This difference is critical (see Bushway et al., 2004). As described in the previous chapter, desistance is a process marked by periods of relapse (reoffending) and remission (de-escalation and non-offending). In comparison, whereas recidivism is an event4 – the recurrence or non-recurrence of crime during a defined timeframe. As such, the above-cited desistance studies typically (but not exclusively) involved asking male abusers participating in interviews to think retrospectively about the path that they and their partners took to end the violence and to identify factors that they thought facilitated this process at different points. Meanwhile, the recidivism studies involved collecting quantitative incident-level data from participants (e.g. the most recent incident, the worst or a typical incident of IPV) and determining whether this information could ‘predict’ whether an abuser would be violent again in the future. While there is obviously significant value in recidivism research, its ability to provide insight into the factors involved in broader processes of desistance may be limited. Consider, for example, a scenario where a woman pushes their partner in an effort to protect herself from further violence and communicate to the abuser that she is not an ‘easy’ target. The abuser becomes enraged by this action, beating her in retaliation. From a recidivism point of view, this is where the story ends – the abuser has responded to the victim’s actions with further violence (as measured by the recurrence of abuse). However, what if, days after the incident, the abuser starts to think about what happened and is shocked by how angry he became and feels shame for hurting his partner? Alternatively, being beaten by the abuser may contribute to the survivor’s realisation that they are at risk of experiencing significant harm, triggering their decision to seek support and leave the abuser. This, in turn, may act as the ‘wake-up call’ that the abuser needed to start his self-reflection process. Through a desistance lens, the survivor’s use of violence may be an important factor in initiating the abuser’s movement towards the cessation of offending, both directly and indirectly. What the above example highlights is that desistance studies are potentially better placed to identify the role of victim-survivors’ actions in the cessation or reduction of offending. Research conducted in accordance with desistance frameworks recognises that the path to non-offending is complex, involving various factors that may not have an immediate observable impact. Victim-survivor-instigated factors that initiate, support or sabotage desistance trajectories could be cumulative and have a delayed impact, or their influence may not even be understood or identified until after the desistance process has begun, if ever.  More sophisticated recidivism studies have moved away from static definitions of single event failures to estimations of hazard ratios (propensity for offending) during different time periods. See, for example, Boxall and Morgan (2020), Morgan et  al. (2018), Richards et  al. (2014) and Yoshihama and Gillespie (2002). 4

3.7  Chapter Summary

37

3.7 Chapter Summary This chapter provided an overview of the findings from the extant literature exploring factors associated with the desistance of IPV offending and the causal mechanisms hypothesised to underpin these processes. It also described the impact of the actions taken by the victims-survivors of IPV on abuser desistance pathways. There is a significant gap in the current understanding of the mechanisms that may account for IPV desistance processes. As argued above, this information is critical for the development and implementation of interventions that may have a positive impact on IPV perpetrators’ behaviour. Although the IPV-specific desistance research that has been undertaken thus far is highly valuable and provides unique and important insights, it has also been limited by small samples and an overreliance on MBCPs as a recruitment source. The latter point is particularly important, as it appears that many male abusers never participate in MBCP or similar programs. Although rates of participation in MBCP are currently unavailable in Australia, that participation is low can be extrapolated from the low rates of arrest, charge and conviction for IPV offences, which are often the primary pathway for engaging men in these services (e.g. as a condition of court orders) (ABS, 2019a). There is an obvious need for more research in this space that better reflects the majority of IPV abusers and victims-survivors who do not engage with MBCPs and can contribute to knowledge and theory-building to support IPV desistance processes. Further, the above discussion highlighted that within the limited body of research that has been undertaken to date with the explicit aim of understanding the occurrence of IPV desistance, victims-survivors as potential agents of change are largely absent. Certainly, we know much more about which abusers will desist than the victims-survivors who will experience the desistance of violence perpetrated against them. Even when the relationship is the unit of analysis, studies have primarily focused on understanding the meaning that male abusers place on those relationships and on changes in the dynamics within the relationship that were driven by internal changes within the abuser (e.g. the abuser dismantling their assumptions and beliefs about what it means to be a husband and father). However, consistent with dyadic models of IPV, a number of studies have shown that victims-survivors are engaging in a range of strategies to keep themselves safe, and these strategies have both positive and negative impacts on the abuser’s behaviour. This strongly suggests a need to explore the role of victims-survivors in desistance processes and to move beyond focusing solely on abuser-centric processes and attributions for behavioural change (Giordano et al., 2015, p. 335). The next chapter describes how the current study aimed to address this knowledge gap through the collection and analysis of empirical data collected from female victims-­ survivors of male-perpetrated IPV.

Chapter 4

Study Methods

To explore the role of victims-survivors in the desistance of male-perpetrated IPV, I conducted semi-structured narrative interviews with 40 female participants who were 18  years or older, self-identified as experiencing IPV during a relationship with a partner who identified as male, and were  living in the Australian Capital Territory or surrounding areas at time of the interview. For recruitment purposes, IPV was defined as physical violence,  sexual violence (including threats and attempted behaviours) and emotionally abusive, harassing and controlling behaviours, including stalking, verbal insults, interfering with friendships and contact with family members and restricting movements. Detailed information about the nature of the violence and abuse experienced by participants is provided in the next chapter. Qualitative interviews were selected to facilitate interrogation of the data by the participants and myself during the data collection process. For example, during interviews, the participants would ask me questions about their partner’s behaviours, asking me to help them to understand their experiences. In turn, I would ask participants for their views, regarding my understanding or hypotheses about their experiences and the factors underpinning changes in their partners’ abusive behaviours. This was essential for ensuring that I had an accurate understanding of the patterns of violence and abuse experienced by the participants and assisted in interpreting the information (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goodrum et  al., 2001; Urquhart, 2012). The collection and analysis of the data were informed by grounded theory and protocols, which were embedded at all stages of the research design and analysis process (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_4

39

40

4  Study Methods

4.1 Operational Definitions of Desistance and Persistence For the purpose of this study, the following definitions of desistance and persistence were used: • Desistance: the cessation of, or significant reduction in, IPV behaviours for a period of 6 months or longer while the relationship between the victim-survivor and abuser was intact. • Persistence: once commenced, the patterns of IPV behaviours experienced by the victim-survivor were ongoing and/or escalated while the relationship was intact. Whether the violence and abuse had stopped or reduced was a determination made by the participants when they completed the initial survey to participate in the study (see below). However, the nature of the changes in violence and abuse experienced by women was explored more fully as part of the interview process. In this way, the identification of the final sample and the cohorts was an iterative process. The definitions for this study focused on primary forms of desistance. As noted in Chap. 2, at its core, desistance is a measure of behavioural change (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2004). A reduction in relevant behaviours may not be intentional or conscious on the part of the abuser (Bottoms et  al., 2004), but the impact of the absence of these behaviours is nonetheless beneficial to victims-survivors and their families. A critical point of difference between the definitions of desistance and persistence used for this study and the broader literature is that in the current research, there was no requirement that the violence and abuse had in fact stopped or reduced at the time that the participant self-selected to participate in the study or by the end of the relationship (whichever came first). What this means is that eight participants who met the definition of desistance for this study actually experienced the resumption of violence and abuse while they were still partnered with their abusers (see Chap. 7). In comparison, most desistance researchers have selected research participants on the basis that, at the time of data collection, the violence and abuse had stopped (Bowker, 1983; Pandya, 2009; Walker et al., 2017). The decision to include women who had experienced the resumption of violence and abuse within their relationships after a period of desistance (minimum of 6 months) was informed by various considerations. First, I recognised that participants who experienced the resumption of violence would have, at different points in their relationship, met the criteria for desistance as defined in other studies and then persistence at other stages. This is consistent with the views of desistance as a process marked by periods of relapse and remission (Aldarondo, 1996). Second, I believed that the narratives of women who experienced the resumption of violence would provide valuable insights into why the abuse stopped in the first place, but also the factors that may have contributed to its recurrence.

4.2  Recruitment Processes

41

4.2 Recruitment Processes Participants were recruited from the community through social media (Twitter and Facebook), as well as traditional forms of media, including local television news programs, radio and print magazines. Women who were interested in participating in the study were directed to an online survey1 (Appendix A) that provided detailed information about the study (Appendix B) and the interview process. Consistent with grounded theory principles, I deliberately cast a ‘wide net’ to ensure that a range of women with different experiences and backgrounds would be able to participate in the study (Cho & Lee, 2014). This necessarily involved recruitment through the community rather than more ‘typical’ populations sampled as part of IPV research. Generally speaking, most research that has involved speaking directly to women who have experienced IPV has recruited participants through the criminal justice system (Messing et al., 2018), refuges (Chang, 1989; Follingstad et al., 1992; Goodman et al., 2005), domestic violence services (Downs et al., 2007; Meyer, 2016) or MBCPs (i.e. partners of male clients) (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Pandya, 2009; Scott & Wolfe, 2000; Walker et al., 2017). However, most women who experience IPV will not have contact with the criminal justice system (ABS, 2017) and will not seek the support of a domestic violence service or stay at a refuge, particularly while they are still partnered with their abuser. It has been suggested that the overreliance on particular recruitment sites and populations may skew current understanding of the experiences of female victims-­ survivors of IPV (Johnson, 2010; Woffordt et  al., 1994). Recruiting primarily through these sites may oversample women experiencing specific forms of violence that are more likely to result in an external and formalised intervention. Although seeking the views and experiences of women who have experienced particular forms of IPV and had contact with support services is important, it is also vital to collect information from women who may not engage with these services. This ensures that we continue to develop a broad understanding of IPV by drawing from different populations, which is certainly necessary for the purpose of developing new theory (Cho & Lee, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Further, if we assume that many women who present to services and refuges are seeking support on the basis that ‘nothing else worked’, then what meaning can we take from this for the purpose of a desistance study specifically focused on victim-­survivor strategies? Certainly, Tolman et al. (1996) argued that their finding that victim-survivor actions did not have any impact on reoffending by their partner could indicate that ‘many of the men in this study belong to a subtype of batterer that does not respond much to negative sanctions, perhaps because of greater emotional volatility than other batterers’ (pp. 349–350).

 The link to the survey was embedded in all online recruitment materials. Further, I established a Facebook page for the study to which I directed individuals as part of radio and TV interviews and advertising spots. The Facebook page had a pinned post which linked interested participants to the online survey. 1

42

4  Study Methods

It is also necessary to collect information from a range of women to see what role (if any) services and refuges play in desistance pathways, rather than starting from the point of understanding that they play a major (and gatekeeping) role (Cho & Lee, 2014). As such, although women who had stayed in refuges or sought the support of domestic violence services were not excluded from the study, they were not specifically targeted for inclusion.

4.2.1 Recruitment Site: The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Participants were recruited from the ACT and the surrounding suburbs. With a population of almost 430,000 residents, the ACT is Australia’s capital city, having been built for this purpose in the early 1900s. The city is located 280 km from Sydney and 660 km from Melbourne. The ACT is small, surrounded on all sides by New South Wales (NSW). The ACT was governed by the Commonwealth Government of Australia until 1989 when self-governing rights were granted, and the ACT’s Legislative Assembly was established. Canberra has consistently been ranked as one of the most liveable cities in the world, with rates of employment, education, health and well-being and social mobility above the Australian average. For example, the median gross household income for ACT residents was $2687 in the 2017–2018 financial year, $400 higher than the Australian median of $2262 (ABS, 2019b). Levels of educational attainment are also relatively high in the ACT, with 45% of residents having an undergraduate degree or higher, compared to 28% of Australians overall. Rates of physical or sexual IPV victimisation also appear to be lower in the ACT compared to national levels. For example, in 2016, 1.7% of female participants living in the ACT who completed the ABS’ Personal Safety Survey self-reported that they had experienced physical or sexual violence from a current or former cohabiting partner in the 12 months prior to the survey, which was lower than the national average of 2.3% (ABS, 2017). Further, recorded victimisation data compiled by the ABS identified that during the 2019 calendar year, the domestic and family violence-­ related physical assault victimisation rate for the ACT was 322.6 per 100,000 women. This was much lower than the victimisation rates reported for other states and territories such as Tasmania (424.0), NSW (501.4), South Australia (627.9), Western Australia (1109.7) and the Northern Territory (2725.1) (ABS, 2020b). However, analysis of responses to the 2016 wave of the Personal Safety Survey also found that 5.9% of female participants living in the ACT had experienced emotional abuse from a current or former partner, which was higher than the national average of 4.8% (ABS, 2017). This highlights that IPV trends may differ across communities, potentially influenced by factors such as employment and education levels among residents. This is consistent with other studies, which have found that nonphysical forms of IPV, such as coercive control, financial abuse and emotional abuse, may be more prevalent in affluent or socially advantaged communities and

4.2  Recruitment Processes

43

Table 4.1  Population characteristics of the Australian Capital Territory and Australia Total population (n)a Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (%)b Born overseas (%)c Median weekly household income ($)d Education TAFE qualification (15–74 years old) (%)e Undergraduate degree or above (15–74 years old) (%) Measures of disadvantage Lives in social housing (%)f Main source of person income provided by government pensions and allowances (%)f One or more chronic health conditions (%)g Self-reported health status is poor or fair (%)g Median gross weekly household income less than $650 (%)h Unemployment rate (15 years and older) (%)i Prevalence of intimate partner violence Self-reported physical or sexual violence in the past 12 months – women only (%)j Self-reported emotional abuse in the past 12 months – women only (%)j Domestic and family violence-related physical assaults (rate per 100,000)k Intimate partner homicide (rate per 100,000)l

ACT 429,800 1.9 39.2 2687

Australia 26,560,000 3.3 28.6 2262

62.3 44.6

55.6 28.4

6.8 12.0

3.1 23.4

48.5 10.6 11.7

47 15.7 20

3.8

6.9

1.7

2.3

5.9

4.8

322.6

322.6–2725.1

0.0

0.26

At March 2020 (ABS, 2020c) b At June 30, 2016 (ABS, 2019c) c At June 30, 2016 (ABS, 2020d) d 2017–2018 period (ABS, 2019b) e In May 2019 (ABS, 2019d). TAFE refers to Technical and Further Education and is an alternative form of secondary education to university in Australia. Periods of study to achieve TAFE certificates and diplomas typically take less time than university qualifications and are ranked lower on the Australian Qualifications Framework f 2017–2018 (ABS, 2019b) g 2017–2018 (ABS, 2018) h 2016 (ABS, 2020e) i 2019-2020 (ABS, 2021) j Includes current or former partners (ABS, 2017) k 2019. Physical assaults reported to the police that occurred in a domestic or family violence context (determined the relationship between the victim and abuser). Australian ranges do not include QLD and Victoria (ABS, 2020b) l 2015–2016 period (Bricknell, 2019) a

areas (Hulme et al., 2019; Miller et al., 2016), while communities characterised by higher rates of socioeconomic disadvantage may also have higher rates of physical forms of violence (Hulme et al., 2019) (Table 4.1).

44

4  Study Methods

4.3 Interview Process Interviews were conducted in safe and private locations agreed to by participants. Consistent with narrative interview principles, rather than following a strict process of question and answer, participants were asked to tell the story of their relationship with their partner in their own words (Anderson & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Hermanns, 1987). Participant narratives typically centred on the following: • The history of their relationship with the abuser – including how they met and what their relationship was like in the early stages. • The history of violence within the relationship  – including when the violence first started and how it changed over time (patterns of violence). • The strategies they used to try and prevent or de-escalate the violence. • The perceived effectiveness of these strategies. • The processes undergone when separating from their partner (if they had done so at the time of the interview). Participant views regarding the process of desistance were also elicited. In particular, they were asked questions focusing on identifying factors that may have initiated or maintained changes in their partner’s violent and abusive behaviours, as well as their own understanding and perception of the violence, abuse and their relationship. In this way, the interview schedule was informed by phenomenological, symbolic interactionist and grounded theory principles, in that the questions aimed to understand the processes through which abusers changed their behaviours, but also the participant’s understanding and experiences of these processes (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Although I had a series of questions I could use to prompt participants to cover the above areas of inquiry (see Appendix D), I rarely needed to use them. Most participants were comfortable narrating their stories, detailing the different stages of their relationship and how the violence changed over time. They also demonstrated a high level of insight into their experiences, although a number did not understand aspects of their relationship, particularly as it related to their own behaviour and responses. For example, many of the women at different points during the interview asked, ‘Why didn’t I call the police?’ or ‘Why did I think it would be different?’ The women who posed these questions seemed to view the interview as an opportunity to discuss their experiences and be provided with feedback from an external party who could potentially provide some insight into what happened. Interviews were highly collaborative and involved sharing ideas and hypotheses with the participants. Critically, for a small cohort of participants, I was the first person they had spoken to about their experiences. For these women, their narratives were notably less coherent, lacking a clear sequence of events, and they found it difficult to explain how the violence started and changed over time. In these circumstances, it was necessary to ask more questions as a way of prompting the women to think about particular events in their relationship. During these interviews, I also spent more time verbalising my interpretation of their experiences to confirm that I did not misunderstand anything.

4.5  Final Sample

45

4.4 Analysis In total, 40 interviews were conducted for this study. The interviews ranged from 30 to 181 min in length, with an average length of 90 min. This produced over 3400 min of tape-recorded information that was transcribed verbatim. This large dataset was entered into NVivo and subjected to multiple rounds of coding and analysis (Glaser, 1978; Urquhart, 2012). The codes were identified based on what was present within the dataset; themes were emergent rather than sought for (Cho & Lee, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).2 This is consistent with iterative studies informed by grounded theory (Urquhart, 2012). For the purpose of the analysis, women were separated into one of two mutually exclusive groups: those who had experienced the desistance of their partner’s violence (n = 15) and those who had experienced persistence (n = 25). Consistent with other desistance studies (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996; Giordano et  al., 2015; Maruna, 2001; Walker et al., 2017), comparisons were undertaken between the two cohorts to identify what factors (if any) could explain any observed variations in desistance outcomes reported by participants.

4.4.1 Ethics The research methods described here, including recruitment protocols and interview schedule, were approved by the Australian National University’s (ANU) Human Research Ethics Committee.

4.5 Final Sample Tables 4.2 and 4.3 provide a description of the characteristics of participants included in this study. Although there were some minor differences between participants in the Desistance and Persistence groups, the groups were broadly similar in regard to the sociodemographic and relationship characteristics of the participants. Across both cohorts, the average age of participants was approximately 40 years. Most were employed at the time of the interview (Desistance  =  87% vs. Persistence = 88%) and were working in a range of professions, including government services (8% vs. 30%), health services (42% vs. 5%) and education and  This is not to suggest that data is waiting to be ‘discovered’. Charmaz has written extensively on constructivist grounded theory, which acknowledges that data is constructed and co-constructed through interactions between the researcher and the researched, and interpretations of the data will inevitably be influenced by the worldview and theoretical disposition of the researcher. As noted by Thornberg and Charmaz, ‘neither data nor theories are discovered, but researchers construct them as a result of their interactions with their participants and emerging analyses’ (2013, p. 3). 2

4  Study Methods

46

community services (25% vs. 15%). Unsurprisingly then, many of the women were highly educated, with approximately half in both groups having a minimum of an undergraduate degree (67% vs. 44%). In and of itself, the characteristics of this sample are interesting and are supported by recent Australian research which has shown that women’s economic security, including employment, is not necessarily protective against experiences of IPV (Morgan & Boxall, 2022). The median length of the relationship between participants and abusers was 10  years for the Desistance group and six  years for the Persistence group (see Table  4.4). Approximately two-thirds of participants across both groups had at least one child with their partner (67% vs. 60%), with a median of two. Half of the women in the Desistance group were married to their partner, and a third of Table 4.2  Final sample, by group Desistance (n = 15) Pseudonym Alison Antonette Bella Chelsea Elaine Elsie Genevieve Grace Hannah Imogen Mary Nicole Tasmin Yvette Zoe

Age (years) 40 64 28 33 30 31 45 45 47 45 72 Not provided 35 54 33

Persistence (n = 25) Pseudonym Anne Bethany Betty Clara Daisy Danielle Dimity Estelle Harriet Jackie Jessica Jo Kate Laura Leslie Lisa Lucy Macey Olivia Pat Paula Penny Rosie Ruby Stacy

Age (years) 28 56 53 39 29 40 47 27 58 23 44 36 42 37 50 44 33 50 34 54 31 18 49 54 28

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file] Note: For the purpose of this study, desistance was defined as the cessation or reduction of violence and abuse for a period of 6 months or longer while the relationship was intact, and persistence was defined as the continuation or escalation of violence and abuse over the period of the relationship

4.5  Final Sample

47

Table 4.3  Characteristics of the final sample, by group (%) Desistance (n = 15) Median age (range) 43 (28–72) Employeda 87 Employment typeb Public service 8 Health services 42 Education/community services 25 Retail/administration 8 Media/arts/law 0 Others 17 Highest level of education completed Year 10 7 Year 12 7 TAFE qualification 20 University – undergraduate 60 University – postgraduate 7

Persistence (n = 25) 40 (18–58) 88 30 5 15 20 20 10 4 20 32 16 28

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file] Includes full-time, part-time and casual work b Limited to women who were employed at the time of interview. Excludes two women from the Desistance group and one woman from the Persistence group for whom this information was missing a

Table 4.4  Relationship characteristics, by group (%) Relationship status Current Former Ever married Ever cohabited Length of relationship Less than 12 months 1–4 years 5–10 years 10+ years Median length (years; range) Any shared children Median number of children (range)a

Desistance (n = 15)

Persistence (n = 25)

13 87 53 93

0 100 36 92

0 20 27 53 10 (3–33) 67 2 (1–4)

8 32 32 28 6 (0.5–20) 60 2 (1–4)

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file] a Limited to participants who had at least one child with their partner

participants in the Persistence group reported the same (53% vs. 36%). All but three participants in the sample had lived with their partner at some point during the relationship (93%). Finally, only two participants were not separated from their partner at the time of the interview. Both of these women were in the Desistance group.

48

4  Study Methods

4.6 Limitations The research design described above was chosen because it was appropriate for answering the research questions guiding this study (see Chap. 1). However, some limitations of this approach need to be acknowledged. First, victims-survivors’ narratives about their partners’ behaviour change processes (or lack thereof) may be limited by their awareness of different factors and their partners’ thought processes. Certainly, a small number of women who participated in this study acknowledged that they did not know why the behaviour changed, only that it did. As such, when interpreting the findings from this study, it is important that readers understand that the desistance processes described are based on information provided by the partners of abusers and is therefore informed by their – albeit detailed – knowledge of their partners and their own and others’ actions. Anything that the men may have been doing (or not doing) that they did not disclose to their partners would not have been included in women’s narratives or as part of this analysis. Further, of particular relevance for any research undertaken in an Australian context is that none of the women in the sample identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (also referred to as First Nations). Research and statistics have consistently shown that First Nations women are overrepresented as victims-survivors of IPV in Australia (ABS, 2017; Boxall et al., 2020; Nancarrow, 2019). However, because women were not required to identify their Indigenous status as part of the recruitment process (see Appendix A),3 it is unclear whether there were participants who chose not to self-identify (or the reasons for this). It is worth keeping in mind that because the ACT has a small First Nations population (see Table 4.1), concerns about anonymity may have been a barrier to self-identification. All of the participants in this sample experienced male-perpetrated IPV. Again, due to the exploratory nature of this research, as well as consistent evidence that there are differences between IPV that occurs within heterosexual and LGBTQI+ communities (Ard & Makadon, 2011; Calton et al., 2016; Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2016; Yerke & DeFeo, 2016), the decision was made to limit the sample to male-perpetrated IPV experienced by women. Critically, as part of the eligibility criteria, women had to self-identify as female and their partner as male to be included in the study. This meant that it was possible that participants may have been transgender or intersex or otherwise did not identify with their sex as assigned at birth. At the time of the interview, one participant disclosed that their partner was transgender. No other participants disclosed that they or their partner was transgender, although, again, this may have been due to concerns regarding anonymity.

 A decision was made early in the recruitment process not to ask participants to self-identify if they were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. This was due to concerns about First Nations women feeling ‘targeted’ by the research due to the overrepresentation of First Nations populations as both IPV victims/survivors and abusers. However, when organising a time and location for interview, women were offered access to a local venue managed by an Indigenous service if they chose to self-identify. However, this did not occur. 3

4.7  Chapter Summary

49

Finally, for some participants, a number of years had passed since they had been in a relationship with their abuser. As such, recall bias, potentially exacerbated by experiences of trauma and diagnoses of PTSD, may have impacted their ability to accurately remember specific information and details about their experiences. These limitations aside, the qualitative interviews yielded a significant amount of detailed information from participants about their experiences and understanding of the desistance of IPV behaviours perpetrated against them and their role in these processes, and so provided a valuable basis for the analysis.

4.7 Chapter Summary This study involved semi-structured interviews with 40 women who were recruited from the local community. To participate, participants had to self-identify as female, be 18 years and older, live in the ACT or surrounding areas, have experienced IPV while in a relationship with a person who self-identified as a male, and report that the violence and abuse had stopped for a period of 6 months or longer, either during the relationship or after they had separated. Women were recruited from the community to address a key gap in the desistance and IPV research but also to ensure that a large number of women from different backgrounds and with varied experiences could participate. That said, participants in this study were typically highly educated and had careers working in demanding industries, including government services, health services and education. This sample is relatively unique compared to other studies where recruitment has primarily occurred through IPV services and the criminal justice system, and self-reported unemployment and socioeconomic disadvantage are more common. The composition of this sample could be attributed to the recruitment site – as noted, the ACT has higher levels of socioeconomic advantage relative to the rest of Australia. Alternatively, the sample may support previous concerns raised by researchers that the characteristics and experiences of women recruited through the community, rather than IPV services, could be qualitatively different. Further, women recruited through the community may have access to non-statutory services and supports because of their relative financial security and social support networks. The final sample was disaggregated into two mutually exclusive groups. Women who reported that the violence and abuse had stopped or reduced significantly for a period of 6 months or longer while the relationship was intact (n = 15) were defined as experiencing desistance. Respondents who reported that the violence and abuse had persisted or escalated while the relationship was intact (n = 25) were defined as experiencing persistence. However, eight women in the Desistance group reported that the violence and abuse had recommenced while they were still partnered. The relationships described by participants as part of this study could be characterised as long-term, serious and committed. This is consistent with other research which has also involved directly engaging with women with lived experiences of IPV (Meyer, 2016). As such, it is reasonable to assume that the participants in this

50

4  Study Methods

sample had a detailed knowledge and understanding of their partner and were well placed to identify changes in the patterns of violent and abusive behaviours within the relationship and attribute possible causes. The next chapter begins to describe and examine the narratives provided by participants, starting with the nature and dimensions of violence and abuse experienced during their relationships.

Chapter 5

Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children and Its Impact

During the interviews, participants were asked to describe the nature of the violence and abuse they were subjected to while they were still partnered with their abusers and its impact on them. This information was essential for understanding the context within which participants were (or were not) acting in ways to keep themselves safe and to initiate or support the desistance of the abusive behaviours. In particular, the violence and abuse participants experienced may have influenced the selection of strategies used to initiate or support desistance and may have made others unfeasible or dangerous to implement. Further, in light of evidence that IPV is associated with poorer health and wellbeing outcomes among women (AIHW, 2019a, b; Fedovskiy et al., 2008; Griffing et al., 2006; Krause et al., 2006; Mission Australia, 2019), understanding the impact of violence and abuse on participants was important in terms of explaining their potentially constrained decision-making capabilities and reduced opportunities for help-seeking (Wilcox, 2006). As shown in Chap. 3, examining the violence and abuse experienced by participants can also provide insights into the men themselves, including the underlying causes of their violence and their likelihood of desistance (Carbajosa et al., 2017; Loinaz, 2014; Petersson & Strand, 2017). Although Chap. 4 demonstrated that the two participant cohorts were very similar overall in terms of the sociodemographic features of the participants and their relationship characteristics, perhaps the occurrence of desistance can in part be explained by variation between the abusers themselves. That some abusive men who perpetrate particular forms of violence and abuse may be less susceptible to different strategies and/or likely to desist is supported by the findings from a small number of studies (Carbajosa et  al., 2017; Loinaz, 2014; Petersson & Strand, 2017) and the views of a number of researchers (Johnson, 2010; Tolman et al., 1996; Woffordt et al., 1994). For example, IPV abusers who engage in violence towards individuals other than their partner may be less likely to desist because their offending is underpinned by an antisocial or generally violent personality.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_5

51

52

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

Beyond the nature of the violence and abuse, an important point of variation between abusive men is their prior experiences of violence within familial and non-­ familial contexts, as both perpetrators and victims. There is consistent evidence that prior experiences of violence increases the risk of future IPV victimisation and/or perpetration (Gay et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2011). However, historical victimisation experiences may also influence the abusers’ trajectories beyond the onset of their own violence. In particular, experiences of historical violence and abuse may influence the understanding and perceptions of violence and abuse among victims-survivors and abusers (Flood & Pease, 2006) and the nature of actions undertaken to initiate and support desistance and may also influence abusers’ receptivity and response to external intervention and strategies (Daly & Pelowski, 2000; Jewell & Wormith, 2010). This chapter describes the nature and patterns of violence and abuse experienced by participants and their children, as described by participants. The presence of intergenerational violence and prior IPV in the lives of participants and their partners is also explored, as well as between-group variations in the violent behaviours the women experienced. Critically, the analysis is limited to the violence and abuse experienced while participants were still in a relationship with their abusers. As described in the previous chapter, the definition of desistance for this study is the cessation or reduction of violence and abuse for a period of 6 months or longer while the relationship was intact. Persistence was defined as the recurrence or escalation of violence and abuse while the relationship was intact.

5.1 Types of Violence and Abuse Experienced by Women As shown in Table  5.1, participants experienced a range of violent and abusive behaviours over the course of their relationships, including physical and sexual violence, emotionally abusive behaviours, financial abuse and stalking. The co-­ occurrence of both physical and non-physical forms of violence and abuse was experienced by the majority of women in both groups.

5.1.1 Physical Violence Four in five participants from the Desistance and Persistence groups reported that their partner had been physically abusive towards them during the relationship (87% vs. 88%, respectively). The severity of the violence ranged considerably across the sample. Minor forms of violence included pushing, shoving or barging into someone and restraining them, and significant forms included strangulation, beatings, assaults with weapons (e.g. knives) and punches to the head and face. Most of the participants who reported experiences of physical violence said that they had occasionally been injured as a result. Commonly described injuries

5.1  Types of Violence and Abuse Experienced by Women

53

Table 5.1  Violence and abuse experienced by participants, by group

Physical forms of violencea Physical violence Sexual violence  Reproduction coercionb Non-physical forms of violence and abuse Emotional/psychological abuse  Gaslighting Coercive controlling behaviours Financial abuse Threatening behavioursc  Self-harmd Property damage Stalkinge Systems abuse Co-occurrence of physical and non-­ physical forms of IPV

Desistance (n = 15) n %

Persistence (n = 25) n %

13 9 4

87 60 27

22 10 2

88 40 8

15 8 13 8 13 5 9 4 2 14

100 53 87 53 87 33 60 27 13 93

25 9 24 13 20 3 7 11 1 22

100 36 100 52 80 12 28 44 4 88

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file] a Includes attempted behaviours b Includes interference with birth control devices, attempting to induce a miscarriage through physical means and pressuring participants to have an abortion and/or have children c Includes threats towards the participant, the participant’s friends/family members, threats to harm children and pets and threats to harm self d Includes threats e Includes suspected behaviours as well as those that were confirmed or proven. Includes stalking of the participant, their children and/or the participant’s family members/friends

included bruising, sprains and abrasions. More serious injuries included dislocated shoulders, broken/fractured bones, and head trauma and concussions. Very few participants said that they had received medical attention for their injuries and attributed long-term physical health issues they had at the time of interview to this lack of medical intervention. Rosie, for example, reported that she was unable to have children due to the internal injuries she sustained during her relationship with her partner. Furthermore, as described below, Penny had ongoing chronic pain related to a back injury she sustained during her relationship: A: There was like a small hallway [and] the kitchen door here and he run up behind me and kind of like, footy tackled me through the hallway and then I went... through that wall... Q: Did you ever have to go to hospital for any injuries? A: No. I used to look up how to, like, fix myself. Like, I have a massively fucked back from that now. I have a slipped disc and I’m only 18. It sounds horrible to say at 18! I had a dislocated shoulder for six months from it as well, cos I didn’t go to hospital. (Penny, 18 years old, Persistence)

54

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

5.1.2 Sexual Violence and Reproductive Coercion Approximately one in two women in the overall sample reported that their partner had been sexually abusive towards them during their relationship. Sexually violent behaviours described by women included being ‘nagged’ or manipulated into having sex, feeling pressured to use sex as a means of appeasing their partner (see Chap. 6), pressure to engage in sexual activities they did not want to, ‘rough’ sex and rape. Sexual violence often co-occurred with other forms of abuse within the relationship. For example, a small number of women reported that their partner was able to coerce them into having sex by withholding access to household amenities and money. This is reflected in the extract from Kate below. So, I just stopped, obviously, stopped being intimate with him. So, he’d worked out that in order to buy groceries to feed the children, I’d need money. Yeah. Yeah so there was...those kind of aspects. (Kate, 42 years old, Persistence)

Interrelated with sexual violence, six participants across both groups also described experiences consistent with reproductive coercion. Reproductive coercion refers to behaviours that interfere with women’s reproductive autonomy, typically involving attempts to control when and under what circumstances they become pregnant, as well as controlling pregnancy outcomes (Price et al., 2019). Some participants in this study reported that their partner had engaged in a range of behaviours to either coerce them into having children, such as using sexual violence to attempt to impregnate them, or to terminate unwanted pregnancies such as the use of physical violence to induce a miscarriage.

5.1.3 Emotional/Psychological Abuse and Gaslighting For the purpose of this study, emotional/psychological abuse was defined as any non-physical behaviour that targeted the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the victim (Karakurt & Silver, 2013). This included behaviour intended to belittle or humiliate participants, as well as forms of subjugation, intimidation and exerting control (i.e. coercive control; see further discussion below). As shown in Table 5.1, all participants reported that they had experienced some form of emotional or psychological abuse during their relationship. This frequently took the form of verbal putdowns, shouting and yelling at participants, as well as humiliating them or intentionally making them emotionally distressed (see Case Study 1). Although women reported changes in the frequency, severity and nature of violence and abuse they experienced throughout their relationships, all reflected that the emotional abuse was a recurring feature of their interactions with their partner.

5.1  Types of Violence and Abuse Experienced by Women

55

Perhaps because of its persistent nature, many women reported that the emotional abuse had a significant impact on their psychological wellbeing and negatively influenced their sense of self-worth. For example, as described in the extract below, Anne, who experienced significant and serious forms of physical violence, culminating in her partner attempting to murder her, reflected that it was the emotional abuse that had impacted her the most: You feel like you’re just nobody. No one needs me out there. And I’m stupid. I don’t even know if I’m doing things right in my life. You know you just question yourself. It’s such a weird thing, you know. Growing up I had experienced a fair bit of other things, you know. I had...you know I experienced rape when I was 17. And, like, child abuse. But, I still stayed me.… Never felt, feel worthless. I never in my life sat down and said, ‘I’m nothing’. This guy made me feel that way. Nothing else made me feel that way. Every time I just went, ‘Right, I’m getting back up. Shit happens. What am I going to do about it now?’ However, with him, it just felt, like, I started believing that I’m, I, I, I can’t do any better than this. (Anne, 28 years old, Persistence)

Gaslighting was also a feature of many women’s experiences (Desistance = 53% vs. Persistence = 36%). Gaslighting has been described as a subtle form of emotional or psychological abuse, involving the abuser projecting their views and beliefs onto the victim-survivor and, in the process, distorting their cognitive reality (Dutton, 2007). Participants noted that, at numerous points in the relationship, their partner had challenged their understanding of certain aspects of the relationship and key events and made them question their memories and even their sanity. As demonstrated in the quote from Lisa below, gaslighting was often used to reframe the violence as either not serious or the participant’s fault: He would hit me, and then afterwards, when I asked for an apology, he said: ‘I was acting in self-defence, you went crazy’. Or that incident where he threw me across the room, I got up, and confronted him about it, and he said: ‘You tripped’. So, it was just... and it’s not like he was... when he said these things, he was being completely sincere. So, it was also very confusing ‘cos things would happen... but then he seemed so sincere and adamant that it hadn’t. (Lisa, 44 years old, Persistence)

Participants reported that gaslighting was also used by abusers in other domains of the relationship, including challenging participants’ recollection of conversations that they had or agreements that had been made, as well as their relationships with family members and friends. For example, Clara noted that in the lead-up to her wedding to her abuser, he told her repeatedly that her family did not support the marriage. Although Clara’s sisters told her that they did support her relationship, she ultimately believed her partner and told her sisters they could not be her bridesmaids. Furthermore, Lisa and Bethany reported that their partner would hide their possessions and then deny that they had ever existed. Cumulatively, this resulted in several participants reporting that they were frequently confused and often accepted their abuser’s version of events and narrative as a means of mitigating these feelings and discomfort.

56

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

5.1.4 Coercive Controlling Behaviours Coercive controlling behaviours are a liberty crime involving a pattern of behaviours used by perpetrators to micro-regulate the lives of their partners (Stark, 2009). Behaviours include interfering with their partner’s relationships with friends and family members; limiting their partner’s access to household amenities and resources, such as shared money, the Internet, mobile phone and the car; regulating and monitoring their partner’s movements; and controlling what their partner wears and their appearance. Many of these behaviours have been described and analysed as discrete forms of IPV, such as stalking, emotional abuse and financial abuse. However, coercive control is not a ‘type’ of violence or abuse but refers to the cumulative impact of behaviours perpetrated by abusers on victims/survivors – what Evan Stark refers to as a ‘condition of unfreedom’ or entrapment (Stark, 2009, p. 205). Further, a key point of difference between coercive controlling behaviours and other forms of IPV is that the former is motivated by a desire to dominate and subjugate the partner, whereas other forms may be underpinned by other causes or motivations (e.g. poor communication style, attachment disorder) (Johnson, 2010; Stark, 2009). As shown in Table 5.1, the majority of participants reported that their partner had been controlling towards them and described incidents or patterns of behaviour consistent with those listed above. For example, Grace reported that over the course of her relationship, her partner increasingly controlled her access to household amenities and shortly before she left him, he refused to give her access to the family car and would not allow her to have a mobile phone. She believed that his behaviour was aimed at limiting her contact with her friends and the sports clubs she was a member of. In addition, several participants reported that they had not been allowed to wear certain items of clothing during their relationship, particularly skirts, because their partner would accuse them of being ‘sluts’ and unfaithful. The nature and extent of coercive controlling behaviours experienced by participants differed across the two cohorts. Overall, women in the Persistence group described patterns of abuse that were characteristic of more severe forms of controlling behaviour with their partner attempting to regulate every aspect of their lives and isolating them from friends and family members. Although women in the Desistance group also reported experiencing forms of coercive controlling behaviours, only a small number described feeling they had no autonomy or control within the relationship and extreme feelings of social isolation, to the extent that Paula (Case Study 1) and others in the Persistence group did. Potentially, the differences in the level of coercive controlling behaviours experienced by women across the two groups could explain why desistance occurred for some women but not others. In particular, it may point towards the presence of different ‘types’ of IPV abusers within this sample, whose offending trajectories and susceptibility to external intervention differed (Carbajosa et al., 2017; Petersson & Strand, 2017).

5.1  Types of Violence and Abuse Experienced by Women

57

Case Study 1: Paula’s Story Paula met Charlie after he contacted her through social media, claiming to know one of her family members. They started dating, with Charlie bombarding Paula with declarations of love and overt acts of affection. As she said: In the beginning of the relationship, it was that honeymoon stage, and he swept me off my feet and he talked a lot about marriage and children early on. He put me on a pedestal all the time, like I was perfect and he’d never met anyone like me before…he’d use saint-like words.

She reflected that at the time she was flattered and felt butterflies in her stomach, which she believed was positive. However, after dating for a few months, there was an incident where he screamed abuse at her because she went out to a bar with her friends without telling him. Shortly after this, the relationship was again challenged after Charlie admitted that he had lied about his age and that he was actually 15 years older than her. However, he claimed that he had done this because she would not have agreed to date him otherwise, which made her feel guilty. Paula and Charlie continued to date, and they even went on a holiday overseas. During this trip, there were a number of incidents where he attempted to humiliate and embarrass her. For example, while they were travelling around the middle of a city centre, Charlie pulled down Paula’s top, exposing her breasts. Paula was very upset with Charlie, but he told her she was a ‘prude’ and should be grateful that he was paying for the trip. After another fight, Paula said she wanted to go home, and he threatened to kill her. On another occasion, Paula believed that he put an illicit substance in her drink without telling her, which made her very unwell and disoriented. While she was under the influence of this substance, she pled with him to take her to a hospital but she remembered that all he did was tell her she was drunk, laugh at her and recorded her with his phone. After returning to Australia, they continued the relationship, but Charlie’s controlling and degrading behaviours continued to escalate. To exert control over Paula, he became physically abusive, punching her in the face, threatening her with knives and smothering her with pillows. He would also threaten to kill her and her family and would drive erratically to scare her. Paula believed that the purpose of this behaviour was to keep her in a state of constant hypervigilance. As she said: He always kept me very off-centre like that. Sometimes, when I felt we were having a reasonably normal day, he would do something violent or threatening that would always throw me, so I could never feel at ease or safe, relaxed.

Another way in which Charlie attempted to control Paula was through sexual coercion. In particular, Charlie pressured her to have unprotected sex with him which led to her contracting a sexually transmitted disease, which he had not disclosed he had. When she confronted him about it, he told her that she (continued)

58

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

would have to remain with him now ‘because it’ll be too embarrassing for you to tell someone else’. Over the 2-year relationship, Charlie also became increasingly controlling of Paula’s appearance, movements and activities. He pressured her to quit her job and move in with him, which she eventually did. He told her what to wear and restricted her contact with her family and friends. Whenever she would speak to his friends or other men, he would accuse her of having an affair and threaten to kill her. Paula said that she changed considerably over this period: It was basically just – almost like a housewife-type thing. It was just, like, you’re there for sex, you’re there to cook, you’re there to stroke their ego. You’re just a little – I felt like a little show thing – do you know what I mean? When he did have me around his friends and stuff like that, when they do their car things and stuff, to be seen but not to be heard. And he was often trying to push me to quit my job and just move in with him and go to work with him, and stay at home, and, ‘Don’t wear makeup or skirts or dresses when you’re out, just when you’re with me’. Just very – to be seen by him or by people he wanted me to be seen by and not to be heard. You feel like a robot.

Paula left Charlie after she disclosed the abuse to a family member who in turn informed her parents. After this, her family encouraged her to make a complaint to the police, which she did. It was at this point that she discovered that Charlie had been charged with multiple sexual and physical violence offences against his former partners. At the time of this interview, Paula was employed and still very close to her family, who had been a significant source of support after she left Charlie and during the criminal trial against him.

5.1.5 Threatening Behaviours and Self-Harm Four in five participants from both groups described that at different points during their relationship, their partners had used verbal and non-verbal behaviours to intimidate, threaten and scare them (Desistance  =  87% vs. Persistence  =  80%). Verbal behaviours included threats to harm or kill participants and their families and friends, shared children and pets, as well as threats to abscond with the children and leave the relationship. Common non-verbal threatening behaviours described by participants included standing over women, backing them into corners or furniture, blocking their movements (e.g. standing in doorways), punching walls or other objects, throwing things and raising their fists but not hitting them. Participants reported that these behaviours were very intimidating and occurred frequently within their relationship. Such actions conveyed to them that their partner was capable of physical violence, even if he did not physically assault them. Consistent with other research, for some women, non-verbal cues that were capable of intimidating them could be as subtle as a look or even just a ‘mood’ in the air (Stark, 2009). The participants I spoke to

5.1  Types of Violence and Abuse Experienced by Women

59

often became frustrated in their attempts to explain or justify why they felt so intimidated by their partner when, to an external observer, their partner was not doing anything that could be construed as abusive or violent. However, as shown in the extract below, within the context of their relationship, the described abusers were very effective at intimidating the participants by seemingly doing nothing at all. [My partner] stayed down the coast by himself. He came back the next day and the thing is, his [external CCTV] cameras picked up, cos I watched it afterward, when he pulled up at the gate he got out of the car and his face was beetroot red. He had veins popping out of his forehead. And he came in and... the house was spotless, my oldest son and my youngest one were making a cake, carrot cake in the kitchen. My daughter was doing her homework and I was sitting at the table with my other son... So, we were doing things. And he walked around, and he like you know, there was a stillness in the air, it was it was, surreal... right from when he walked in the door the air just didn’t feel right. And it was almost an out of body experience for me. It’s like I was observing what was going on. And he went around the kids and ‘Hello what are you doing?’ and that sort of thing. And they’re like, you know, quietly responding. Cos, they felt it. (Nicole, age unknown, Desistance)

Another way in which some participants’ partners attempted to intimidate and subdue them was by self-harming and threatening or attempting to end their life (n = 8). Threats were typically explicit, with several participants describing incidents where their partner would threaten to harm themselves, often during an argument with them. In other situations, threats to self-harm were not explicit but insinuated. For example, several abusers were described as frequently leaving the house for extended periods of time after an argument with the participant and becoming uncontactable. Even though it was rare in these situations for the abuser to say they were going to harm themselves, the participants strongly believed that it was likely to occur. This was Genevieve’s experience, who noted that after disagreements, her husband would leave the house and not answer his phone when she called. These periods were highly distressing for her, particularly as he had selfharmed during the initial stages of their relationship, which he attributed to ‘missing her’ when she went away for work.

5.1.6 Property Damage Property damage perpetrated by abusers included breaking laptops, mobile phones and other devices, punching walls and doors and tearing up clothes or keepsakes. Participants said that many of these behaviours were intended to intimidate them, that their partners were demonstrating their strength and ability to hurt them by damaging their property. Damaging property frequently co-occurred with financially abusive behaviours (see below), with several participants reporting that they often incurred the costs associated with replacing or repairing items that had been destroyed.

60

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

5.1.7 Financial Abuse One in two participants across both groups experienced financial abuse during their relationship (Desistance = 53% vs. Persistence = 52%). Financial abuse is defined in this study as ‘a dynamic of the abuser holding economic power over the survivor and the abuser limiting the survivor’s ability to gain or keep financial independence’ (Hageman & St. George, 2018, p. 391). Financially abusive behaviours described by participants included: • Partners restricting their access to the joint or household financial accounts and/ or refusing to allow them to have their own personal accounts • The inequitable division of financial responsibilities within the household • Their partner accruing significant debts participants were asked or expected to pay for or that increased experiences of financial stress within the household • Their partner selling shared possessions without prior consultation • Their partner making large purchases without prior consultation and/or pressuring participants to agree to these purchases Consistent with other research (Eze-Ajoku et  al., 2020; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015; Hughes et al., 2015), the analysis suggested that opportunities for financial abuse were more obvious among participants who were financially dependent on their partner because they were either unemployed or engaged in low-paid or parttime work. During these periods, which typically coincided with participants studying or caring for shared children, their partners were the primary breadwinner in the household (see Case Study 3). However, experiences of financial abuse were not limited to participants in financially dependent relationships (Morgan & Boxall, 2022). As noted in the previous chapter, many of the women in this study reported that at different stages of their relationship they had been employed, with many working in jobs that were well-­ paid and secure. Despite this, these participants also reported experiences of financial abuse, which meant that they were unable to access money unless they sought their partner’s permission. Further, participants reported that their partner’s accrual of debts and insistence on making large purchases meant that, as a household, they often experienced financial stress and had low levels of expendable income. For example, both Danielle and Dimity said that their partner had put significant pressure on them to purchase expensive real estate as investment properties or to live in, which meant that all of their money was being used to repay mortgages.

5.1.8 Stalking Finally, approximately one in three participants reported that their partner had stalked them, their family members, friends and/or their children at different stages during the relationship. That so many participants in the sample self-reported being

5.2  Violence Experienced by Children

61

stalked is notable, considering the hidden nature of the behaviours. As such, it is likely an underestimate of the prevalence. Stalking behaviours reported by women included monitoring their movements (in-person or electronically), following them, ‘hacking’ into their social media or email accounts to monitor correspondence with other people and loitering around their homes or places where they were likely to be. A small number of participants also reported that their partner had installed devices in their house and car to monitor their movements, as well as to record their conversations and collect information about them using covert means. However, as described by Bethany in the excerpt below, these devices were also intended to limit participants’ knowledge of behaviours that abusers were attempting to hide, particularly infidelity and the consumption of pornography: He was very protective of his computer and he bought a [BRAND] mobile phone and it acted as a camera upstairs and, if I went into the office, he would videotape me. So, my every move in his office was videotaped and if I used his computer – it was a keystroke logger on it – and I knew that the phone was up there and I knew that it was videotaping me, because it would come up on the network. And when I confronted him about it one day, he said to me, ‘it’s all in your head. There’s no mobile phone’. Well, he’s an absolute IT wizard… he’d come home, he’d go straight upstairs, check the camera, and then come back downstairs and give me a kiss on the cheek and say, ‘I love you’. Whereas if I went into the office area, he’d come home and he’d absolutely fucking scream at me like nothing at all. (Bethany, 56 years old, Persistence)

For many of the women who experienced stalking, the behaviours were often masked as their partner being protective of them or an act of love. In retrospect, these participants came to believe that it was simply another way in which their partner sought to control them and monitor their behaviours on a day-to-day basis. For example, Estelle described that her partner would ask her to send him pictures of her genitalia at different points which she initially thought was a form of foreplay. However, she later realised that he was checking the state of her pubic hair; he believed that if she was waxing or shaving it off, she must be having an affair. He has reportedly requested similar images from his former intimate partners as well.

5.2 Violence Experienced by Children Consistent with the findings from other research (ABS, 2017; Chan, 2011; Wolbers, Boxall & Morgan 2023), the majority of participants who had children with their abuser said their children had witnessed violence and abuse perpetrated against them (see Table 5.2). The nature of the violence and the extent of children’s exposure differed across the sample. Several women reported that their children had witnessed significant incidents of physical assault. For example, Elaine recalled that her daughter had been present when her partner had strangled her to the point of unconsciousness. This was in addition to the numerous experiences Elaine recounted where she would barricade herself and the children in

62

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

Table 5.2  Violence experienced by the children of participants, by group

Violence and abuse targeted at children  Physical violence  Sexual violence  Emotional abuse Children witnessing intimate partner violence

Desistance (n = 10) n % 4 40 2 50 0 0 3 75 8 80

Persistence (n = 15) n % 5 33 3 60 2 40 3 60 11 73

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file] Note: Limited to participants who had at least one child with their partner

their bedroom while her partner would scream and shout abuse and destroy their possessions and home. Mary similarly reported that she was holding their son during one incident where her partner kicked her repeatedly while wearing steel-cap boots, leaving her with significant bruising on her legs and torso. These incidents of physical violence were easily recalled by participants because the presence of their children had increased their distress during the incident. Understandably, the children themselves were  also very distressed during these incidents and occasionally would attempt to intervene, even when they were very young and physically incapable of doing so. Other participants noted that although their children may not have witnessed physical forms of violence and abuse perpetrated against them, they had been exposed to ongoing patterns of emotional abuse and threatening behaviours. This included participants’ being sworn and screamed at by their partners, threats to kill her and the children as well as belittling and harassing behaviours. This is reflected in the extract below from Lucy, whose partner was frequently aggressive and abusive towards her in front of their two young children: I remember one argument he was like shouting and abusing and yelling at me and I said ‘Can you stop? Your daughter is right there’. ‘I don’t give a fuck, you fucking taking my kids from me anyway you stupid bitch’. So I was like... ‘I’m not but our three-year-old is standing right there so maybe not ideal to be speaking to me like that in front of her’. (Lucy, 33 years old, Persistence)

As shown in Table 5.2, in addition to witnessing IPV, nine participants reported that their children were also the target of physical and non-physical forms of violence and abuse from their father (Chan, 2011). Five participants reported that their children had been physically assaulted by their partner, including having objects thrown at them, being punched, slapped or kicked, pushed or thrown. For example, Hannah said that on one occasion her partner dragged their child off a bed, causing her to hit her head on the ground. This resulted in a concussion that was diagnosed a few days after the incident. Two participants also reported that their children had been sexually assaulted by their partner. These behaviours were disclosed by the children to their mothers a

5.3  Experiences of Intergenerational and Other Violent Behaviours

63

number of years after they had occurred and understandably caused participants’ significant distress. Six participants reported that their children had been sworn at and called names by their fathers, belittled and demeaned. In some situations, their father had also threatened to kill them, although as shown in the excerpt below from Leslie, abusers’ use of language often made it difficult to determine the nature of these threats. He became mentally unwell. And was very suicidal and would threaten to kill me, kill my children, kill himself. And this is when he realised that I was thinking about leaving. He went into our daughter’s room once and told her that he was, she will never see daddy again and made reference to the Lion King movie. And made reference ‘We’re all going to be stars’. (Leslie, 50 years old, Persistence)

As described by Leslie, for some participants, their partner’s violence and abuse towards their children commenced during periods of escalation in their abuse towards the women. For other women, their children’s experiences as targets of their father’s violence and abuse coincided with their physical maturation. This was particularly notable among participants’ sons. For example, Clara reported that as her sons grew older, her partner would engage in more ‘rough’ play with them, which would occasionally result in injuries. Likewise, Mary reported that as her son grew older, her partner became fixated on ensuring he maintained his position of authority within the household and so used intimidation against her and their son as a means of doing so.

5.3 Experiences of Intergenerational and Other Violent Behaviours 5.3.1 Male Partners As reported by the participants, intergenerational domestic and family violence (DFV) was a common feature in the childhood of their partners (Table  5.3). Information about their partner’s history of DFV victimisation was obtained by participants from multiple sources. These included the abuser themselves, the abuser’s family members, mutual friends and the police (see Case Study 1). Across both groups, one in two men were reported as having witnessed IPV between their parents (Desistance = 60% vs. Persistence = 48%), and one participant in each group said their partner had observed violence towards other family members. In addition, one in five men described by participants in the Persistence group had been targets of family violence, primarily perpetrated by their fathers, which increased to approximately one in three within the Desistance group. The nature of DFV experiences of male abusers, as described by participants, ranged significantly. However, several men both witnessed and experienced severe and harmful acts of violence. For example, during one incident when Alison’s partner was 12, his father held a shotgun to his head and threatened to end his life.

64

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

Table 5.3  Prior experiences of violence among participants’ partners, by group Desistance (n = 15) N % Witnessed victimisation experiences in family of origin Witnessed intimate partner violence 9 60 Witnessed family violence towards other family 1 7 members Target of family violence in family of origin Target of physical family violence 3 20 Target of emotional abuse 3 20 Target of neglect 1 7 Any family violence victimisation experiences 5 33 Perpetration experiences Perpetrated intimate partner violence 2 13 Perpetrated family violence 3 20 Perpetrated violence towards non-family 1 7 members or intimate partners Any other violent perpetration experiences 6 40

Persistence (n = 25) N % 12 1

48 4

3 1 1 5

12 4 4 20

10 4 8

40 16 36

18

72

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file]

Meanwhile, Harriet’s partner was whipped regularly by his father with the cord of an iron. Chelsea noted that her partner would accompany his father when they would stalk his sister in an attempt to locate her and drag her home using force. These childhood experiences, Chelsea believed, were formative in the development of her partner’s abusive behaviours towards her. As described in Case Study 6, Chelsea’s partner would also stalk and force her to return home when she would attempt to leave him (see Case Study 6). The above findings highlight that for many of the male partners described by participants, violence and abuse was potentially a learned behaviour and perceived as an acceptable means of conflict resolution or interaction with their partner. Certainly, Elsie recalled, one time after an explosive argument with her partner, her sister-in-law remarked that they reminded her of their parents. Several women also observed similarities between their partners’ behaviours and their fathers-in-law. A higher proportion of participants in the Persistence group said that their partner had been violent towards former intimate partners and others, compared to the Desistance group (Table 5.3). More specifically: • Forty per cent of participants in the Persistence group said their partners had been violent towards prior intimate partners (vs. 13% in the Desistance group). • Sixteen per cent of participants in the Persistence group said their partners had been violent to other family members (e.g. siblings, nephews and parents; vs. 20% in the Desistance group). • Thirty-six per cent of participants in the Persistence group said their partners had been violent towards non-family members, such as friends and strangers (vs. 7% in the Desistance group).

5.3  Experiences of Intergenerational and Other Violent Behaviours

65

The finding that a larger proportion of participants whose partners abuse persisted throughout their relationship had also been violent towards non-family members is worth unpacking further. Men who use violence towards intimate partners and non-family members may have antisocial or generally violent personality traits making them unable or unwilling to stop their use of violence (Carbajosa et  al., 2017). Alternatively, the violence and abuse these men were perpetrating against their partners could have been a continuation of a pattern of behaviour they had enacted on others previously (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Goodman et  al., 2003; Johnson, 2003; Quigley & Leonard, 1996). Both of these hypotheses, which are supported by evidence, may help to explain why the violence and abuse may have been more likely to persist in these relationships (Case Study 2).

Case Study 2: Jackie’s Story Jackie and Dylan met when they were both in their early 20s and quickly started a relationship. Jackie was initially very happy in the relationship, saying that they got along very well. In particular, she remembered that early in the relationship, she went on an overseas working holiday, and he came over and visited her which she described as being very romantic and demonstrating his commitment to her. She noted that, despite a few arguments about minor issues, she was happy in the relationship, and there was no abuse or violence. Jackie acknowledged that when she started her relationship with Dylan she was aware that he had a history of violence towards others. In particular, Dylan had been involved in multiple fights with other men when he was intoxicated: He would go to the pub, have too much to drink and punch somebody. And it didn’t happen during our relationship ever, at all that I’m aware of, but he... had a criminal record for aggravated assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

However, Jackie was adamant that there was no evidence that Dylan had been violent towards another intimate partner. She recalled that early in their relationship Dylan had even told her a story where he had physically assaulted his family member’s abusive partner. Jackie took this as evidence that Dylan abhorred violence towards women, which made her respect him more. There was no evidence that Dylan had witnessed or been the target of violence in his family of origin. After returning to Australia, Jackie and Dylan moved in together, and she began to realise that Dylan had several problems. For example, it quickly became obvious that he was addicted to gambling and was in significant debt as a result. Jackie also discovered that Dylan had been having an affair with another woman, which she was very upset about. It was around the time that Jackie discovered the affair and his gambling debts that Dylan started becoming physically violent towards Jackie. This (continued)

66

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

included punching, pushing and shoving her, pinning her against the wall and, on one occasion, choking her. When Dylan became upset, he would also damage the house that they were renting together, punching holes in the wall and breaking property. Often, he would become aggressive and violent when she would confront him about his gambling debts and try to discuss repayment plans. After these ‘outbursts’, he would become very upset and fixated on replacing or repairing any property he had broken. His emotional distress would make Jackie want to help him. Jackie said that she was very motivated to help Dylan because she loved him and completely sublimated her own needs for his during their relationship: There was absolutely no time for me to do, me to worry about anything else. At all. And then when there was... if I was a bit concerned about work or something or if something happened within my family, there was just no space in my head. I couldn’t think about it. Because as soon as I would bring it up to talk about, it would somehow end up in some violent outburst again. So, I just, it was very much, I have to make sure that he’s OK and everything’s fine and that, that he’s happy, and then think about other stuff afterwards.

During this period, Jackie remained very close to her family and would tell them what was happening between herself and Dylan. Her family encouraged her to leave, but she was adamant that she wanted to help Dylan and that he could return to who he had been at the beginning of the relationship. She started seeing a counsellor, whom she told about the violence. However, she stopped attending sessions when the counsellor pressured her to leave Dylan. Jackie could not pinpoint the stage at which she decided to leave Dylan, but she admitted that after a few years, she realised that she could no longer see herself having a future with him. Jackie and Dylan mutually decided to separate but continued to live together because they had recently signed a new lease on their rental property. This arrangement ended after Dylan was again physically violent towards Jackie, causing her to move out. At the time of the interview, Jackie was in a new relationship and was very happy. She had severed all contact with Dylan and his family and was highly motivated to explore options for becoming an IPV advocate.

5.3.2 Female Participants In comparison with their partners, experiences of violence and abuse within participants’ families of origin were less commonly reported. The analysis found that: • One in 14 (7%) participants in the Desistance group said they had either witnessed IPV or family violence within their families of origin, while 1 in 5 (20%) women in the Persistence group reported the same.

5.3  Experiences of Intergenerational and Other Violent Behaviours

67

Table 5.4  Prior experiences of intimate partner and family violence among participants, by group Desistance (n = 15) N % Witnessed violence and abuse in family of origin Witnessed intimate partner violence 1 Witnessed family violence towards other 0 family members Experiences of family and intimate partner violence Target of physical family violence 1 Target of emotional abuse 0 Target of neglect 1 Any family violence victimisation experiences 2 Prior intimate partner violence experiencesa 3

Persistence (n = 25) n %

7 0

5 1

20 4

7 0 7 13 27

2 2 3 7 1

8 8 12 28 6

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file] a Excludes 12 participants who indicated that this was their first relationship

• Thirteen per cent of participants in the Desistance group and 24% of women in the Persistence group had been the target of violence and abuse in their families of origin. • One in four (27%) participants in the Desistance group and 6% of participants in the Persistence group had experienced IPV within a former relationship (see Table 5.4). Among participants who reported that they had experienced violence in their families of origin, most believed that these childhood experiences had influenced their subsequent response to the abuse in their own relationships. Women with experiences of DFV as children reported that when the violence and abuse started in their own relationships, they began to repeat historical behaviours that had they learned or observed as children to mitigate or de-escalate their risk of being harmed. This is reflected in the extract from Kate (below), who witnessed significant violence perpetrated by her father against her mother and another sibling in her family of origin. I saw quite a lot of...severe physical violence in my own family and I guess you could say I was just primed. To behave. So...in terms of being in relationship with a coercive individual, domineering individual, I’d already learnt very fucking well how to stay away from them. Like how to keep kind of under the radar. And it’s essentially, I mean, you’ve probably heard this phrase too, walking on eggshells. So it’s always being in a hyperalert state, so you can, you know, the feelers on your neck go up and you go ‘Oh he’s had a bad day or the boss has said something or..’ you know whatever it is. (Kate, 42 years old, Persistence)

Several of the participants who had not been subjected to DFV in their families of origin reflected that their responses to their subsequent IPV victimisation might have been influenced by their lack of experience with these behaviours or with intimate relationships more generally. Participants with minimal prior relationship experience noted that because they had nothing to compare this relationship to, it was easier for their partners to convince them that the violence and abuse were

68

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

normal and attributable to their inability to satisfy the needs of their partner and fulfil their ‘role’ in the relationship. A described by Paula in Case Study 1, oftentimes the expected role of participants in these relationships was typically to provide their partner with sex on demand, run the household, raise their children and provide them with emotional support.

5.4 The Impact of Violence and Abuse on Participants As noted in the introduction to this chapter, understanding the impact of the violence and abuse perpetrated against participants provides invaluable context that can help to explain the occurrence or non-occurrence of IPV desistance. In particular, the impacts of IPV may have in turn influenced the strategies participants used to mitigate their risk of serious harm and support the desistance of the abuse, including their options for help-seeking. Participants’ experiences of IPV had a range of negative consequences for themselves and their children. In addition to physical injuries and long-term health conditions (see earlier sections of this chapter), participants frequently reported feelings of low self-worth and distress and deterioration in their health and wellbeing. This included the development or exacerbation of symptoms associated with anxiety or depression, such as hypervigilance, obsessive thought patterns and behaviours (e.g., cleaning), disrupted sleep and eating patterns, dissociation and emotional ‘numbing’. For example, some women such as Grace, Leslie and Mary reported that when their partner became aggressive or abusive, as a coping mechanism, they would pretend it was not happening to them, think of other things or ‘shut’ down emotionally. For a small number of participants, the emotional impact of the violence and abuse appeared to manifest as physical symptoms. Respondents including Harriet and Tasmin reported that at various stages during their relationship, they had experienced symptoms such as the loss of their voice and developed food allergies that they had not had previously and chronic headaches. Although participants sought medical assistance for these issues while they were partnered with their abusers, it was only after the relationship had ended that the symptoms resolved. Although less common, a small number of participants reported that during the relationship, they had thought about hurting themselves or dying by suicide. Lisa said that she started to think about suicide after years of abuse which directly contributed to serious depressive episodes and feelings of helplessness. This was consistent with the experiences reported by other women, such as Daisy, who also experienced thoughts of suicide and self-harm. Consistent with other research, participants also reported that their relationships with family members and friends became strained as a result of the violence and abuse they were experiencing (Levendosky et  al., 2004; Stark, 2009). This was attributed to family members and friends’ discomfort and distress about witnessing abuse perpetrated against participants, as well as active attempts made by their partner to interfere with these relationships. Lisa reported that throughout her

5.4  The Impact of Violence and Abuse on Participants

69

relationship her partner had made it impossible for her to maintain meaningful relationships with family members and friends by telling her: My friends didn’t like me, my family didn’t like me. My friends aren’t really my friends. If we were going to a function or a party my friends were doing, there’d be some crisis like a blind would break and I couldn’t go. (Lisa, 44 years old, Persistence)

Considering the above experiences, it is not surprising then that many participants said that at various stages in their relationship they felt socially isolated and unable to seek the support of their friends and family members to leave their partner. Critically, several women also reported that they had experienced financial stress and economic disadvantage (including the exacerbation of pre-existing economic disadvantage) as a result of the abuse (Wilcox, 2006). The forms of economic disadvantage reported by women varied considerably across the sample and appeared to be influenced by the participant’s own earning power and employment status. For example, participants who were in well-paid jobs during the relationship said that their partner would make large purchases without consulting them, pressure them to earn more monies or refuse to contribute financially to the household. Hannah remembered that after the birth of their children she had decided to started studying full-­ time which required the family to relocate. Although her partner was supportive of her studies, he told her that she had to put their children in fulltime daycare and pay for it herself, despite him being unemployed and at home all day. This put additional pressure on her to also find employment while she was studying so that she could pay for her children’s care. For other women, the economic hardship they experienced was primarily driven by their partner controlling the household finances, withholding money and limiting their employment opportunities and/or furthering their education (see Case Study 3). The type and extent of economic disadvantage and financial stress experienced by participants was a critical difference between the Desistance and Persistence cohorts. In particular, it was more common that participants in the Persistence group reported being financially dependent on their partners and experiencing significant financial barriers to seeking assistance or support to deal with the violence and abuse. This was certainly the experience of women such as Leslie, Stacey and Harriet. Meanwhile, fewer participants in the Desistance cohort were financially dependent on their partners. Instead, it was more common that participants were the primary breadwinner within the household or had comparable earning power to their partner. Further, although participants in the Desistance group said that they had experienced financial stress at different stages of the relationship, it was not a constant feature for many of them. The fact that women who experienced the desistance of their partner’s violence had fewer financial barriers to leaving the relationship may have impacted the power dynamics within the relationship. In turn, this could have influenced the extent to which participants felt able to challenge their partner’s use of violence and abuse against them in different ways. This hypothesis is supported by evidence that socioeconomic disadvantage and financial dependence on abusers are important barriers to women leaving abusive relationships (Amanor-Boadu et al., 2012; Meyer, 2016; Wilcox, 2006), as well as being risk factors associated with the occurrence of

70

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

violence in the first place and the escalation of abuse (Benson et al., 2003; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Morgan & Boxall, 2020, 2022).1 The literature discussing the role of economic empowerment and security in the reduction of IPV has highlighted a number of potential mechanisms. One hypothesis – referred to as marriage dependency theory – is that the relative economic security and participation of individuals within relationships has implications for their bargaining power and ability to leave abusive relationships (Hughes et al., 2015). Bargaining power has typically been described in relation to individuals’ ability to offer (or withdraw) material goods, which can, in turn, influence their power and ‘ability to negotiate change’ within the partnership (Eggers Del Campo & Steinert, 2020, p. 2). However, considering that the economic status of women is interwoven with gender attitudes and norms (Heise & Kotsadam, 2015), it has also been suggested that improving the economic status of women (at an individual and societal level) may have the effect of re-shaping gender norms and interactions within intimate relationships (Aizer, 2010). Certainly, evaluations of micro-finance schemes and other economic empowerment programs in developing nations have found that, in addition to reducing IPV, these interventions can have a positive impact on women’s beliefs regarding violence against women and gender norms (Eggers Del Campo & Steinert, 2020; Eze-Ajoku et al., 2020). As such, it could be suggested that a woman’s economic status within relationships not only has implications for their capacity to bargain with material goods and leave the relationship if they want to, but also influences their perceived right and ability to bargain in other domains of the relationship, including the presence of abuse and violence and the strategies that they use to remediate their risk of violence (Hughes et al., 2015). This hypothesis will be tested in the next chapter.

 The evidence of associations between economic disadvantage, financial stress and IPV is by no means straightforward (Eggers Del Campo & Steinert, 2020). There is some evidence that the link between economic factors and IPV is likely mediated by a range of other factors, particularly cultural norms and attitudes towards women and gender equity. For example, an analysis of national IPV prevalence studies from numerous developing and developed nations conducted by Heise and Kotsadam (2015) identified that the strong relationship between country gross domestic product and IPV disappeared once cultural norms related to violence against women and attitudes towards women were included in modelling. Further, there is some evidence from developing nations that micro-finance programs and other initiatives designed to increase the economic participation of women may actually increase IPV due to what has been referred to as the ‘backlash’ effect (Hansen et al., 2020; World Health Organisation, 2009). The backlash effect is experienced when a woman’s economic status increases and challenges male feelings of superiority and control. Relatedly, studies have shown that disparities between male and female economic status (e.g. employment) within relationships .are positively associated with IPV (Eze-Ajoku et al., 2020; Flake, 2005). 1

5.5  Chapter Summary

71

5.5 Chapter Summary This chapter provided a detailed overview of the nature of violence and abuse experienced by participants, including violence targeted at children and the presence of intergenerational violence. Understanding the nature of the violence and abuse experienced by participants in this sample provides valuable context for understanding the actions victims-survivors may or may not have taken to initiate and support desistance processes and the potential impact of these strategies. What this chapter highlights are the constrained conditions under which women were operating and that they were constantly living in a state of perceived threat (Wilcox, 2006). Many women were also struggling with systemic disadvantage and its resulting impact on help-seeking opportunities. By examining the patterns and types of violence and abuse experienced by participants, we were also provided with valuable insights into potential abuser variability within the sample. Although typologies have not typically been used as a lens for understanding variation in the trajectory of IPV abusers (for notable exceptions, see Loinaz, 2014; Petersson & Strand, 2017), it is important to note that based on the descriptions provided by participants, there were a small number of potentially important differences between the offending patterns of abusers across the Desistance and Persistence groups. First, although the majority of participants in both groups reported that coercive controlling behaviours were present in their relationship, women in the Persistence group appeared to be more likely to report severe and escalating patterns of coercive control, whereby many aspects of their lives were regulated or controlled. Second, more women in the Persistence group reported that their partners had been violent in prior relationships and/or towards others in non-familial settings. This suggests that the partners of participants in this group may have already established patterns of violence and abuse that were more difficult to disrupt, particularly when the violence may have in part stemmed from a generally aggressive or antisocial personality disorder. The purpose of this study is not to build on existing typologies. However, that the patterns and histories of violence and abuse behaviours varied across desistance outcomes may indicate the presence of different abuser ‘types’ within the sample. Critically, and as has been suggested in previous research, offending trajectories – including desistance  – and abuser’s susceptibility to external intervention and attempts to change their behaviour, and their motivation to change, may differ across these groups (Carbajosa et  al., 2017; Leone et  al., 2007; Weber & Bouman, 2017). Finally, there appeared to be a potentially important difference between the two participant cohorts regarding the impact of the violence and abuse. Women in the Desistance group were less likely to report that their partners had blocked or limited their employment and educational opportunities and so were less financially dependent on their partners. Instead, participants in the Desistance group were either the primary breadwinner in the household or had comparable levels of economic power within the relationship. These factors may have impacted the extent to which women

72

5  Understanding Context: Abuse Perpetrated Against Women and Their Children…

in the Desistance group felt that they were able to challenge their partner and encourage them to change their behaviour, as well as their ability to leave the relationship. Taken together, these findings suggest that the ability of women to impact the behaviour of their partner may be influenced by the nature of the violence they were experiencing, as well as the underlying causes of the behaviour and relationship dynamics. These hypotheses will be tested in the next chapter, which examines the strategies utilised by participants to keep themselves safe and initiate and support desistance processes.

Chapter 6

Strategies Used by Female Victims-­Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate and Support Desistance Processes

The strategies utilised by participants as a means of mitigating their day-to-day risk of IPV, as well as those intended to initiate and support longer-term behavioural change processes, coalesced around three main themes: strategies focused on changing their own behaviours, strategies focused on changing their partner’s behaviours and third-party help-seeking (Table  6.1). Again, it is important to remember that although the women in this study were asked about strategies both prior to and after the end of their relationship (if relevant), as noted in Chap. 4, the focus of the analysis in this and subsequent chapters is on the strategies and actions they took while still partnered with their abuser.

6.1 Strategies Focused on Adapting or Changing Participant Behaviour The most common strategies identified by participants for bringing about the desistance of their partner’s abusive behaviours involved adapting their own behaviours, which in turn influenced the nature of their interactions with their partner. In particular, women spoke about complying with their partner’s demands and avoiding triggers as their primary strategies for keeping themselves and their children safe and to attempt to bring about a change in their partner’s abusive behaviours.

6.1.1 Compliance and Being the Perfect Partner Many participants referred to trying to be the ‘perfect partner’ in an effort to mitigate their risk of violence. One might suppose that being the perfect partner would differ across relationships. However, as demonstrated in Case Study 1, the behaviours © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_6

73

74

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

Table 6.1  Strategies used by participants, by group Persistence Desistance (n = 15) (n = 25) n % n % Strategies focused on changing participant behaviour Compliance Avoiding triggers Any strategy focused on changing participant behaviour Strategies focused on changing their partner’s behaviours Talking about the violence and its impact Asking them to get help Establishing boundaries Threats Any strategy focused on changing partner’s behaviour Informal sources of help-seeking Family of participant Friends of participant Family of partner Friends of partner Any informal help-seeking Formal sources of help-seeking Mental health counselling Relationship counselling Police Protection orders Child protection services IPV services Legal services Any formal help-seeking

12 11 15

80 73 100

17 13 20

68 52 80

5 4 11 5 15

33 27 73 33 100

12 4 14 7 24

48 16 56 28 96

6 9 4 1 14

40 60 27 7 93

14 9 7 3 21

56 36 28 12 94

9 6 8 1 3 6 1 10

60 40 53 7 20 40 7 67

8 7 8 1 1 4 4 14

32 28 32 4 4 16 16 56

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file]

demanded of participants by abusers conformed to a series of easily identifiable gendered tropes, such as being the primary carer for shared children; undertaking the majority (if not all) of household tasks, such as cooking dinner and cleaning; agreeing with their partner and being submissive during discussions; not associating with other men; providing emotional support when required; and fulfilling their partner’s sexual needs on demand (Copenhaver et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2010). How participants came to learn the boundaries of acceptable behaviour within their relationship – what the ‘rules’ were – differed across the sample. For some, the rules were clearly communicated to them by their partner. For example, Leslie recounted having the following conversation with her husband shortly after they got married: The day we came home from our honeymoon, he sat me down, I’ll never forget this, he sat me down in a chair and he said ‘Right, you are my wife now. I own you… I’m confiscating your car keys. You’re not to leave the house on a Saturday until you’ve cleaned the house to

6.1  Strategies Focused on Adapting or Changing Participant Behaviour

75

my liking. You are to use this detergent on the floor. You are to wash my clothes this way. (Leslie, 50 years old, Persistence)

In contrast, several participants reported that they learned what compliance meant within the context of their relationship by experiencing the consequences associated with specific acts of ‘rule-breaking’. For example, Anne said that her partner would become explosive with rage whenever she would associate with other men. As such, she became wary of making new male friends and was careful to hide her communications with them from her partner. Further, a number of participants reported that at different stages in their relationship, the violence would become more frequent or more severe (i.e. escalate) without any identifiable cause. During these periods, and in the absence of any clear information about the underlying reasons for the escalation, participants attempted to change their own behaviour and the domestic environment in the hope that these changes would appease their partner in some way and reduce the abuse. For example, participants reported that they would take on extra household tasks, attempt to remove or mitigate the impact of situational stressors on their partners (e.g. relieving their partner of childcare duties), increase the time they spent with their partner and prioritise their partner’s interests or career aspirations. Among these participants, there was a sense that they were searching for what compliance meant so that they could meet their partner’s needs and, in turn, hopefully reduce the violence. Fear was a strong motivator for many participants who said that compliance was their primary strategy. Participants  reported that the threat of violence was ever-­ present within their relationship and that ‘rule-breaking’ resulted in further abuse and violence that had a lasting impact on them. However, for several women in the sample, their decision to become compliant was informed in part by their belief that they themselves were at least partially responsible for the violence. This was particularly notable in situations where abusers were gaslighting their partners (see Chap. 5). Participants reported that their partner was very effective at making them feel that they were to blame for the violence in some way and that being a ‘good partner’ within the relationship meant satisfying all of their physical, emotional and sexual needs. As Daisy observed: ‘…If I’m perfect, why would he be mean?’

6.1.2 Avoiding Triggers Another measure used by participants to facilitate their partner’s desistance from violence was avoiding triggers. Triggers were factors and situations identified by participants that increased the likelihood that their partner would become abusive. Many participants reported that they were able to identify at least some of their partner’s triggers and so consciously attempted to avoid them where possible. Frequently identified triggers included:

76

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

• Challenging their partner in any way • Withdrawing from the abuser or the relationship (e.g. avoiding intimacy, threatening to leave the relationship, spending time outside of the home away from their partner) • Issues related to the care of children (including pregnancy) • Partner’s feelings of inadequacy or shame Consistent with other research (see Boxall et  al., 2018; Walker, 2017), many participants identified triggers related to situational stressors in their own and their partner’s lives, including children being noisy and the cleanliness of the household, work- or study-related pressures and illnesses within the family. However, rather than the men themselves attempting to mitigate the impact of these stressors in their lives and on their behaviours, it was instead the participants who were attempting to ‘keep the peace’ and manage their partner’s behaviour, by removing or mitigating the impact of stressors. For example, Zoe and Bella both reported that their partners became highly  stressed during periods of intense study, including preparing for exams. Both participants said they dropped everything to emotionally support their partners through these periods, even though both were also studying themselves. Similarly, after realising that her partner’s stress was related to the care of their children and his demanding job, Genevieve moved their family closer to her parents so they would have additional support with their children and less work-­related pressure. Meanwhile, Hannah, Nicole, Danielle and Elaine all reported that they had been very effective at keeping their children quiet when their partners were home so as not to make them irritated and, in turn, potentially abusive. In other situations, avoiding triggers meant that women had to make significant changes to their lifestyles and social connections. For example, Lucy observed that during her relationship with her partner, she stopped seeing her sisters and parents because he was convinced they did not approve of him and he would become abusive and belligerent when she would visit them. This had a significant and detrimental impact on Lucy’s formerly close and strong relationships with her family. Furthermore, Daisy and Harriet reported that they stopped going out with friends because it would make their partner angry or jealous. Meanwhile, Jo, Yvette and Rosie stopped participating in external activities such as sport and music because their partner did not want them to continue their involvement. For some participants, avoiding triggers involved regulating their emotional affect and minimising their needs within the relationship. For example, Jo spoke about an incident where she was talking to her partner about how tired and overwhelmed she was by their newborn baby when he became aggressive and yelled at her. This was part of a pattern of behaviour within their relationship: Jo’s partner would use aggression and abuse as a means of minimising her needs and refocusing her efforts on satisfying his. As she reflected, ‘there was never any space in his life or in our life, for me to have a problem’. Jackie similarly noted that to manage her partner’s behaviour, she sublimated her own needs within their relationship and focused on making sure he was ‘OK’ (see Case Study 2).

6.1  Strategies Focused on Adapting or Changing Participant Behaviour

77

Conversely, Mary reported that she would avoid looking happy in front of her partner because she realised that this would trigger his abusive behaviour. I didn’t ever make myself look too happy. I got out of the habit of smiling or looking happy. Cos, I thought that might encourage him to think there was… cos sometimes I was happy and he’s like, ‘Oh what’s going on? What are you so happy about?’ ‘Oh, oh I dunno, what would anyone be happy about? Just happy to be alive’ sort of thing. And so, then I got into this way of I just make my face *makes a neutral face*. I would sort of be in the kitchen, sort of laughing to myself. And then I’d sort of *straightens face* go into to give him his lunch and I’d literally wipe the smile off my face and I’d just walk in with his lunch looking serious because I didn’t even want him to know that internally I was very happy. I know that’s weird, but I went to great lengths to cater for his… cos yeah, no, he wasn’t going to stop. (Mary, 72 years old, Desistance)

Laura had similar experiences with her partner, where, if she was in a good mood, he would call her names and say horrible things to her to make her upset. Interestingly, the strategy of sublimating their own emotional needs and focusing on their partner’s was particularly noticeable among participants  whose  partners had experienced and witnessed abuse as children (see Table 5.2). As noted in Chap. 3, a wealth of research has demonstrated a link between experiences of child abuse and the development of insecure or withdrawing attachment styles which in turn have been shown to increase the risk of IPV occurring. This was certainly the experience of a number of participants in this study. Many of the men who had been abused as children  were described by participants as being highly needy and ‘clingy’. For example, Jo’s partner had witnessed his father assaulting his mother frequently as a child and described her own role in her partner’s life as being his ‘emotional sink’. Alternatively, other men were described as being emotionally cold and withholding affection from participants. For example, Harriet described her husband as very uncomfortable with showing her affection, and when she would try to hold his hand, he would push her away. However, as demonstrated in the extract below, Harriet’s partner was also highly sensitive to any perceived rejection by her: It even got down to being scared when you did have sex because if you did have sex, you’d go to the toilet sometimes after you have sex whether it’s cos you’ve got a full bladder whatever. And then I’d be accused, ‘Oh what you’ve got everything of me out of you?’ and I thought ‘Oh my god’. So, you’re too scared… to even, if you’re busting to go to the toilet after having sex, because of what he’ll say. So, you’re all trying all the time to think ahead of OK if I say this, you’ve got to think what his response is, so then you’ve got to have a response back so you’re always thinking like… two or three sentences ahead. Trying to… mitigate his anger or his… cos they twist everything that you say. (Harriet, 58 years old, Persistence)

The thought processes and actions described by Harriet and many other participants in the study demonstrate the awareness that they had of their partner’s emotional states, and how they would regulate their own behaviours and emotional affect as a means of mitigating the risk of violence occurring and/or escalating.

78

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

6.2 Strategies Focused on Changing Their Partner’s Behaviour While the majority of participants reported that their primary strategy for mitigating their daily risk of violence and supporting longer-term behavioural change was to focus on managing their own behaviour, these strategies required no effort on the part of abusers. Certainly, it is unclear whether abusers were even aware of the efforts of participants in this regard. However, as shown in Table  6.1, strategies that were focused on motivating their partner to take ownership of their behaviour and reduce or stop the violence and abuse were also commonly reported by participants. Strategies included talking to their partner about the violence and abuse and/or its impact, asking them to get help and establishing boundaries within their relationship.

6.2.1 Talking About the Violence and Its Impact Several participants said that on at least one occasion during their relationship they had attempted to speak to their partner about the violence they were perpetrating against them and/or its impact. However, the nature of these discussions differed across the sample. A small number of women, including Hannah and Jackie, said they had directly confronted their partner and labelled the behaviour as abusive and violent. For example, after her husband strangled her, Hannah said that she spoke to him about what had happened on several occasions to try to understand why he had done it. During one of these occasions, she even asked him ‘what were you going to do with my body?...Were you going to bury me in the backyard? Meanwhile, Jackie remembered that during one episode of abuse where her partner was sexually assaulting her, she said ‘You know you’re raping me right now?’ However, a much larger group of participants said they attempted to speak to their partner about their behaviour without using labels like violence or abuse. Instead, they focused on their deteriorating relationship and respective health and wellbeing. In this way, participants were discussing the impact of the behaviour without directly attributing it to their partner’s abuse. For example, several women said that their discussions with their partner would focus on how they were not ‘getting along’ or how their relationship did not appear to be ‘working’. Although the deterioration in the relationship between participants and their partners was primarily because of the abuse, this was typically not raised during these discussions. Tasmin, for example, said that after an incident where her partner abducted their children, she asked that they take a ‘break’ from one another so they could work on their individual issues and then their relationship: I said to him at that point, ‘I think we both need to, like, this is not working the way it is. I can’t keep going the way it is’… but I was still very much like, let’s work on this. Like ‘You work on you, I’ll work on me and we’ll come back together, and we’ll work on the marriage’. (Tasmin, 35 years old, Desistance)

6.2  Strategies Focused on Changing Their Partner’s Behaviour

79

Elsie reported having a similar conversation with her partner, where she suggested that they should break up, so they each had space to become ‘better versions of themselves’ before reconciling. Notably, both women said that at the time of having this discussion with their partner, they expected that the relationship would resume after they had each dealt with their own problems and so were in a better place to then ‘fix’ their relationship. Paula, Tasmin, Elsie and Jackie all said they had discussions with their partners, which focused on the deterioration of their health and wellbeing rather than their partner’s behaviour. This included talking about their happiness, physical and mental health, ability to undertake everyday activities, work performance, social connections and self-esteem and confidence. This is highlighted in the excerpt from Paula: So I’d say, like, ‘I don’t even know who I am anymore and I’m not happy’. He’d say to me, ‘You’re always whinging and you’re always complaining’. Honestly, each time I did it, I’d feel like it was me. He had this way of twisting it, that I was just ungrateful and inconsiderate and just a negative person. And so, I didn’t want to be that. (Paula, 31 years old, Persistence)

The participants who said that they did not speak to their partner about the violence and/or its impact often said it was because they did not feel safe doing so. There was an expectation within this group of women that if they did try to discuss the abuse, their partners would become more violent. This is not to suggest that the participants who did speak to their partners about the violence were not concerned that these discussions could lead to further abuse perpetrated against them; most of them certainly were. To mitigate these safety-related concerns, some women said that they would plan for discussions about the violence and/or its impact to coincide with periods of relative calm within their relationship. Many of the participants, including Elaine, Danielle and Ruby, reflected that the violence and abuse they experienced would occur in cycles. Cycles of abuse, as described by Lenore Walker, suggests that IPV is cyclical, involving several stages: tension-building, violence (release) and the honeymoon or reconciliation phase (Walker, 1979). Although not all of the participants said that they were able to identify patterns of violence within their relationship, a small number who did said that they had utilised the honeymoon phase as an opportunity to deploy strategies targeted at changing their partner’s behaviour. Women reflected that they were able to leverage off their partner’s contrition and shame for their behaviour during this stage in the cycle of abuse to confront them about the violence and its impact on them. As demonstrated in the extract from Tasmin below, at these points, women appeared to believe that they had regained some level of power or control within the relationship, particularly when their partner was concerned they would leave the relationship. Feeling that they had some level of control or bargaining power, participants would seek a commitment from their partner to change their behaviours. He’d be saying, ‘I need help, there’s something wrong with me’. And he’d be googling bipolar and split personality and depression and all these things. And then I’d be saying ‘It’ll be OK…We’ll do this together and we’ll go and get help’. (Tasmin, 35 years old, Desistance)

80

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

This highlights the adaptivity of the women’s strategies; they were not only engaging in numerous activities to bring about behavioural change but were also refining them to maximise their impact and to maintain their safety. However, a small number of participants were unsure of why they never spoke to their partner about the violence or even acknowledged that it was present within their relationship. For example, Genevieve reflected that her partner’s violence would ‘explode’, and he would leave the house. When he returned, no one would speak about what had happened, including her partner, who she recalled never once apologised for his behaviour. Furthermore, Elaine, who experienced severe controlling, physical and sexual violence from her partner of five years, said that she and her partner never discussed the abuse within the relationship, even after an incident where the police became involved and she stayed in a refuge for a few days, prior to returning to him. Q: Did you ever talk to him about what was happening? A: No. No. Q: Was that one of his triggers? A: I dunno I just…I don’t know why like I never brought it up, but yeah, we never talked about it. Q: So, it would explode, and you would do what you had to do to protect yourself and then he would settle down and it would all kind of just continue? A: Yeah. And we never even spoke about anything after, like, things would happen. Like, really bad things would happen, we never talked about it. It was just like, OK, well that happened. Let’s just get back onto what we’re doing. It was just… I look back now and it’s really bizarre, like, we’d have like a huge argument, things would be thrown, he’d hit me, whatever, and then he’d be like ‘Alright’, he’d calm down. ‘Alright we’re going to the shops now’, and we’d just get into the car and drive to the shops. Like it was normal. (Elaine, 30 years old, Desistance).

Genevieve and Elaine were unsure why they did not discuss the violence with their partners, although they both agreed that to some extent it was about safety concerns. However, for both participants – and several others within the sample – their silence appeared to be part of an agreement that they had with their abusers. As Kate noted: I never had a conversation with him around the violence. For me, I think the implicit message was, if I pleased him, if I was a good girl, then I, you know, I wouldn’t get myself in trouble. (Kate, 41 years old, Persistence)

6.2.2 Asking Their Partner to Get Help Related to discussions about the violence and its impact, a small group of participants reported that they encouraged their partner to seek help to address their abusive and violent behaviours. This involved direct appeals to address the violence itself or, more frequently, to address or resolve a perceived underlying cause of the abuse. For example, as described in Case Study 4, Bella’s partner had severe depression, which she believed contributed to his abusive behaviours. On numerous

6.2  Strategies Focused on Changing Their Partner’s Behaviour

81

occasions, she asked him to attend counselling to manage his depression, which she expected would have a positive impact on his abusive behaviours. Likewise, Bethany asked her husband to enter treatment for his addiction to marijuana because she believed there was a link between his escalating use and the abuse. Estelle similarly encouraged her partner to attend Alcoholics Anonymous because she believed that many of his problems, including his use of violence against her, were caused in part by his excessive consumption of alcohol. The factors to which participants attributed the violence they were experiencing are discussed in more detail in Chap. 8. Among participants who said they did not ask their partner to seek help, the most commonly identified reasons were fear of further violence, the incompatibility between compliance and avoiding triggers and the belief that it would not have a positive effect. As discussed above, being the perfect partner for many participants involved not discussing the violence and abuse within their relationship, which included asking them to seek help for their behaviours. Certainly, as discussed in earlier sections of this chapter, some women reported that when they did ask their partner to seek help, it had triggered severe violence and abuse or episodes of gaslighting, where they were blamed for the violence.

6.2.3 Establishing Boundaries Several participants said that they had attempted to establish boundaries within their relationships as a means of keeping themselves safe and supporting desistance processes. What these boundaries looked like varied across the sample. For some women, it involved directly telling their partner that they did not want them to engage in particular abusive or violent behaviours towards them or their children. For example, Mary told her partner that he was never to hurt their son under any circumstances. Further, Elsie told her partner that he was not allowed to punch walls or furniture anymore and that if he persisted, she would leave him. Other women attempted to establish boundaries not by directly confronting their partner but through their non-compliance with specific demands or rules within their relationship created by the abuser – in other words, rule-breaking. Harriet, for example, said that she would purposefully stay out later than her curfew in direct opposition to her partner’s orders, while Yvette stopped putting her phone calls on loudspeaker so her partner could hear what she was saying and who she was talking to. Further, Anne recalled an incident where she accepted a male acquaintance’s Facebook friend request, even though her partner was very possessive of her. When reflecting on this event, Anne said she felt compelled to accept the request because ‘if I don’t accept this [friend request], I’m still kinda giving him what he wants from me. And if I do, I feel like, it makes me feel like I’m standing up for a bit more of what I want’. For some participants, establishing boundaries involved placing emotional or sexual barriers between themselves and their partner. Zoe, Jess and Grace all

82

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

reported that they stopped having sex with their partner as a means of placing a barrier between them, and also to communicate their dissatisfaction with the relationship. Chelsea similarly emotionally withdrew from her partner and recounted that when he said he loved her, she would respond by telling him she hated him. Several participants, including Estelle, Yvette, Rosie, Jess and Elsie, noted that at different points in their relationship, particularly when they were concerned about the participant leaving, their partner would seek a significant commitment from them. This frequently involved marriage proposals, requests to buy a house together, moving in together or discussions about having children. On these occasions, these participants rebuffed these attempts to seek a further commitment from them. Rosie recalled: We got engaged at one point. And I broke that off. And just, was like ‘no’. And then [he said], ‘Oh we should get engaged again’. And I’m like ‘nah’. I was like no ‘I don’t think so’. You know. And then the mortgage, he goes ‘Well why don’t we buy a house together first and then we can…’ and I was just thinking, I don’t want that. I can do better for myself. (Rosie, 49 years old, Persistence)

For Rosie and others, the decision to withdraw emotionally from the relationship, including refusing to further commit themselves to their partner, was because they were planning to leave the relationship. For other participants, this strategy was used to try and encourage their partner to desist from their use of violence. This was through the implicit or explicit suggestion that the resumption of closeness and affection between themselves and their partner – or further commitment to the relationship – would be possible if the violence stopped. For example, after an episode of violence where her partner threatened her with a knife and the police became involved, Anne decided to stay with her partner but told him that she did not see themselves as ‘back to normal’ until she saw a positive change in his behaviours. Further, as demonstrated in the below excerpt, Jess told her partner that she would not marry him or have a baby with him until he demonstrated he could stop being abusive towards her and behave the way she wanted within their relationship. In my heart of hearts, what I was hoping was going to happen is that, if I remained steadfast in my own values, in saying I don’t want somebody who is drunk, I don’t want somebody who is a gambler – in my heart of hearts, ultimately…I was actually hoping that they would come to the realisation of…‘OK, she’s not backing down, she’s not backing off. I’m not getting anywhere with her, as in she won’t accept a marriage proposal. She won’t go into a mortgage with me so that we can start our lives in that fashion’. There was also a point of time where – because they wanted to have a baby and I was refusing. So, I was refusing all of these things, and I was just hoping they were going to get to the point of, OK, if I want these things enough, it looks like I’m going to have to bend somewhat to make this happen. (Jess, 44 years old, Persistence)

In these situations, participants appeared to be withdrawing ‘relational goods’, such as affection and closeness, that were previously exchanged between themselves and their partner as a way of encouraging their partner to change. The potential effectiveness of this strategy is supported by some research which has shown that the threat associated with losing relational goods, such as the sense of belonging and

6.3  Third-Party Help-Seeking

83

companionship as well as access to structural resources (e.g. employment), can motivate individuals to stop IPV offending (Giordano et  al., 2015; Walker et  al., 2017; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). Regardless of how participants attempted to establish boundaries within their relationship, overall, it appeared to have been motivated by a desire to regain some level of control within the relationship and communicate to their partners the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. In this way, establishing boundaries could be viewed as a counterstrategy to compliance. However, these strategies frequently co-occurred. For example, although Harriet said she stayed out later than her curfew, she also said she never organised her own social events because it would make him angry. Further, though Elsie and a number of other participants told their partners that particular behaviours were unacceptable, they did not confront their partners about all of the abuse and violence they were experiencing. Among participants, there was an understanding of how far they could push their partner before violence and abuse became more likely to occur.

6.3 Third-Party Help-Seeking The final group of strategies used by participants involved reaching out to third parties. Third parties included family and friends of participants and their partners, statutory services (e.g. the police, IPV services and child protection) and relationship counselling.

6.3.1 Talking to Friends and Family Approximately one in two participants said that they had spoken to their friends or family members while they were still partnered to seek advice and support about the abuse being perpetrated against them. However, for many of these participants, help-seeking strategies occurred later in the relationship, often as part of planning to leave their partner. It was less common for participants to report that they disclosed the abuse to their friends and family members at earlier stages of their relationship. Where this did occur, women spoke about doing so as a means of mitigating their partner’s attempts to socially isolate them, as well as ensuring that help-seeking options were still available to them if they did decide to leave the relationship later on (see Case Study 1). Reasons identified by participants for not discussing the violence and abuse with their friends and families during the earlier stages of their relationship, or at any stage, included: • The absence of close, loving relationships with their families • Shame related to the abuse

84

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

• Feelings that they were in some way to blame for the violence or that they would be blamed for the abuse • Concerns that if they disclosed the abuse their partner would harm them or their families/friends • Concerns that they would not be believed • Concerns that they would upset or distress their family members if they told them For several participants, asking friends and family members for help and support was made more difficult because of the nature of the violence and abuse within their relationship – particularly social isolation, interfering with their relationships and gaslighting (see Chap. 5). For example, when asked whether she had told her family about the abuse, Lucy explained that she had not because her partner had manipulated her into believing that her family did not support their relationship, which negatively impacted her relationships with them. As demonstrated in the below extract, Nicole had experienced a similar pattern of gaslighting within her relationship, which had negatively impacted her relationship with her mother and the frequency of contact that she had with her. He had this… rhetoric that I had hit him in front of my mother, and she saw, and she was disgusted in me. And he kept saying this over and over…I’d look at him and go, ‘What? What are you talking about?’ And he kept – he almost had me convinced. And then I had this contact with my mother, you know, I treaded very carefully. We’re still a little bit distant, but better. I said to her ‘Did I ever hit him in front of you?’ It was so bizarre. And she’s like ‘No?’ And then she cracked up laughing… and I said, ‘Well he says I did’. And she goes ‘No, it never happened’. And I’m like ‘Oh, OK.  Good’. (Nicole, age unknown, Desistance)

However, several participants noted that even prior to meeting their partner, their relationship with family members had been strained, making it difficult for participants to talk to them about the abuse and violence experienced during their relationship. This was particularly notable for participants like Kate, Estelle, Olivia, Chelsea and Penny, who reported that they had experienced abuse or neglect within their families of origin. This historical child abuse had significant ramifications for the closeness of their relationships with family members as adults, as well as their perceived ability to speak to their families about the violence within their own relationships. Interestingly, a number of the women who said they had not spoken to their family or friends about the abuse within their relationship said that they did not think they would be believed or that they would have been blamed for the abuse because their partner did not look like a stereotypical abuser. This was certainly the experience of Clara, Dimity, Jo, Bella, Olivia and Tasmin. These participants described their partners as diminutive, meek, gentle, soft-spoken or charming, and said their families and/or friends got along well with their partner. As demonstrated in the quote below from Dimity, in these situations, it was difficult for women to disclose the abuse they were experiencing. You think you know the perpetrator; you think they’re going to have devil claws and you think, I never really liked that guy. And actually… it’s actually quite difficult…because you

6.3  Third-Party Help-Seeking

85

probably shared a few glasses of red wine with that person, you got on really well…my ex is actually quite charismatic. You know, there’s a reason I was attracted to him. He comes across as a really affable, nice guy. And in the right social setting, he is. But there’s a whole other side that, you know, other people don’t see. And so, it’s confronting for them, because he’s a nice guy. [Others may be thinking] ‘I’ve had him in my house, we had a great chat, a great laugh, great joke over a glass of merlot or shiraz or whatever’. And you think you know who is good and who is bad, and it doesn’t fit, tally, with what you think, so it’s very confronting for people. (Dimity, 47 years old, Persistence)

Even at the point of planning to leave the relationship and afterwards, women often did not disclose the abuse or violence to their friends and families. Instead, they asked for help to leave the relationship, which may have involved accessing financial assistance, accommodation and/or legal support and childcare. This highlights that for many women, the above-listed barriers to speaking about the violence and abuse were not resolved even after they left the relationship.

6.3.2 Talking to the Partner’s Friends and Family Few participants reported that they had spoken to their partner’s friends or family to seek advice and support to end the violence while they were still partnered. This was for many of the reasons outlined in the section above, although the primary reason was strained or poor relationships with their partner’s family members. While in many situations, their partner’s mother was particularly hostile and reluctant to engage with participants, it was commonly reported that other family members, such as fathers-in-law and the partner’s siblings, were rude, distant or even aggressive towards participants as well.1 For example, Penny reported that her partner’s entire family had refused to meet her or have her in their house at any stage during her relationship with her partner, even after she fell pregnant with their child. Similarly, Stacey said that when she moved in with her partner, his mother was very rude to her and demanded that she keep their living arrangements secret in case he lost access to his welfare payments. Participants were often unsure why their partner’s family members, particularly mothers-in-law, were hostile towards them. However, Anne hypothesised that her mother-in-law disliked her and had attempted to break them up on numerous occasions because she was aware of how ‘messed up’ her son was and so was potentially trying to protect her from his violence. When asked whether her mother-in-law knew about the abuse within the relationship, Anne was unsure but noted that her partner’s previous girlfriend had left him abruptly. Anne hypothesised that this event may have alerted his mother to his potential for abusive behaviours, as well as his violence and aggression towards others. Interestingly, consistent with Anne’s

 A small number of participants reported that their fathers-in-law had perpetrated abuse against them while they were with their partner. For example, Leslie spoke about an incident where her father-in-law threw a heavy glass vase at her head. 1

86

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

experiences, several other participants who had strained relationships with their partner’s families said that the abuser had been violent towards a former intimate partner. This suggests that even prior to being confronted with evidence of the abuse perpetrated against participants specifically, the partner’s family members may have been at least aware of their capacity to be abusive towards intimate partners. Alison, Macey, Imogen, Elsie and Daisy all reported that they had a positive relationship with at least some members of their partner’s families, and these relationships were viewed as important sources of support while they were still partnered with the abuser. However, even in these situations, it was rare that participants would seek active help from these families or disclose the abuse they were experiencing. A small number of participants spoke about a shared understanding between themselves and their partners’ families, where the abuse was never acknowledged openly, but family members would attempt to provide support where they could. For example, Imogen reported that during her relationship, her partner’s father was very supportive and would check in on her at regular intervals to see how she was. Elsie also said that her boyfriend’s sister was a close friend and a source of emotional support during her relationship. Women who had a positive relationship with their partner’s families primarily attributed their decision not to disclose the violence to respect for the bonds of family loyalty. Further, as demonstrated in this quote from Hannah, there was a recognition that it would be unlikely that the family would ‘side’ with them and so disclosing the abuse could backfire or make things harder within their relationship: No. No I didn’t [talk to his family about the abuse]. And when he was… when he was arrested, his mother complained to my mother and called her up, harassed her, about why no one told her there was anything wrong. And my mum just laughed cos this woman is… there’s no way she would have believed me. Her son is the golden child, and he could do no wrong and there’s no way he would have hurt anyone. (Hannah, 64 years old, Desistance)

Among participants who were aware of or suspected the presence of intergenerational violence within their partner’s family of origin, there was a belief that disclosing their own experiences of IPV would be pointless because these behaviours were accepted or even endorsed by family members. This was certainly Elaine’s view, based on her mother-in-law’s advice to her about how to manage her partner’s aggressive outbursts: Yeah, his mum would always tell me ‘Do not get anyone involved, like, don’t, if something happens, if a fight happens, don’t call anyone, like don’t do anything, don’t leave, you call me and I’ll come here and I’ll sort it out’…She couldn’t control him. And so, I was, like, ‘Well what are you going to do? Like you’re not going to be able to do anything’. And one day he’d thrown all of my stuff out the front and like… yeah, gone crazy. And she came to the house and took all of my things inside and folded them all and put them back in the cupboards. And I dunno, it was just like… she accepted that as well. And that I shouldn’t do anything to… I dunno, make it worse? I dunno. (Elaine, 30 years old, Desistance)

6.3  Third-Party Help-Seeking

87

6.3.3 Relationship Counselling A third of the participants said they had attended relationship counselling with their partner at different points during their relationship to seek support to end the abuse. Some participants reported they had suggested counselling to their partners to improve communication and understanding of the root causes of the abuse. Several participants also said that they were motivated to attend relationship counselling because it would potentially confirm the validity of their concerns and communicate them more effectively to their partner. Although several participants described their partners as willing to take part in relationship counselling sessions, others such as Antonette and Macey reported that their partner had been reluctant to attend and participate. Meanwhile participants like Elsie, Jo and Lisa said their partner had refused to attend at all. This reluctance was attributed in several circumstances to their partner being worried about the counsellor taking the participant’s ‘side’. To mitigate her partner’s concerns, Macey said that they purposefully chose to meet with a male counsellor. However, when this counsellor confronted her partner about his abusive behaviours, he refused to attend another session: He came to the opinion that…the women counsellors were biased and out to get him. So, then I said ‘OK, you choose the counsellor, it can be a male. You organise it’. So, we did go to a very nice man out at [counselling service], saw him a number of times, but again, he came to the conclusion that he was on my side. Cos every time we went, I don’t know how these people do it, but they knew straight away, that he was the problem. I didn’t say anything, like I guess they get to read certain, certain personalities. Anyway, he just thought they were all biased and were all on my side and yeah that’s, in the end that’s what happened. But yeah, we went to quite a few different [counsellors]. (Macey, 50 years old, Persistence)

Even when they did agree to attend, participants reported that their partner would sometimes sabotage sessions, by lying to the counsellor or becoming aggressive and angry. For example, Alison remembered that during their sessions, her husband would rant and scream at both her and the counsellor. Dimity, Lucy and Leslie recounted similar experiences. A small number of participants also reported that they themselves were reluctant to confront their partner about the abuse during the sessions and risk making him angry and aggressive. This, in turn, impaired their own ability to participate in sessions fully and disclose the nature of the violence that was occurring. When reflecting on their experiences in relationship counselling, many participants wondered whether the counsellor they saw were trained to identify IPV and engage appropriately with perpetrators and victims-survivors, and were trauma-­ informed. Consistent with Hannah’s experiences (described in the extract below), several women reported that sessions were not run in a way that maximised their safety and gave them an opportunity to speak openly without fear of repercussion. This meant that they were extremely unmotivated to continue to attend sessions.

88

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate… They [the relationship counsellor] did everything wrong. Everything in the book that you’re not meant to do…you know, saw us together initially and I couldn’t speak because, what was I going to say in front of him? And when the person realised [that he was abusive], was, like, oh shit, but we’d filled out all the appropriate forms, I don’t think they’d been read. The communication between the referrer and the person seeing us was obviously not… done correctly. Oh, it was a disaster. (Hannah, 47 years old, Desistance)

Critically, the majority of women who suggested relationship counselling to their partner were still committed to their relationship continuing. For these participants, relationship counselling was viewed as a positive option for seeking support without risking negative consequences associated with the other third-party help-­seeking options, including informal (friends and family) and formal (e.g. police and domestic violence services) avenues. Of particular relevance to these participants was the ability to discuss the issues within the relationship with an unbiased mediator in a private setting, and the absence of legal consequences and judgement for choosing to remain within the relationship. For example, Grace noted that she was able to convince her husband to attend counselling because he knew that speaking about their relationship in that setting would not have legal consequences for him. A: While he understands that it’s a crime [IPV], he understands that… in a way he’s quite safe. He knows I won’t push, like I would never actually say that in a situation that lets him get into trouble for it. Q: So, he doesn’t think that you would go to the police? A: Oh, he knows I would never do that. And I think that was fairly apparent to him and he realised that, whilst it was something that he’d done that was really wrong, that wasn’t where I was at. And I wasn’t after anything else. So that I think that made it a bit easier for him as well. Q: That he knew this was a process that you guys could do together, as opposed to if he stepped out of line, you would bring down the law on him and that kind of thing. So, you think that made it easier for him? A: *Affirmative noise*. (Grace, 45 years old, Desistance).

However, relationship counselling was often explicitly or implicitly offered by participants to their partners as an alternative to other more negative or impactful strategies that they could implement to keep themselves safe and bring about desistance, such as ending the relationship or contacting the police or child protection services. In this way, relationship counselling was a precursor strategy for women escalating their involvement in more formal third-party help-seeking or leaving the relationship – i.e. withdrawing relational goods.

6.3.4 Government and Non-government Services: The Police and Domestic Violence and Child Protection Services Consistent with a large body of other research (Ameral et  al., 2020; Choi et  al., 2018; Sabina & Ho, 2014), the majority of participants reported that they had not engaged with a government or non-government agency, such as the police or child protection services, while they were still in the relationship with their partner (see

6.3  Third-Party Help-Seeking

89

Table 6.1). Women again cited several of the reasons described in the sections above to explain why they did not contact these agencies, including shame and embarrassment, concerns about not being believed or being blamed for the violence, and being pressured to leave their partner when they did not feel ready to do so. Other barriers to reporting to government and non-government agencies that were identified by participants included concerns about children being removed from their care, being charged as a perpetrator of violence (in situations where they had engaged in self-­ defensive or retaliatory violence) and a lack of awareness or understanding of the accessibility of these services and what they would be able to do for them. For many participants, contacting formal services was not considered an option while they were still partnered with the abuser, because doing so was inconsistent with their primary strategies for managing the violence – compliance and avoiding triggers. Reflecting on an experience where she came into contact with the police while running away from her partner who had assaulted her, Kate said that even when actively encouraged by the police to report the violence, she refused because she was concerned about upsetting him: I was probably so cowed by that time I wouldn’t have gone to the police anyway. Like, as I said, I ran out the door and ran straight into a random-breath testing unit. Had it been up to me, I would have wiped up my tears and gone on my way, thank you very much. Because I was afraid of what he would do, thinking I’d called the police. (Kate, 42 years old, Persistence)

Harriet similarly decided against making a formal complaint to the police,2 despite their encouragement, after her partner punched her in the face because she was concerned that he would be angry with her for disclosing the abuse. Although the majority of participants did not engage in formal third-party help-­ seeking during the course of their relationship, there was a small group of women who did. For most of these women, they first contacted these agencies towards the end of their relationship as part of their process for leaving their partner. Participant contact with formal agencies was primarily focused on securing the necessary resources to leave the relationship safely. For example, an IPV service that Bethany started to engage with towards the end of her relationship  organised removalists who could help her move her belongings when she was ready to flee. In some situations, contact with formal services triggered the end of the relationship, whether this was intended or not. For example, Ruby, Jess and Nicole noted that calling the police for the first time in their relationship initiated a series of events that resulted in the dissolution of the relationship shortly thereafter. However, for other women, their contact with formal services started earlier in their relationship, with the intention that these third-party agencies would assist them in bringing about the desistance of the abuse they were experiencing. For example, Imogen said that she contacted the police after her partner was physically

 Harriet’s experiences of IPV preceded pro-arrest policies within many Australian police agencies, and so the police response was dependent on the victim/survivor making a complaint. 2

90

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

violent towards her for the first time and he was arrested and charged with assault. She then contacted the police every time he was violent towards her thereafter during her 7-year relationship. She said that this was her way of establishing boundaries within her relationship and communicating to her partner that his behaviour was unacceptable. Similarly, Hannah reported her husband’s abuse towards herself and their three children to child protection services and then actively participated in the subsequent investigations and court trial. She said she did so because she wanted to ‘shock’ him into agreeing to participate in anger management treatment to address his behaviours. Further, Lucy applied for a protection order against her husband after he threatened to harm her father as a way of encouraging him to change his behaviours. She recalled: I went to court to get the [order], even though he was supposed to go to court as well. But he was like, ‘I’m not going; I’m not going to be seen there’. So, he didn’t contest it, it just went through because he wasn’t there. And then in the fall-out of all that stuff, he’s like ‘Your fake [order], like it’s all bullshit. You just used that so that you could leave [coastal town]’ and I was like, ‘No cos I actually hadn’t fully decided to leave you, I was just seeing if this would help change things’. (Lucy, 33 years old, Persistence)

It emerges from the foregoing examples that participants such as Lucy, Imogen and Hannah were attempting to increase the actual and potential costs associated with the abusive behaviours (as perceived by their partner), which researchers have suggested can be critical for initiating desistance processes (Maruna, 2001; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). In addition to the removal of relational goods (as discussed above), this could include criminal charges, prosecution and sanctions. Alternatively, for another group of participants, proactive engagement with formal services throughout their relationships was motivated by a desire to create a ‘paper trail’ of the abuse and violence they were experiencing. Although these women said they did not want or expect anything to happen immediately as a result of their reports (e.g. their partner being charged with IPV-related offences), they were planning to use their contacts with these agencies for legal purposes, including applying for  protection orders or primary custody of their children, if they ever separated from their partner. This strategy is reflected in this excerpt from Mary’s interview: I got in the habit of going up to the telephone box, which was on the road, and ringing the [local domestic violence service] and telling them. I’d say, ‘This has just happened’, you know, ‘He’s locked us out of the house over whatever incident’. They’d record it all and…they’d say, ‘What do you want to do?’ And I’d say, ‘Well I just want to go back to my bed, I just wanna go home’. So, I was happy telling them. I actually told [my son] this the other day and he was quite surprised. I said, ‘Did you know that every time he did that, every time he locked us out’ and that would have been for at least two years that I can remember, ‘that I went and rang the domestic violence counsellor?’ (Mary, 72 years old, Desistance)

Interestingly, a small number of women said that on at least one occasion during their relationship they had contacted the police about the abuse but for various reasons did not follow through on making a complaint. For example, Laura

6.4  Differences in Strategies Used by Participants Who Experienced Persistence…

91

remembered that after an incident of physical violence, she went to her local police station and asked for advice about what would happen if she reported the abuse she was experiencing. However, she ultimately decided against making a statement because her partner’s mother was unwell, and she did not want to make it harder for him to see her. Leslie similarly made inquiries with the police after a distressing episode of sexual violence but decided against pressing charges: I remember once… I contacted the police afterwards, after he made me orally… really denigrated me. And I phoned the police one morning. I didn’t know where to go, I just got in my car and drove around. And they said, ‘Do you want to come in and make a statement?’ I couldn’t do it. I think I just put it all in a little box and threw it away. (Leslie, 50 years old, Persistence)

Overall, for many participants, third-party help-seeking was not their primary strategy for keeping themselves safe and/or supporting their partner to desist while they were still in a relationship with the abuser. Primarily, women began to engage with their friends, family members and formal third-party agencies when they were planning to end the relationship and they needed tangible resources and support to achieve this safely. However, two third-party help-seeking strategies were more likely to be implemented earlier within the relationship – engaging with the abuser’s friends/family members and relationship counselling. These strategies were often deployed by women while they were still motivated to remain partnered with their abuser and were seeking support to address the violence and abuse. This suggests that the selection of strategies designed to initiate or support desistance processes was informed in part by the women’s readiness to leave the relationship and their commitment and emotional attachment to their partner.

6.4 Differences in Strategies Used by Participants Who Experienced Persistence and Desistance As described in the previous chapter, a key difference between participants in the Desistance and Persistence cohorts was that participants in the former group were less likely to report they were financially dependent on their partners. Instead, it was more common for participants in the Desistance group to be the primary breadwinner in their households or to have similar earning power to their partners. I hypothesised that the ability of women to bargain within their relationships and effect change might be impacted by their relative economic status within the relationship. This, in turn, may influence the nature of the strategies selected, as well as their perceived impact. Interestingly, there was some evidence that women in the Desistance group were more likely to use specific strategies than in the Persistence group. As shown in Table 6.1, participants whose partners’ violence either stopped or decreased significantly frequently reported that they engaged in strategies aimed at encouraging the

92

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

abuser to change their behaviour and third-party help-seeking. For example, establishing boundaries within the relationship was commonly reported and was occasionally reinforced through formal support services like the police. Furthermore, 40% of participants in the Desistance group reported that they had attended relationship counselling with their partner, compared to 28% in the Persistence group. Critically, as described briefly above, many of these women reported that they had had to bargain with their partners to participate in these counselling sessions, primarily by threatening to withdraw relational goods or by escalating their contact with formal support services (e.g. making a compliant to the police) if they did not attend. Additionally, it was more common for women in the Desistance group to report that they had engaged with formal support services like child protection and IPV services (67% vs. 56%). There are various explanations for these observed differences in the nature of strategies participants used to support the desistance of their partner’s abusive behaviours. For example, it could be attributable to the level of risk associated with engaging in these strategies, as perceived by participants. As described in Chap. 5, compared to the Desistance group, participants in the Persistence group reported higher levels of coercive controlling behaviours and that their partner had been violent towards others, not just them. These variations in the trajectories and/or severity of violence and abuse experienced by women across the two groups could, in turn, mean that the level of fear or concern that participants had about violent reprisals if they engaged in particularly confronting strategies was similarly variable. Perhaps interwoven with women’s level of perceived risk and the nature of the violence and abuse being perpetrated against them was the relative power that participants had in the relationship, as related to their economic status. Because participants in the Desistance group were more likely to be financially secure and not dependent on their partners, they may have been more willing to risk upsetting their partner by directly confronting them and challenging their behaviours (e.g. by asking them to attend relationship counselling) because they believed that they could leave if they wanted to, and also held the belief that their expectations of what was appropriate within the relationship were acceptable. Case Study 3: Leslie’s Story Leslie started dating Michael when she was 17, and he was in his early 20s. Leslie came from a troubled background. She described her father as an alcoholic and said she had witnessed him being violent and abusive towards her mother. Her relationship with her brothers was also strained because they had been physically abusive towards her during their childhood. Leslie described Michael as ‘amazing’ when they first started dating and said he seemed to genuinely care about her. Michael and Leslie got engaged before she graduated from school, which coincided with her mother forcing her to move out of home when she was 18. At this point, Leslie dropped out of school and moved in with Michael. (continued)

6.4  Differences in Strategies Used by Participants Who Experienced Persistence…

93

Once they were living together, Michael started to control Leslie’s movements and activities. Leslie was expected to cook and clean the house in accordance with his strict instructions, and he refused to take her out to bars and nightclubs despite her requests that he do so. This was primarily because he was worried about the attention she might receive from other men. He was also emotionally abusive towards her, telling her that she was ugly. She didn’t have many friends and became very isolated. Michael was also sporadically violent towards Leslie. For example, he punched her shortly after they got married when she was in her early 20s and would push her up against walls and twist her arms. In addition to the physical violence and emotional abuse, Leslie said that Michael was sexually violent. By the end of the relationship, Michael was raping Leslie almost every night, and she described their sexual encounters as ‘rough’ and ‘degrading’. Another form of violence reported by Leslie was financial abuse. Michael withheld information about the household finances, refusing to allow Leslie to access any bank accounts other than a shared one that held a small amount of money. Despite Leslie being the primary carer for their two children and only being casually employed in low-paid jobs (e.g. babysitting), other than the mortgage repayments, Michael refused to pay any of the household bills or for any expenses related to the care of their children. This was despite Michael working full-time as a skilled tradesman. Leslie recounted that to pay for groceries, she would work multiple jobs and occasionally ask for assistance from her parents. Although Leslie was never sure how much money Michael was earning, she noted that he would often purchase things for himself and flaunt them in front of his family, while she and the children were sharing or even skipping meals entirely. Michael would also become furious and abusive towards Leslie whenever she used ‘his’ money to purchase groceries. I remember one day we had a joint account, and... I used it. I spent $10 because we had no milk, we had no, like, little food in the house…And he came home, and he just ripped into me. I really don’t have, a memory of that incident. Like other than he was really angry, and I couldn’t say what really happened. Like, I don’t know whether he hit me, but I couldn’t say whether he did or didn’t.

At two points in the relationship, Leslie seriously considered leaving Michael. However, both times she felt trapped because she could not see how she could leave and financially support herself and her children. These financial barriers became more pressing when her first child was diagnosed with autism, which impacted her ability to maintain steady employment due to her carer responsibilities. When she became pregnant with her second child, she made a conscious decision to stay in the relationship and dedicate her life to making Michael happy. (continued)

94

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

Over the years, Michael’s abuse towards Leslie continued. However, Leslie said of herself, ‘I never fought back [against Michael]. I never stood up for myself. I never argued a point, I just did whatever I could to keep the peace. I was the peacekeeper’. Leslie was fully compliant with Michael’s demands, even when his controlling behaviours and sexual violence escalated.  When considering why she had not challenged Michael more, Leslie reflected that during her childhood, she had been abused, and so she had a low opinion of herself and also believed that these behaviours were, to some extent, normal. Furthermore, she reflected that when she decided to stay with Michael, due to the obvious financial barriers, she believed she had at that point revoked the right to complain about Michael’s behaviour and should instead be compliant with his demands. One day, Leslie was diagnosed with a serious illness that was in part caused by Michael’s sexual violence towards her. When she came home and told Michael, he reportedly patted her on the back and said ‘You'll be fine, but who is going to look after me?’ It was at that point Leslie decided to end the relationship. After leaving, Leslie and her children were homeless for an extended period of time and were constantly moving between her parents’ and friends’ houses to avoid Michael, who was attempting to find them. There were serious concerns that Michael would kill Leslie and the children and then himself. At the time of the interview (13 years later), Leslie believed that Michael was not a threat to her safety anymore. Although the abuse had had a significant impact on Leslie, she had remarried and was very happy.

6.5 The Impact of Strategies: Views of Participants The efficacy of strategies utilised by participants to protect themselves and bring about longer-term behavioural change in their partners was mixed. In particular, looking across the experiences of women in the sample, it was apparent that no one strategy was effective in all circumstances and situations. The strategies of compliance, or being the perfect partner, and avoiding triggers were identified by participants as being the most effective in terms of reducing the frequency and severity of violence and abuse in their relationships. This was consistent across both groups, highlighting that the relative economic status of participants may have influenced the nature of strategies selected, but potentially not their effectiveness in all situations. Among women who identified compliance and avoiding triggers within their relationship as their main strategies, a number viewed themselves as ‘managing’ their partner’s behaviours and emotional states on a day-­ to-­day basis. The threat of violence was always present within the relationship, but they had ‘learned’ how to avoid or mitigate their partner’s potential for more serious violence most of the time. For a small number of participants, compliance and avoiding triggers were identified as directly contributing to a significant de-escalation or the complete cessation

6.5  The Impact of Strategies: Views of Participants

95

of particular forms of violence within their relationships. For example, Elaine attributed a 12-month respite from her partner’s escalating physical violence against her to her being ‘absolutely perfect’ (see Case Study 5), while Chelsea said that the physical violence within her relationship decreased for a 7-year period because she did exactly what her partner told her to do (see Case Study 6). However, the cessation or de-escalation of physical violence experienced by Chelsea and Elaine and other women in the sample was typically replaced with higher levels of controlling behaviours by their partner and/or sexual violence. This suggests that even when compliance was perceived by women to have been effective in reducing the violence they were experiencing, it did not completely resolve all the forms of abuse within their relationship. Variation in the trajectories of different forms of violence and abuse within participants’ relationships is discussed in more depth in the next chapter. In comparison, participants reported that strategies aimed at changing their partner’s behaviours were ineffective in bringing about a long-term reduction or cessation of the violence and abuse. In particular, women who attempted to talk to their partner about the violence and its impact frequently reported experiences of denial, aggression and anger and their partner gaslighting them into believing that they were responsible for the violence. That said, talking to her partner about the violence appears to have been effective for Alison, who attributed this strategy to a 3-year period of complete cessation in the violence and abuse. She reflected that this period was the ‘most positive’ they had experienced during their marriage, and she described the complete resumption of a close and loving relationship. The circumstances surrounding Alison’s relationship and some possible explanations for why this strategy may have been effective in her situation are described in Case Study 7. A small number of participants reported that establishing boundaries had a minor but positive impact on the violence they were experiencing. For example, Elsie said that early on in her relationship, she told her partner that he was not allowed to punch things near her and threatened to leave him if he did. He did desist from this behaviour for the remainder of their relationship (approximately 7 years) but persisted with other forms of non-physical abuse (see Chap. 7). Yvette reported that the re-establishment of boundaries of acceptable behaviour within her relationship  – bolstered by a protection order and her decision to initiate divorce proceedings (which at the time of her interview had been cancelled)  – had led to a 6-month period of no physical or sexual violence that was still ongoing at the time of interview. Further, Zoe reported that her decision not to have sex with her partner anymore resulted in the cessation of sexual violence within her relationship, although this may have been because he convinced her to agree to an open relationship and he started having sex with someone else. However, for a larger group of participants, establishing boundaries was identified as being a largely ineffective at keeping themselves safe and bringing about an end to the abuse. This was particularly notable among women whose partners had insecure attachment styles and so may have interpreted this strategy as women withdrawing from the relationship or their affection and love more generally (Mahalik

96

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

et al., 2005; McDermott & Lopez, 2013). Again, several women including Olivia, Paula, Daisy, Estelle, Ruby, Stacy, Harriet and Anne said that when they attempted to establish boundaries, their partner would become violent and aggressive as a means of keeping them close. As demonstrated below in the exchange with Harriet, violence even occurred in response to relatively minor attempts to establish boundaries within the relationship, such as attempting to sleep in another room for one night. When he came home, I didn’t want to go to bed, cos he was always so angry. So I didn’t want to go to bed, I didn’t want to have any interaction with him. And that made him cranky as well. So, then that, he would get up [and] go… ‘Why are you staying up so late? Someone else must be getting it [sex] cos I’m not’. And it was always… there was always a reason why it was my fault. And if I didn’t want to go to bed with him, I would go into bed with the girls. And then he would start dragging me out by the hair. For what? Just so he could yell at me more? I don’t know. (Harriet, 58 years old, Persistence)

Notably, many women said that an increase in their partner’s use of violence against them in the context of establishing boundaries often had the desired effect – they would return to the relationship or start to relax the ‘rules’ or standards they had attempted to establish (e.g. sleeping in separate bedrooms, not paying their partner’s debts). The perceived effectiveness of third-party help-seeking strategies differed depending on the source of support, as well as the timing of help-seeking and the purpose of the engagement. For example, a number of participants reported that reaching out to their friends and family members and formal services such as the police, IPV services and legal supports had been critical for assisting them to leave abusive relationships. However, when participants engaged in third-party help-­ seeking to support their partner to change their behaviour, experiences of victim-­ blaming, denial and minimisation of the violence and the empowerment of abusers were common. For example, no participant who reached out to their partner’s friends and family members said that this had the desired effect of enlisting their support to end the violence. Instead, women consistently reported that they were told by their partner’s friends and family members that the violence was their fault or that it had not happened. For example, after the violence in her relationship had escalated to physical abuse, Dimity contacted her husband’s siblings to ask for their assistance with his behaviour. In response, his sister said that it was Dimity’s fault her brother had become violent because she had prioritised her career over his happiness. Similarly, Genevieve contacted her partner’s father when the abusive behaviours were becoming more frequent, and in response, he told her it was her fault for marrying him in the first place: When we first moved back to [small country town and] it was all getting a bit curly, I rang his brother, who he’s really close with, in Northern Ireland and said ‘[my partner] and I are not in a good space, you know, I think we’re kind of coming into a break-up. He really needs one of you guys over here. Can someone in the family come over and just be here with him? He’s really unhappy, I’m really unhappy. I’m afraid of what’s going to happen’. I got an email back from his dad saying that I was overreacting, that I knew that [partner] had an anger control issue when I married him, basically. And, in short, saying, you know, you’ve made your bed, now lie in it. (Genevieve, 45 years old, Desistance)

6.5  The Impact of Strategies: Views of Participants

97

Victim-blaming attitudes and denial among partner’s family members were particularly notable when intergenerational violence was present in the partner’s family of origin (see previous chapter). For example, a number of participants reported that their mothers-in-law would compare their own experiences of violence with those of participants and minimise its severity, telling them they were overreacting. This is highlighted in this exchange between Alison and her mother-in-law: One time in particular I remember, and he left, and his mother called me and said, ‘I don’t know what you’re complaining about. At least he’s never hit you’…‘You should just be, you know, trying to make it work, because he’s a good man’. And I said to her, you know, cos we were quite close, and I said you know ‘While I value your opinion…I don’t believe that this behaviour is appropriate around anybody, be it partners, be it children’. I said, ‘I don’t want my children to grow up in the same environment that you allowed your children to grow up in’. And I said, and ‘I’m not prepared to wait around until he does hit me to find out’. (Alison, 40 years old, Desistance)

There was consistent evidence that many of the abusers described by participants were in contact with family members who denied that the violence and abuse was occurring or minimised its impact. Certainly, several women, including Lucy, Elaine and Alison, reported that their partner’s families had either explicitly or implicitly encouraged them to acquiesce to their partner’s demands and emphasised the men’s ‘good’ natures. However, it was not only the families of abusers who were empowering men to minimise the violence and abuse and their culpability for the violence and its impact. Several women said they had similar responses from their own family members when they disclosed the abuse they were experiencing. For example, Antonette said that when she disclosed the violence to her parents, during the process of leaving her partner, her mother chastised her for being a poor housekeeper and suggested that this was why her partner had been violent towards her. Furthermore, Danielle said that after she left her partner for the first time, she told her family what had happened, and they ‘sided’ with him because they felt sorry for him. She attributed her subsequent decision to reconcile with him primarily to the lack of family support that she had received during their 3-month separation. Lastly, when Lisa attempted to speak to her friend about the escalating abuse within her marriage, the friend dismissed her concerns, saying that ‘all couples fight sometimes’. In addition, a small number of women reported that relationship counsellors had empathised with the abuser, minimising the violence or blaming the participants for the violence occurring in the first place. Harriet, for example, reported that a counsellor had told her that she was partially to blame for the violence because she ‘mothered’ her husband. After recounting an incident where her partner had physically assaulted her, Tasmin said that her relationship counsellor had told her that it would likely not happen again, but to not ‘fight’ him if it did because it would only make the violence worse. Dimity similarly reflected that her relationship counsellor had made her feel like she could not intervene when her husband was abusing their children because doing so was undermining his parenting: So, we did counselling for a while and it sort of worked, but I sort of found, with the counselling, because he was willing to talk, I think he got more voice disproportionately, like, I

98

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate… didn’t feel like I had a voice. And it also, sort of, validated his voice in ways I didn’t particularly like. For instance, he made a strong point that, as the father, that I was undermining his parenting and his disciplining of the children. And, therefore, I should be more respectful to give him the role, which I felt then diminished my ability to protect my kids, if he was angry and swearing. (Dimity, 47 years old, Persistence)

Similarly, several participants including Elaine, Dimity, Pat, Lucy and Kate reported that police officers had minimised the violence and abuse they experienced, which in turn impacted their understanding of the violence and even reconfirmed their commitment to the relationship. As noted in Chaps. 2 and 3, some desistance researchers (see Laub & Sampson, 1993, 2001; Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Warr, 1998) have emphasised the importance of offenders  – particularly those whose criminal behaviours are group- or location-based  – ‘knifing off’ contact with individuals who may sabotage their desistance journeys by encouraging them to continue to engage in crime or providing opportunities to do so. This is certainly consistent with broader criminological research, which has noted the role of deviant peer associations in the development of criminal identities (Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000; Edwards et  al., 2020; Wojciechowski, 2018). Although IPV is typically perpetrated by individuals rather than groups, it appears that for many participants, their partners’ behaviours and their ability to dismiss the concerns raised by them were reinforced and validated by others, including family members and professionals (e.g. the police and relationship counsellors). To support desistance processes, male abusers may need to ‘knife off’ contact with family members and friends3 who serve to justify and minimise their behaviours and reaffirm their visions of themselves as non-violent. Alternatively, there may be benefit in engaging family members in interventions targeted at abusers to challenge and dismantle their own attitudes and beliefs that support and reinforce IPV behaviours. Recognition of the role of extended family members, peer networks and community members more generally in reinforcing and challenging gendered attitudes and norms that may lead to IPV has led to increasing interest in ‘whole of family’ responses to IPV. Whole-of-family interventions encourage the family members of abusers to participate in programs targeted at reducing IPV, not simply the victim/survivor or the perpetrator in isolation (see, e.g. Stanley & Humphreys, 2017). Similarly, various bystander (or actionist) programs have been implemented in Australia and overseas, with the aim of empowering individuals to

 This finding raises an important question, regarding the ability of IPV abusers to not only knife themselves off from family members and others who may condone their behaviours (or at least ignore them), but also from patriarchal societal norms that endorse and support traditional gender roles and male dominance generally. As noted in previous sections of this book, an underlying driver of IPV and other forms of violence against women is gender inequity, which is pervasive, including in Australia. Traditional MBCPs, underpinned by the Duluth model, have attempted to deal with the role of patriarchal norms in IPV, by educating abusers about gender inequity and supporting them to change their gender normative attitudes that may condone or support their use of violence against women. However, that these programs have consistently been found to no impact on reoffending among abusers perhaps indicates the difficulties associated with unlearning patriarchal ideologies (see, e.g. Wilson et al., 2021). 3

6.5  The Impact of Strategies: Views of Participants

99

both challenge their own attitudes towards gendered norms but also challenge the views of others that may condone or support violence against women (Banyard et al., 2020; Coker et al., 2017). Even in situations where relationship counsellors and government and non-­ government agencies did not explicitly or implicitly blame participants for the violence or minimise the violence, the impact of these strategies on women’s safety and longer-term behavioural change was mixed. Several participants reported that relationship counselling led to their partners becoming very aggressive and angry during sessions and for a period afterwards. Women attributed this to their partner being uncomfortable with being confronted with their negative behaviours. Furthermore, some participants said that calling the police made the violence worse for a short period of time, with abusers reportedly ‘punishing’ their partners for breaking the rules by contacting the police or applying for a protection order. In addition, several men reportedly made their partners feel guilty about calling the police or applying for protection orders, which they then used to manipulate and abuse their partners. However, a small number of women reported that relationship counselling had assisted them in managing the violence on a day-to-day basis, as well as reduce the violence they were experiencing. Grace, in particular, reported that relationship counselling was the primary means by which she was able to support her husband to significantly reduce his sexually violent behaviour towards her. She attributed this to the counsellor confirming her assertions that sexual violence within marriage was a crime, as well as assisting them in establishing rules around sexual contact within the relationship, particularly relating to consent. Critically, for Grace, the effectiveness of counselling may have been attributable to the skills of the counsellor, who was able to directly challenge her partner’s view of the violence. Furthermore, as described by Grace, she believed that the violence she was experiencing was not driven by a desire to control her, but a ‘means to an end’ – her partner was fixated on having more children with her and so used sexual and physical violence as means of achieving this. Potentially, in this situation, Grace’s partner was more likely deterred by the threat of legal sanction if he did not stop being violent towards her because his violent behaviours were not motivated by an underlying desire for control and dominance over her, but a seemingly ‘rational’ goal – procreation. Crucially, only one participant said that calling the police had a positive impact on IPV desistance processes. Imogen reported that her decision to contact the police after the first incident of violence caused a 6-year period of non-violence, which only resumed once her partner lost his job because of a back injury. Even for Imogen, however, the strategy of calling the police deteriorated in effectiveness over time, to the point where he was incarcerated for his violence towards her and still persisted in his abuse of her from jail via email and phone. The continuation of violence and abuse, even after partners were incarcerated, was also reported by Lucy and Kate, albeit after the relationship had ended. This brings into question the ability of even extreme measures of target hardening, such as imprisonment, to achieve a complete cessation of violence and abuse within relationships.

100

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

Participants’ experiences of engaging with IPV services were also mixed. Several reported that these services had been invaluable in providing support while they were in the relationship and afterwards, while others said that they had found it difficult to receive support when they needed it. For example, Hannah recounted a frustrating experience where she had contacted an IPV service to seek support to leave the relationship, and the counsellor advised her that she ‘was not ready to leave’ and so was unwilling to provide tangible supports. As Hannah explained: I wanted to be rescued. I called [IPV service], it would have been 15 times over those years. I remember one, I remember lots of conversations, but I remember one conversation, where the person speaking to me said ‘I can hear you’re just not ready. I would be able to get someone to get you out of that house today’, and I’m like ‘Yes, yes, please! Send the moving van’. She said ‘But you’re not ready’ [laughs]. I was like, ‘What do you mean?’ How was I not ready? I don’t understand! I wouldn’t’ve been calling you if I didn’t want to be rescued. I did want someone to just take us away. (Hannah, 47 years old, Desistance)

Yvette also reported that IPV services had been unable to provide her with the assistance she wanted. However in her situation, she said it was because she was committed to remaining with her husband and so wanted support to keep herself safe while she was with him. She said that the services did not have any mechanisms in place to support her while she was in the relationship, and she was told to contact them again if she decided to leave him. There is a lot of support for relationships that want to go their own [separate] way and I found that there’s not a lot of support for relationships that want to stay together. To work through what’s happened, you know, whether that stems back from, you know, he was hit too much as a child or you know, he had a brain injury or whatever. I find that if I ring [IPV service] to sort of ask a few questions to sort of see where I can go – ‘Oh we don’t have that mechanism set up’. Or, ‘we don’t have that support that you need. You need to go somewhere else’. So, there’s a lot of barriers in that regard to try and help us to stay together. (Yvette, 54 years old, Desistance)

6.5.1 Measuring Desistance – What About Deceleration? Overall, only 15 women in the sample reported that they had experienced the desistance of their partner’s violence, that is, the cessation or reduction of the abuse perpetrated against them while the relationship was intact. As described above, in all of these situations, it appeared that participants may have had a key role in bringing about this behavioural change through the strategies they had implemented. The experiences of this group of women, and the mechanisms that may account for the observed behavioural changes, are described in depth in Chap. 7. However, a number of other participants who experienced persistence nevertheless felt that the strategies they had implemented had a positive impact on their partner’s behaviour. More specifically, participants such as Ruby, Kate, Leslie and Pat reported that they might not have had an observable impact on the established patterns of behaviour they were already experiencing but had disrupted patterns of

6.6  Chapter Summary

101

violence and abuse that they believed would have otherwise escalated within their relationships. Among these participants, there was a sense that they had been able to stabilise trajectories of violence and abuse at a level that was ‘manageable’. The level of ‘manageable’ violence within the relationship differed between women. However, participants’ thresholds appeared to be informed by the extent to which they felt they could mitigate the most serious impacts of the violence on themselves and their children. These impacts included children witnessing the abuse and being targeted by their partners, social isolation and being coerced into not participating in external activities, such as employment or study. Although these participants reported that the violence was stable during these periods and believed that they had been effective at disrupting anticipated trajectories of violence, the thresholds they had set for manageable levels of violence shifted at different points in the relationship. The evolving definitions participants used appeared to allow them to reconcile their decision to stay in the relationship with the perceived escalating violence. Certainly, a number of participants indicated that if their partner were to ever physically hurt them, they would leave. However, when the physical violence started, they tended to minimise it as isolated incidents that were not connected to broader patterns of abusive behaviour. What this may suggest is that for some participants, the stabilised patterns of behaviour they believed they were observing may have actually been escalating, albeit slowly, over time. In this way, the impact of the strategies the women employed to disrupt their partner’s abusive behaviours (and thereby promote their apparent desistance) could perhaps be better described as merely delaying escalating trajectories of behaviour rather than disrupting them. This reinforces the importance of viewing desistance as a process, which may involve periods of reduction and cessation, as well as deceleration. By focusing on cessation and reduction, we fail to account for situations in which the offending is less frequent or severe than it might otherwise have been, which could be attributable to a range of factors, including the actions of victims/survivors. However, in these situations the patterns of violence and abuse may look like stabilisation (persistence).

6.6 Chapter Summary Several key findings can be elicited from the above examination of the strategies used by participants to keep themselves safe and also support longer-term desistance processes. First, the strategies selected by participants appeared to be influenced by a number of factors, including their partner’s perceived willingness to change (as demonstrated by expressions of remorse and promises to be non-­violent). Other factors included the relative bargaining power of participants within the relationship, as well as the nature of the violence and abuse they were experiencing. Potentially, participants who were experiencing lower levels of controlling

102

6  Strategies Used by Female Victims-Survivors to Keep Themselves Safe and Initiate…

behaviours and were not financially dependent on their partners were more comfortable risking violent reprisal from their partner by engaging in strategies that may trigger the violence – specifically, strategies focused on the abuser changing their behaviour and third-party help-seeking. Second, the majority of participants reported that the strategies they had implemented did not result in a desired long-term change in the violence and abuse they were experiencing. This could be attributable to a range of factors which are described in Chap. 9. However, although long-term behavioural change may not have been achieved in many of the situations reported by participants, it is critical to remember that women did appear to be effective at preventing the occurrence of IPV incidents and disrupting, delaying or stabilising escalating trajectories of violence and abuse within relationships. This highlights a potential limitation of current desistance research, which focuses on the reduction and cessation of criminal behaviours. By so doing, researchers may underestimate or negate the impact of interventions and processes that have stabilised trajectories of criminal offending that would have otherwise escalated. Third, it is critical to emphasise that not only were participants attempting to keep themselves safe and support long-term behavioural change in situations where their experiences were often minimised and denied, but oftentimes they were the only people in abuser’s lives who were actively attempting to bring about a change in their behaviour. In the absence of the support of friends and family or the involvement of external intervention services – whose responses may have only served to reinforce the violence – women were implementing strategies on a day-to-day basis that, to varying extents, were effective at preventing the occurrence or de-escalating individual incidents of violence and abuse, disrupting emerging or anticipated trajectories of violence and abuse as well as initiating and supporting long-term behavioural change. Taken together, the findings from this chapter indicate that understanding the reasons why desistance may occur within some abusive relationships and not others may require an in-depth analysis of individual dyads. This is the focus of the next chapter.

Chapter 7

The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

As described in the previous chapter, despite the various actions taken by women to de-escalate and mitigate their risk of abuse in the short and longer term, many of their strategies did not bring about the desistance of violence while they were still partnered with their abusers. Thus, the majority of women only experienced a longer period of reduction or cessation in the violence and abuse once they had left the relationship.1 However, 15 women in the sample self-identified that they had experienced a significant reduction or the cessation of the violence perpetrated against them while they were still partnered with their abuser. The periods of desistance ranged from 6 months to 10 years, with a median length of 12 months (Table 7.1). This chapter describes the findings from an in-depth examination of the experiences of these 15 participants, including their understanding and definition of desistance within the context of their relationship and the factors or mechanisms (if any) that may have contributed to the desistance that occurred. Although the primary focus of this chapter is on the narratives of women in the Desistance group, the experiences of participants in the Persistence group are also included for comparison purposes, where relevant.

 It is important to note that, consistent with other research (Humphreys & Thiara, 2003; Monckton Smith, 2019; Zeoli et al., 2013), separation did not bring about an immediate decline in the violence for the majority of participants. Rather, separation often coincided with a significant escalation in the violence and abuse, as well as the onset of other forms. Certainly, several women noted that a significant barrier to leaving the relationship was that they believed the violence would become more frequent and severe once they left, because of their partner’s perceived need to control them. However, all of the participants who were no longer partnered with their abuser at time of interview reported that, post-separation, the violence had de-escalated over an extended period of time and believed that it was ‘better’ than when they were in the relationship and during the immediate post-separation period. 1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_7

103

104

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

Table 7.1  Period of reported desistance, by participant Period of Timing of the start of the Respondent desistance (years) desistance period Antonette 0.5 6 months prior to relationship dissolution Nicole 0.5 At different points within the relationship Yvette 0.5 6 months prior to interview Zoe 0.5 6 months prior to relationship dissolution Bella 1 12 months prior to relationship dissolution Elaine 1 12 months prior to relationship dissolution Hannah 1 At different points within the relationship Tasmin 1 18 months prior to relationship dissolution Genevieve 2 Unclear Alison 3 4 years prior to relationship dissolution Elsie 5 7 years prior to relationship dissolution Imogen 5 6 years prior to relationship dissolution Mary 5 5 years prior to relationship dissolution Chelsea 7 9 years prior to relationship dissolution Grace 10 10 years prior to the interview

Length of Relationship relationship (years) status 10 Former 23

Former

3.5

Current

3.5

Former

3

Former

5

Former

25

Former

7

Former

10 15

Former Former

8

Former

7

Former

33

Former

16

Former

26

Current

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study (2019–2020) [Computer file]

7.1 Defining Desistance Although this study started with a broad definition of desistance – the cessation or reduction of abuse for a minimum period of 6 months while the relationship was intact (see Chap. 4) – participants were also asked to define desistance within the context of their relationship and lived experiences. In particular, using the above definition of desistance as a starting point, participants were asked to describe the behaviours within their relationship which they believed constituted a reduction or the cessation of violence and abuse perpetrated against them. Critically, among participants who reported that desistance had occurred while they were still partnered with their abusers, only three  – Yvette, Genevieve and Alison – said they experienced the complete cessation of all forms of violence and

7.1  Defining Desistance

105

abuse for a period of at least 6 months. Yvette reported that at the time of the interview her partner (who she was still in a relationship with) had not been physically or sexually violent or controlling for the prior 6-month period. Meanwhile, Alison said that for a 3-year period during her relationship, her partner had not been physically or sexually violent towards her nor screamed abuse at her when she had denied his sexual advances (see Case Study 7). Finally, Genevieve reported that her husband was not emotionally abusive towards her for a 2-year period during their relationship. Instead, as shown in Table 7.2, it was more frequently reported by participants that specific dimensions of the abuse had stopped for an extended period of time, while others had persisted, escalated or even started for the first time. For example, Elsie said that her partner stopped hitting and punching things during their relationship for a 5-year period, but that his emotionally abusive and controlling behaviours continued unabated and even escalated. Mary similarly reflected that her partner was not physically violent towards her for a period of 5 years, but his controlling behaviours escalated, including refusing to let her use of family amenities like the car and isolating her from her friends. Further, Bella said that although for the last 12 months of their relationship, her partner was not physically violent towards her, he started to sexually abuse her (see Case Study 4). For Elsie, Mary, Bella and several other women, their definition of desistance was dependent on the cessation of physical (but not including sexual) forms of violence. Critically, in these situations, participants often did not recognise their partner’s non-physical abuse and sexual violence as abusive until after the relationship had ended and so may not have considered this when thinking about whether the violence had changed during their relationship. For other participants, desistance was described as the de-escalation in the frequency or severity of specific forms of violence and abuse. Antonette, for example, reflected that her husband’s physical violence towards her de-escalated for a 6-month period; although he was still violent towards her, she believed that it was less frequent and that he was not attempting to significantly injure her, as he had done previously. As she said, ‘…he was less violent. The most violent thing he did was push me down the stairs and that wasn’t as bad as he’d done at other times, if you know what I mean, it was just a gentle push down the stairs’ (Antonette, 64 years old, Desistance). Further, as described previously Grace’s husband had been sexually violent towards her on a regular basis in an attempt to impregnate her and would become physically violent during these episodes. At the time of the interview, Grace said that her husband had not been physically violent towards her for almost 10 years and that the sexual violence had reduced significantly. However, she noted that occasionally she would agree to have sex with him when she did not want to as a means of mitigating the potential threat of escalating violence if she refused. As shown in Table 7.2, the desistance of violence and abuse experienced by participants differed across the forms of abuse experienced and the women who participated in the study. However, it was fairly consistent that participants reported that the physical violence within the relationship would cease for periods of time, while coercive controlling behaviours, emotionally abusive behaviours or sexual violence

106

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

Table 7.2  Trajectories of violence and abuse, by participant and type of violence and abuse reported Participant Trajectory Cessation Alison Physical violence Sexual violence Emotional abuse Antonette

Bella Chelsea Elaine

Physical violence Physical violence Physical violence

Emotional abuse Genevieve Emotional abuse Grace Physical violence Hannah Physical violence Imogen Physical violence Mary Physical violence Nicole

Reduction

Yvette

Zoe

Physical violence Physical violence Sexual violence Coercive control Sexual violence

Escalation

Onset

Physical violence Emotional abuse Emotional abuse

Sexual violence

Emotional abuse Sexual violence Coercive control Physical Coercive violence control

Elsie

Tasmin

Persistence

Sexual violence Emotional abuse Coercive control Coercive control Coercive control Emotional abuse

Coercive control

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study [Computer file 2019–2020]

7.1  Defining Desistance

107

would start for the first time (onset), were persistent or escalated. The experiences of the women interviewed highlight the difficulty of applying traditional definitions of desistance to IPV. In particular, the complete cessation of all forms of violence and abuse was very rare, and the trajectories described by participants involved various patterns for different types of abuse. In turn, this highlights a limitation of desistance frameworks which do not account for variations in the dynamics associated with different forms of offending behaviours.2

Case Study 4: Bella’s Story Bella and Leon met in their early 20s when they were studying at the same university. Being international students, neither of them had family living close by, but they were both part of a large friendship network. They started as friends and began dating soon after meeting. Bella described the first 6 months as being lovely and that they had frequent conversations about marriage and having children together. She noted that they were both committed to the relationship and expected to be together forever. Six months after the relationship began, Leon started to experience symptoms associated with depression. Bella admitted that neither of them knew how to deal with Leon’s mental health issues. She reflected that there was a lot of shame associated with mental illness in their home countries which meant they were uneducated about the issue. As such, instead of seeking professional treatment, Bella decided to look after Leon herself. As somebody who was the most, you know, his partner, I basically took responsibility of him. And that’s when… because I wasn’t very educated as well with what is depression and mental health and things like that. Because I never experience nor do I have experience with it with my family and anything and obviously myself being Asian as well you know, we don’t really talk about mental health and depression. Things that you just suck up and deal with it.

The violence started as controlling behaviours, including Leon telling Bella what to wear and interfering with her relationships with male friends. He then started to verbally abuse her, calling her names, telling her to kill herself and putting her down. During this period, Bella became fixated on improving Leon’s mental health because she believed that the behaviours were because of his depression and if his mental health improved he would no longer be abusive towards her. One day, Leon hit Bella for the first time which they were both shocked by. However, Leon started hitting,  shoving and slapping Bella more frequently as

 This finding shares some parallels with the current debate in Australia, and internationally, about the inclusion of coercive control in criminal legislation. In particular, several authors have noted that the current focus of criminal justice interventions and law on investigating and preventing IPV incidents fails to account for coercive controlling behaviours which involve changes in patterns of 2

108

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

time went on.  After one incident of violence, a friend who lived next door  – Georgia – said she had heard Leon hitting Bella. Bella tried to minimise the violence, explaining that Leon had depression and the violence was not his fault. Georgia disagreed, telling Bella that Leon was abusive, and that his mental illness was not an excuse for his behaviours. Georgia also disclosed that she had depression herself, and gave Bella some advice about support services that could help Leon to manage his symptoms. After speaking to Georgia, Bella started to encourage Leon to seek help, telling him that mental illness was not something to be ashamed of. However, Leon refused, insisting that nothing was wrong with him. One night, Leon called Bella and threatened to kill her and then himself. At this point, Bella notified a representative at the university, who then escalated the matter to involve mental health services. Both Leon and Bella were referred for mental health counselling, and Leon received a treatment plan. After this incident, Bella decided to stay with Leon, and for the final 12  months of the relationship, Leon did not physically assault Bella again. The threats also stopped, and he no longer called her names and verbally abused her. She attributed the reduction in violence and abuse in part to the treatment he was receiving, which included taking prescribed antidepressant medication. However, although the physical violence and verbal abuse stopped, during this period, Leon began manipulating Bella into having sex with him. Specifically, Leon would tell Bella that she ‘owed’ him for reporting his abuse to the university, as doing so had made his life harder. Bella said that she had sex with Leon because she felt guilty about disclosing the abuse to the university and hoped that by doing so, he would forgive her and not ask her to do it again. Bella felt deep shame related to having sex with Leon as she had always thought that she would not have sex before she was married. I mean there wasn’t any more physical [violence]. But I guess at that time, I’m kind of ashamed to admit it as well, in one way trying to compensate for the troubles that I caused, I, I guess I became more intimate with him than I wanted. Because he kind of say, ‘You did this to me, I deserve, you should be more intimate’.

The sexual violence continued for the rest of their relationship, and she said that on occasions, he was ‘rough’ towards her during sex. After another 12 months, Bella graduated from university, and the relationship ended when she decided to move back home. However, Bella reported feeling conflicted about ending the relationship and that she had at different points been tempted to reconcile with Leon. As she said, ‘I was so, I don’t know, so desperate to want it to work, for him to be…the first and the last man’. However, at the time of the interview, Bella had not spoken to Leon in 6 years and had started to recognise the lasting impact the abuse had on her and her view of relationships.

behaviour over time (McMahon & McGorrery, 2016, 2020; Stark, 2012). Further, many coercive controlling behaviours viewed in isolation may not be perceived as abusive or criminal.

7.1 Defining Desistance

109

7.2 Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours When looking across all 15 cases, no single mechanism could be identified to explain the reduction or cessation of violence and abuse experienced by participants while they were still partnered Instead, at a relationship level, there were several co-occurring factors or elements which cumulatively may have led to the desistance of the violence and abuse (see Table 7.3). However, several desistance mechanisms were identified in multiple relationships described by participants: • • • • • • •

Increasing consequences and risk of detection Capable guardianship and target hardening Appeasement of abuser’s desire for control and dominance Dissolution of the abuser’s attachment to the participant Mitigation of emotional stressors Mitigation of mental health issues that may exacerbate the abuse Evocation of feared selves

7.2.1 Increasing Consequences and Risk of Detection Several participants believed that by increasing the consequences associated with the violence and abuse, they were able to deter their partner from perpetrating abuse. The nature of these threats and their role in behavioural change differed across the sample. For example, Elsie, Alison and Yvette explicitly threatened their partner with relationship dissolution if the violence and abuse persisted. Yvette observed that the persistent threat of divorce had contributed to the cessation of physical and sexual violence and controlling behaviours within their relationship: So, I think he knows that he’s hanging only, you know, his fingernails on the side of the side of the roof, you know. And it’s not gonna take a whole lot for me to just go ‘bzzzt, you’re done. I don’t need you anymore. I’m doing this on my own and I don’t need you’. (Yvette, 54 years old, Desistance)

Alison said that she explicitly told her husband that she would leave and apply for full custody of their children if he did not seek help for his behaviours. This, in combination with a number of other factors, may have contributed to 3 years of non-­ violence within their marriage. Other women attempted to deter their partner from being violent towards them by increasing the perceived or actual risk of the abuse being detected by other parties, including law enforcement, employers and family members and friends. For example, Imogen directly attributed her partner’s desistance to her decision to report the abuse to the police after the first instance of physical violence. She said that she

110

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

Table 7.3  Attributed and possible mechanisms for desistance, by participant Form of violence that reduced/ Participant ceased Alison Physical violence Sexual violence Emotional abuse

Antonette Bella

Physical violence Physical violence

Chelsea

Physical violence

Elaine

Physical violence Emotional abuse

Elsie

Physical violence

Genevieve Emotional abuse Grace

Imogen

Physical violence Sexual violence Physical violence Emotional abuse Physical violence

Mary

Physical violence

Nicole

Emotional abuse Physical violence Physical violence Physical violence Sexual violence Coercive control

Hannah

Tasmin Yvette

Zoe

Sexual violence Emotional abuse

Attributed causes for desistance Feared selves Increase in consequences (relationship dissolution and access to children) Mental health counselling and treatment Dissolution of attachment Increase in consequences (detection) Mental health counselling and treatment Abuser’s need for control and dominance appeased Increase in consequences (physical harm to abuser) Abuser’s need for control and dominance appeased Increase in consequences associated with violence and abuse (relationship dissolution) Feared self Increase in consequences (dissolution of relationship) Abuser’s need for control and dominance appeased Increase in consequences (legal sanctions) Abuser’s need for control and dominance appeased Increase in consequences (legal sanctions) Increase in consequences, risk and effort (physical harm) Abuser’s need for control and dominance appeased Feared selves Increase in consequences (social censure, legal sanctions, relationship dissolution) Feared selves Dissolution of attachment Reduction in time spent together

Did the violence/ abuse re-commence? Yes – all forms

No No

Yes

Yes – all forms

No Yes No Yes – all forms Yes No Yes – emotional abuse only Yes No

No

Source: Ending intimate partner violence study [Computer file 2019–2020]

7.2 Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours

111

believed this event ‘shocked’ him into desistance because he did not believe that she would ever report him for violence. I think he didn’t think I’d go to the police on him. Because I had been the person that he’d rung when he was in trouble and go ‘Imogen, I need saving’. And I’d go and save him. So, I think it was a bit of a shock when I did call the police. (Imogen, 45 years old, Desistance)

Grace similarly believed that the threat of legal sanctions was an important factor that may have contributed to the reduction in sexual violence within her relationship, as well as the cessation of physical violence. Grace reported that her husband, who had emigrated to Australia from Southern Asia, did not believe her when she told him that his violent and abusive behaviours were criminal offences under Australian law. Despite this, she thought that the threat of legal sanction was enough to motivate him to attend relationship counselling with her which was crucial for the desistance of violence within the relationship. The counsellor was able to confirm the criminality of Grace’s partner’s behaviours and simultaneously work with both Grace and her partner to develop mechanisms to reduce the violence within the relationship.3 Although Grace was not seriously considering reporting the violence to the police, she believed that her partner’s knowledge that these behaviours were illegal and that she could make a complaint against him might have been enough to influence his behaviour change. A small number of participants who experienced desistance suggested that the perceived likelihood that their family members and friends would become aware of the abuse encouraged their partners to stop perpetrating violence against them. In particular, Yvette reported that her husband was ashamed that her family, friends and work colleagues were aware of the abuse, and she suggested that he may have been motivated to change his behaviours as a result. More broadly, it is noteworthy that many men described within the sample by participants in both the Desistance and Persistence groups were very concerned that the violence and abuse they were perpetrating against their partner would be revealed to their friends and family members. This frequently manifested as socially controlling behaviours, including interfering with participants’ relationships with their family and friends. For some women, structures such as law enforcement, social connections and social censure had a role in initiating and supporting desistance processes. This is consistent with the work of Laub and Sampson (1993, 2001) and others (Giordano et al., 2002; Warr, 1998; Weaver & McNeill, 2015), who have emphasised the role of sociogenic factors in desistance (see Chap. 2).

 This primarily involved developing a shared language between the two around sexual consent, particularly that her husband had to ask her whether she consented to participating in sex with him. 3

112

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

7.2.2 Capable Guardianship and Target Hardening Related to increasing the consequences of the violence and abuse, for Chelsea and Mary, the reduction in violence and abuse they experienced was initiated and maintained in part by the presence of a third party in the relationship who was able to protect them from their abuser. This third party was able to deter abusive partners from being violent towards participants by increasing the risk associated with these behaviours; primarily, that the abuser would themselves be physically assaulted by this third party. Further, as shown below, the presence of these third parties also increased the perceived effort associated with perpetrating abuse, by acting as a physical barrier between abusers and participants. Within routine activities theory (described in Chap. 2), this third party would be described as a ‘capable guardian’ – someone whose presence serves as a disincentive for a motivated abuser to perpetrate an offence against a suitable victim because they will actively intervene or become aware of the offence (Clarke & Felson, 1993; Cohen & Felson, 1979). In turn, this increases the likelihood of the abuser experiencing negative consequences as a result of their behaviours. Mary’s capable guardian was her son. When her son became a teenager, the physical violence perpetrated by her partner stopped for a period of 5  years. As demonstrated in the extract below, Mary attributed this to her son’s physical maturation and his increased capacity to protect her, and himself, from her ageing partner. Mary’s partner appeared to be acutely aware of the increasing physical threat posed by their son, telling Mary when their son turned 14: ‘I need to have a crack at him, I need to hit him’. When he said this, Mary told him very forcefully that he was never to touch their son or harm him. Mary wondered whether this conversation and her establishment of boundaries within the relationship also influenced her partner’s behavioural change. She certainly noted that she did not often challenge her partner and he appeared shocked by her resolute and threatening words. That she had mostly acquiesced to his demands previously may have convinced her partner that she was serious and, in turn, made him concerned that she would leave him or call the police if he harmed their son. However, although the physical violence stopped for an extended period of time, Mary experienced an increase in her partner’s controlling behaviours towards herself and their son. She believed that this escalation was due to her partner’s awareness that he could not be physically violent towards them because her son would be able to protect them both. Instead, he started locking them out of the house to ‘punish’ them when they broke the rules or displeased him: But that must have been happening for two years that this major locking out, things must have happened maybe when [my son] was maybe about 15–16? Because that’s when he became, he could see [my] son was getting stronger, he was growing into a man. [My son] had these sticks around the house outside in the yard and he had this twirling – you know how they do this twirling with their sticks and … he used to be practising this all the time and [my partner] would see him and this worried him because he knew that [my son] was

7.2 Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours

113

growing stronger, that this control over me was… he didn’t have that control as much. (Mary, 72 years old, Desistance)

In contrast, Chelsea’s capable guardian was her dog. When her partner would become angry, her dog would growl at him and the threat of violence would de-­ escalate because her partner would be too afraid to attack her. Interestingly, her partner attempted to mitigate the threat posed by the dog by locking it outside when he was being abusive. However, this strategy was undermined by Chelsea’s step-son who would let the dog back into the house so it could protect her from his father. In this way, Chelsea’s step-son also had a role as a capable guardian and was important for reducing the violence and abuse.4 Like Mary, Chelsea reported that although her dog was an effective deterrent for the physical violence she was experiencing, it did not appear to have any observable impact on the emotional abuse and coercive control perpetrated by her partner. Instead, she noted that these behaviours continued unabated until she implemented alternative strategies  – primarily compliance (see Case Study 6). This highlights that for Chelsea and Mary, one strategy – capable guardianship – was not sufficient to bring about a change in all the forms of violence and abuse they were experiencing.

7.2.3 Appeasing Men’s Desire for Control and Dominance The desistance reported by several participants, including Hannah, Chelsea and Genevieve, appeared to have been brought about by their partner’s need for control and dominance being satisfied or appeased within their relationship. As described in the previous chapter, for many women, compliance was an effective strategy for mitigating their day-to-day risk of abuse and de-escalating potentially violent situations. However, in a small number of situations, compliance and avoidance of triggers were associated with the desistance of violence for extended periods of time. For example, Chelsea attributed a 7-year period where the abuse reduced in frequency and severity to the protective behaviours of her dog (see the above discussion about capable guardians) and her ability to identify when her partner was becoming upset and angry. When he would become angry, Chelsea would attempt to appease him by ‘switching’ into compliance mode. Genevieve similarly

 The use of dogs was not unique in this situation. A small number of other women in the Persistence group noted that their dog had been an effective means of mitigating the threat posed by their partner on a day-to-day basis. For example, Genevieve was gifted a dog by her father to protect her once she had left her husband. She reported that the dog would not only alert her when he was approaching the property but would growl and bark at him while he was there. She said that this made her feel safer and ensured that her partner was kept in check. Further, Rosie reported that her partner’s dog started to act as her protector by sleeping between her and the door to the bedroom, and even attacking her partner when he tried to hit her. However, as in Chelsea’s case, the dog’s ability to protect her was mitigated by her partner when he locked the dog outside. 4

114

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

attributed a 2-year period of non-abuse to her learning that her partner would become aggressive when she challenged him about behaviours that she did not agree with. As she said, ‘I learnt very quickly then that if I held my tongue on certain things and we didn’t argue, that [the violence] didn’t happen’. Hannah also avoided arguments with her partner because of concerns that he would become aggressive; however, she was also conscious of the need to minimise his exposure to situational stressors, such as childcare responsibilities and financial concerns. For Elaine, compliance required her to change every aspect of her daily activities, ignoring her own needs and prioritising her partner’s. Although it had a significant and detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing, for a 12-month period, the significant physical violence she was being subjected to stopped entirely (see Case Study 5). She directly attributed this to her decision to become his ‘perfect’ partner and comply with every single demand he made of her. However, Elaine’s conscious decision to be ‘perfect’ occurred directly after an episode of abuse which resulted in her living apart from her partner for a few days and disclosing the abuse to the police, her mother and an IPV service. Although she did not explicitly threaten her partner with the dissolution of their relationship if he was abusive towards her again, Elaine’s decision to leave him for a period of time and disclosure of the violence to others may have influenced her partner’s behaviour as well. The desistance experienced by Hannah, Genevieve and Chelsea appears to have been partially attributable to the cumulative impact of day-to-day strategies that they used to de-escalate situations where their partners were becoming emotionally heightened and angry, as well as implementing strategies to avoid the onset or occurrence of stressors or triggers for violence. Interestingly, this is consistent with the view of desistance as a process of maintenance involving decision-making and replication of patterned behaviour on a day-to-day basis. However, rather than the abusers doing this maintenance work, it was the participants.

Case Study 5: Elaine’s Story Elaine and her partner Owen met through a mutual friend, and after a period of friendship, they started a relationship. She described their relationship as being ‘good’ and ‘fun’ in the beginning. After a few months of dating, Elaine fell pregnant, and they moved in together 3 months before the baby was born. Although she couldn’t pinpoint exactly when the violence started, Elaine said that it began slowly, during the early stages of their relationship. She recounted that Owen would discourage her from seeing friends because he said he wanted to spend time with her. When she did go out, he would call and repeatedly text her to the point where her friends commented on it. His behaviors started to escalate, and he became more jealous and controlling of her time. She reflected that she felt very lonely and socially isolated, exacerbated by her pregnancy and the fact that he made her quit her job. He had control of all the finances and started to give her an allowance, which he framed as taking care of her.

7.2  Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours

115

During her pregnancy, Elaine also found out that Owen was using steroids to supplement his frequent workout sessions at the gym. Although not excusing the behaviour, she commented that she thought the drug use meant that ‘his brain wasn’t working too good’. Elaine wasn’t sure whether the escalation of his behaviours coincided with his drug use. Around the time their daughter was born, the abuse became physical, including throwing objects at her. When Owen injured her, Elaine would take photos of her cuts and bruises because, ‘I thought, one day I’m going to do something about this’. But she always deleted the photos because she was afraid of what he would do if he found them on her phone. During this time, the police were called numerous times to attend the house by concerned neighbours and Elaine herself, but she said that they did ‘nothing’ to help her. Instead, Owen would become conciliatory and presented well to the police, which she said only served to reinforce Owen’s narrative that he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and no one cared about her. Elaine reflected that she felt the police did not want to know about what was going on or to help. When their daughter was almost 12 months old, Elaine left Owen for the first time but returned after a few months when he promised things would be different. However, the violence escalated in severity and frequency again – ‘It got pretty bad’. Owen decided he wanted a second child, so he stole Elaine’s contraception, and she fell pregnant. When she was 5 weeks pregnant, he strangled her to the point of unconsciousness in front of their daughter. Elaine said of the incident – ‘I was blacking out in front of my daughter. She was screaming. I’ll never forget that moment. I thought I was going to die’. After Owen stopped strangling her, she fled with her daughter to the local shopping centre with Owen in pursuit. The police were called, and she was taken to a refuge where she stayed for a few days before deciding to return to him. She said that, at this point, she made a conscious decision to be the ‘perfect’ partner and do everything that he wanted of her. The violence stopped for 12 months, during which time she did everything that he wanted her to do – she lived to please him. When asked whether she believed that the violence ended because of her compliance, Elaine agreed that it had. However, she reported that during this time, she became very ‘low’ and referred to herself as a ‘minion’ and a ‘robot’. Although the violence had stopped, it came at a significant cost to Elaine. I just thought, ‘Right I’m not doing anything wrong. I’m not doing anything at all. I’m doing everything exactly the way he tells me. Everything is going to be fine’. Like, it’ll all be fine. I just kept telling myself that. And the violence actually stopped for a long time. Because I was just his little minion. I did everything I was meant to. I didn’t talk to anyone. I did every single thing he told me to do… I think if I had said the wrong thing or not done what he’d asked it would have just continued. But the fact that I just… yeah knuckled down and just did exactly what I thought was going to make him happy, I think that’s what made it stop for that time.

116

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

It was during this 12-month period of non-violence that Elaine obtained a part-time job and made friends with a number of work colleagues. It is unclear why at this point Owen ‘allowed’ her to do this. However, she reflected that this was an important turning point for her because she now had a means of financially supporting herself. She also said that knowing that her work colleagues would help her if she needed them to was very empowering. One day, for no discernible reason, Owen’s violence exploded again, and Elaine found herself hiding in a bedroom with her children while Owen destroyed the house and screamed at her through the door. At this point, she decided she was done with the relationship: I don’t even know what happened, he just had this look in his eyes and I remembered that look he used to get it and I was, like, oh my god, it’s happening again. And he just went absolutely nuts and destroyed the house and I locked myself in the room again, like I’d done in the past, but this time with two of them [children]. And I remember sitting on the bed crying, going, I’m not doing this. The kids were screaming and crying and I just said, ‘I’m [not] doing this anymore. I’m not’.

Despite her strong emotional attachment to Owen, and his repeated attempts to reconcile with her, Elaine remained committed to ending the relationship and remaining separated. The Family Court gave her primary parental custody, with Owen having access to the children 1–2 nights a fortnight. The violence and abuse took their toll on Elaine; she particularly noted that when she left the relationship, she had very few friends. At time of being interviewed, Elaine had been separated from Owen for 5 years. She said that she had finally returned to who she was before and considered herself lucky to be alive.

7.2.4 Dissolution of the Abuser’s Attachment to their Partner For a small number of participants, a key factor that may have contributed to the desistance of violence and abuse within their relationship was the dissolution of the abuser’s attachment to them. For example, Zoe reported that the emotional and sexual violence perpetrated by her partner significantly de-escalated when he started a new romantic relationship with another woman. More specifically, after Zoe told her partner that she would not have sex with him anymore, he manipulated her into agreeing to an ‘open’ relationship, whereby they would both be able to engage in sexual relationships with other people. When he started having sex with a woman who he subsequently developed a romantic interest in, Zoe said the violence towards her stopped. Zoe attributed the cessation of the violence to her partner not ‘caring’ about her and what she did anymore. I don’t know if it’s anything I did. I think he was bored with me. Like, he just kind of checked out of the relationship, I guess. Because of that, he just stopped really caring what I did. So, I don’t know that it’s that I did anything to de-escalate the situation. It might have been that I stopped being available sexually. That may have done it. He manipulated me into

7.2  Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours

117

agreeing to an open relationship  – my consent on that  – yes, I consented, but it was extremely dubious. (Zoe, 33 years old, Desistance)

However, Zoe noted that as a result of her partner’s new relationship, they also spent much less time together in the same space. She reflected that this might have also contributed to a reduction in the violence and abuse because there were fewer opportunities for it to occur (see Chap. 2 for a description of routine activities theory). Further, Antonette reported that the violence considerably de-escalated after she told her husband that she intended to leave him. She noted that although they remained partnered, after this discussion the violence and abuse decreased in frequency and severity, although it did not stop completely. Antonette suggested that the reduction in violence could be attributed to her partner not wanting to be in a relationship with her anymore as well, particularly as he had been having an affair and he may have been more attached to his ‘mistress’ than her. The experiences of Zoe and Antonette could be explained through the lens of attachment theory  – if abusive men use violence as a means of ‘moulding’ their partner into their ideal attachment figure that meets all of their emotional needs, then the cessation of violence may be triggered or maintained when an abuser becomes fixated on a new primary attachment figure (McDermott & Lopez, 2013; Péloquin et al., 2011). This hypothesis is supported by the experiences of multiple women in the Persistence group, who noted that the violence perpetrated by their partner decreased or stopped when the abuser re-partnered after they had separated. Interestingly, when these new relationships ended, which most of them did because of IPV, the men would become very abusive and violent towards the participants again. As demonstrated below, this was certainly the experience of Macey: Q: So, it’s kind of ramped up again? The abuse? A: Oh, look it’s always there, it hasn’t ramped up to what it was, you know, years ago, but yeah. But I can tell like, previously or so when he was seeing someone and I think that was when he spat in my face, that my son told me that they’d split up. So, I feel like…he’s got no one else, ‘cos he hasn’t got siblings he hasn’t got parents, I feel like…anything, any stress that he has in his life, I cop it. (Macey, 50 years old, Persistence)

7.2.5 Mitigation of Emotional Stressors – Gender Role Strain and Shame For another group of participants, the desistance of the violence and abuse they experienced may have been influenced by the resolution of emotional stressors experienced by their partners – particularly gender role strain and shame. For example, both Nicole and Hannah observed that the de-escalation of the violence coincided with their partner gaining employment and/or achieving success in their career. As Nicole suggested:

118

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors I think, if he had enough loyal followers and, you know, people going ‘oh you’re so wonderful’, it was fine. When things, when he started being questioned about things or things weren’t so shiny and sparkly, it would be all my fault. (Nicole, age unknown, Desistance)

Seen through a gender strain lens, this reduction in the violence and abuse could be explained by Nicole and Hannah’s partners experiencing a sense of control or becoming less psychologically stressed due to their employment status and perceived achievements in their careers. Certainly, job performance is one domain in which men who adhere to strict gender norms may define their masculinity. This means that their perceived failure to adhere to these gendered norms may lead to the use of violence against their partner as a means of reasserting or performing this masculinity (Copenhaver et al., 2000; McDermott & Lopez, 2013). Alternatively, viewed through a desistance lens, it could be that employment exerted a positive influence on men’s use of violence because it contributed to their ‘respectability’ package and, in turn, increased the perceived risks associated with offending (i.e. social censure; Giordano et  al., 2015). This may explain why Imogen’s partner became violent again after a 5-year period of desistance. After the first episode of physical violence, she contacted the police, and the violence stopped for an extended period of time. However, the violence recommenced when he became unable to work due to a back injury. Even though she continued to contact the police and participate in subsequent legal processes, the violence persisted and even escalated. For Imogen, her partner’s loss of employment – and therefore a key component of his respectability package – may have decreased the consequences of contact with the police and, in turn, the impact of this strategy on their offending behaviour. This hypothesis is supported by studies which have shown that different criminal justice interventions, including arrest and prosecution for IPV offences, are less effective when the abuser is unemployed (Dowling et al., 2018a). Another source of stress for male abusers was feelings of shame. As described above, Antonette telling her partner that she intended to leave the relationship coincided with a period in which the physical violence she had been experiencing reduced significantly. As such, it could be hypothesised that the desistance may have been attributable to the dissolution of his attachment to her. However, it is important to note that Antonette’s partner had had multiple affairs during their relationship, and he would become violent when she confronted him about them. This is consistent with the experiences of several other women in both the Persistence and Desistance groups, including Bethany, Tasmin, Jessica and Jackie. In situations where male abusers became violent and aggressive when confronted about their infidelity or other negative behaviours (e.g. drug use, criminal behaviours and gambling), the abuse could have been a means of rejecting or mitigating their feelings of shame and guilt associated with these behaviours. This is supported by a number of studies which have demonstrated the role of shame in men’s abuse towards female partners (Brown, 2004; Hockenberry, 1995; Kaplenko et al., 2018). Perhaps by leaving the relationship, Antonette’s actions appeased or mitigated her partner’s feelings of shame associated with his infidelity and, by doing so, supported the reduction of violence and abuse. This was suggested by Antonette during

7.2  Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours

119

the interview when she said that her partner had appeared relieved when the relationship ended. In other words, with Antonette removing herself from the relationship, her partner did not have to feel guilty about his infidelity because she was leaving anyway. This hypothesis is supported by the experiences of Jackie, whose partner had multiple affairs and was in significant financial debt because of his gambling addiction. As demonstrated in the extract below, Jackie believed that her mere presence made her partner experience extreme feelings of guilt and shame, and so he would use violence as a means of punishing her for making him feel this way. All of these things that he was doing he knew he shouldn’t have been doing and it was a guilt, but it was well you’re the only person I can take it out on cos you seem to be linked to what I’m doing you know. It’s your money, or it’s you who I’m you know, cheating on or that sort of thing. (Jackie, 25 years old, Persistence)

The finding that strategies that involve opportunities to mitigate the abuser’s feelings of shame (e.g. associated with behaviours such as infidelity) may have a role in the cessation of violence and abuse is consistent with desistance (Gadd, 2002; Vaughan, 2006) and restorative justice research (Claes & Shapland, 2016; Pelikan & Hofinger, 2016). Strategies that facilitate the mitigation of shame may include RJ processes, as well as MBCPs and other abuser treatment programs that provide abusers with mechanisms for engaging with and dealing with their feelings of shame in constructive ways (Brown, 2004; Hill, 2020).

7.2.6 Mitigation of Mental Health Issues That Exacerbated Violent Behaviours – Abuser Involvement in Mental Health Support and Treatment Bella and Alison both reported that the desistance of their partner’s violent behaviours may have been initiated and supported by the abuser’s involvement in mental health support and treatment, which helped them to manage the underlying mental health issues that exacerbated their violent behaviours. As described in Case Study 4 (and the previous chapter), Bella believed that her partner’s unmanaged depression and anxiety had, in part, contributed to the violence and abuse he perpetrated against her. One night he threatened to kill her and himself so she contacted her university’s mental health support service, and he was admitted to a local hospital. Bella said that it was at this point that he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and provided with a mental health plan and medication. Her partner’s treatment coincided with the cessation of physical violence within their relationship, although she said that she did not think that he was fully compliant with his treatment plan (see Case Study 4). Alison reported that her husband also engaged with mental health counselling services for his anger and abandonment issues related to his abusive childhood (see Case Study 7). Although she was unsure of the nature and scope of his involvement

120

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

with these supports, she did note that it appeared to have a significant and positive impact on his behaviours and their relationship. For Alison and Bella, the reduction and cessation in violence perpetrated by their partners may have been partially attributable to the mitigation of underlying mental health issues that influenced the abuse. Several studies have demonstrated high levels of mental illness, including alcohol and drug addiction, among IPV abusers (Boxall et al., 2022; R. Johnson et al., 2006). This has led a number of commentators to argue that IPV programs should be integrated with mental health and drug and alcohol abuse services so that abusers can receive simultaneous or staged treatment to address health-related issues that may contribute to their offending (Boxall et al., 2022; Gadd et al., 2019; Gilchrist et al., 2019).5 A large number of participants from both the Desistance and Persistence groups reported that their partners had been diagnosed with or had suspected mental health issues, including personality disorders such as narcissism (Marsden et al., 2021). Other participants, including Bethany, Elaine, Tasmin, Chelsea, Laura, Stacey and Genevieve, also suggested that their partners had alcohol and drug dependence issues. Participants’ views regarding the mental health status of their partners were informed by: • Observations of their behaviours (e.g. excessive consumption of alcohol, frequency of erratic and emotionally distressed states) • A knowledge of diagnoses (as disclosed by their partners, mental health professionals and family law court representatives) • Advice provided by mental health professionals with whom the participants discussed their partner’s behaviours or who had direct engagement with the abuser themselves The causal relationships between mental health and drug and alcohol abuse and IPV are relatively unclear and are likely dependent on the nature of the mental health issue, its associated symptoms and the extent to which the abuser is adhering to any identified treatment plans. It has been suggested that mental health and drug and alcohol abuse may contribute to IPV by reducing the ability of abusers to regulate their emotional states effectively and impairing rational decision-making processes (Gilchrist & Hegarty, 2017). Furthermore, some personality disorders such as narcissism are characterised by an unconscious sense of inferiority and conscious belief in their superiority, which can lead to reduced levels of empathy for others and the use of violence in response to threats to their self-esteem (i.e. ego threat) (Johnson et al., 2006; Lambe et al., 2018). Despite the high levels of mental health issues among partners described by participants, Bella and Alison’s partners were among a very small group who had actually received treatment. Both men’s participation could potentially be attributed to  In the last few years, the ReINVEST program has been trialed in one site in Australia. ReINVEST involves the administration of low dosages of a common anti-depressant to IPV abusers. Although the trial is not without its critics, preliminary evaluation results indicate that the program has improved decision-making among abusers, as well as reduced IPV (Gleeson, 2021). 5

7.2  Causes Attributed to the Desistance of Men’s Abusive and Violent Behaviours

121

their fear of experiencing negative consequences if they did not. As described in Case study 7, Alison told her partner that he needed to enter treatment for his behaviour or she would leave him. Meanwhile, Bella’s partner’s involvement in mental health treatment was initiated at the behest of the university he was studying at (see Case Study 4). Although Bella was unsure whether her partner had been forced to attend treatment by the university, it is possible that he may have been strongly encouraged to do so, and that the university would have monitored his compliance with his treatment plan.

7.2.7 Evoking Feared Selves Finally, there was some evidence that the evocation of feared selves (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009) may have influenced the desistance of violence and abuse experienced by four women in the sample – Alison, Elaine, Yvette and Tasmin. The potential of feared selves for initiating desistance processes is most clearly demonstrated in Alison’s story, which is described in detail in Case study 7. Alison recounted that after a number of years of escalating levels of emotional abuse, she decided to leave the relationship. As part of her preparations for this eventuality, Alison kept detailed records of her husband’s abuse, including information about the nature and timing of his behaviours and her contact with the police and IPV services. As described in Chap. 6, Alison’s meticulous records were intended to provide a paper trail of evidence of his abusive behaviours that she could use as part of her planned application for primary custody of their children. One day, Alison’s husband found her records. This led to a confrontation, during which he became very emotionally distressed and promised not to harm her or their children again. In particular, he told Alison that he did not want to be like his father, who had been violent towards him and his mother as a child. Perchance, he came upon my folder of everything. The documents going into everything he’d said, everything he’d done, his behaviours, his… explosiveness, all of the notes that I’d taken…Like, everything. He’d found it all and confronted me over it. And started bawling, said ‘I’m gonna change’, you know, ‘this is not the man I want to be. I see now what you’ve been saying, I understand the…this is not OK and I wanna change and I wanna get help’. (Alison, 40 years old, Desistance)

After this episode, Alison’s husband voluntarily sought and engaged with mental health services and was not violent or abusive towards his family for a period of 3 years. Reflecting on why the abusive behaviours had stopped at this point, Alison suggested that when looking at these materials, he realised he would lose access to his children, and so he changed his behaviours to ensure he would not lose any subsequent custody battles. However, although Alison’s views may indeed be accurate, viewed through a desistance lens, Alison’s husband’s experience of reading her diaries documenting his behaviours may have forced him to confront the impact of his behaviours and made him compare himself to his father. This, in turn, may have

122

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

triggered psychological distress and potentially a desire to change his behaviours and avoid the evoked feared self. Elaine, Yvette and Tasmin’s experiences also suggest that feared selves may have had a role in the initiation of desistance processes within their relationships. All three women reported that the period of desistance within the relationship was preceded by a highly distressing incident of violence or abuse, which they described as being the worst or most severe form of violence perpetrated by their partner. For Elaine, this was the incident where her partner strangled her to the point of unconsciousness in front of their child. Although they never spoke about this incident after it had occurred, it did appear to set in motion a chain of events that may have cumulatively contributed to the cessation of violence and abuse (see Case Study 5). Certainly, Elaine reflected that the strangulation event terrified her because she thought she was going to die. Although, as previously discussed, the desistance of the violence and abuse experienced by Elaine may have been influenced by her compliance with his demands, as well as the implicit threat that she could leave him again if the violence resumed, it is possible that this incident of violence may have scared her partner. If this is the case, then this incident may have triggered a form of feared self – a person who is capable of killing their partner – which not only changed Elaine’s cognitive state and behaviours but his as well.6 The desistance of physical violence within Tasmin’s relationship also coincided with an episode of severe abuse. Tasmin recalled that one night her partner’s violence escalated to the point where he attempted to physically drag her out of the house: It was Christmas Eve, we had an argument about, like how we were going to do the Santa presents for the kids or something silly…and he just walked out of the bedroom towards me with this, like, really disturbing smile on his face, really calm. And just grabbed me by the arm and just went, ‘Let’s go’. And just… dragged me to the front door and was trying to like throw me out of the house. And he grabbed me so hard and just the look on his face and everything, I was like, oh, something’s off and started crying and saying to him, ‘You’re hurting me, let go of my arm, let go of my arm’…So, I just held on and held on to the door and was just crying and yelling at him to stop and then eventually he just stopped and stood back and then he just started crying. And then went into the bedroom and I just kind of [stood] in the doorframe, I don’t know how long, just, like, in shock, I think. Cos that was the first time it was, like, it just felt like the next level. (Tasmin, 35 years old, Desistance)

Although Tasmin said that the emotional abuse her husband perpetrated against her escalated over the following 12-month period, the physical violence ceased from this point onwards.  Although the concept of feared selves is one that has been described as an offender-centric process, Elaine and others did speak about reflective periods in their relationship where they also imagined their lives in the future and became motivated to change their circumstances, to avoid this future self. In particular, events of extreme violence often contributed to participants realising that their partner might be capable of killing or seriously harming them, which made them motivated to end the relationship. The role of feared selves in women’s decisions to end relationships should be explored as part of future research. 6

7.3 Resumption of Violence and Abuse

123

Finally, immediately prior to the cessation of the violence and abuse in her relationship, which had not resumed at time of the interview, Yvette recounted that for two nights in a row her husband had physically abused her and degraded her sexually. She said that these incidents, which resulted in the police attending their residence, left her disgusted with him as well as highly distressed and traumatised. After the second night, Yvette’s partner left their house and was in a serious car accident. Although she did not have conclusive evidence, Yvette strongly believed that the car accident was actually a suicide attempt. Although it is not possible to know the cognitive states or motivations of Elaine, Yvette, Alison and Tasmin’s partners, it could be that their changes in behaviour were influenced by a feared self which was evoked after the worst or most severe incident of violence perpetrated against their partner. These incidents appeared to have had a significant impact on their partners, which may have also contributed to the nature of the feared self that was evoked.

7.3 Resumption of Violence and Abuse For seven of the women in the Desistance group, once the abuse stopped or decreased in frequency and/or severity, it remained at that level until the time of the interview or the relationship ended (whichever came first; see Table 7.3). However, for the remaining eight women, the violence and abuse re-commenced or escalated again after the period of desistance, while they were still partnered with their abuser. Several participants were able to identify potential explanations for the resumption or escalation of violence and abuse within their relationship. Chelsea, Alison and Nicole all suggested that the resumption of their partner’s violence and abuse could have been caused in part by their own withdrawal from the relationship and, in turn, their partner’s perceived loss of control over them. As such, the violence and abuse may have been a means by which their partners attempted to reassert their control over them and reaffirm their relationship (Gay et al., 2013; McDermott & Lopez, 2013). For example, after seven years of no physical violence, Chelsea’s partner found out that she was planning to leave him. He then attempted to use physical violence as a way of intimidating her to remain in the relationship. For Nicole, starting her university degree and her subsequent academic achievements led to her husband’s controlling behaviours increasing as a way of reasserting his control over her and dominance in the relationship. This primarily took the form of emotional abuse whereby he attempted to undermine her confidence in her abilities and intelligence; financial abuse which involved coercing her to assist him in his career for no pay; and controlling her movements outside the home. Similarly, Alison believed that her husband became violent again after three years of desistance because she became pregnant with their third child. During her pregnancy, she had significant health-­ related issues and was unwilling to have sexual intercourse with him. He appeared

124

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

to interpret this as Alison rejecting him and their relationship and he became highly aggressive and abusive towards her. For Genevieve and Imogen, the resumption of the violence may have been attributable to their partner’s deteriorating mental and physical health (Boxall et  al., 2022), and the interrelated deterioration of their strategies for managing their partner’s abuse. Genevieve reported that over a number of years, her partner’s emotional state and mental health deteriorated. This made it more difficult for her to manage his moods and predict when he would become emotionally distressed, eventually leading to the resumption and escalation of his emotionally abusive behaviours towards her. Furthermore, Imogen reported that her partner’s physical violence escalated after he lost his job due to a back injury. This, in turn, reduced the deterrent effect of her primary strategy for managing the violence, namely, calling the police. For the final two women – Elaine and Hannah – the cause of the violence re-­ commencing was unclear. As described in Case Study 5, after a 12-month period where her partner had not been physically violent towards her, Elaine reported that he ‘got a look in his eye’ and became physically violent again. Elaine expressed confusion in relation to the event, saying, ‘I did everything right’. However, the resumption of the violence in this situation may have been related to his habitual and increasing use of steroids (see above and Chap. 9 for a discussion on the role of mental health issues on the effectiveness of strategies). Alternatively, it may be that for Elaine’s partner, the fact that she was ‘perfect’ may have appeased his need to control her for a period of time. However, if his behaviours were primarily driven by a desire to demonstrate his power within the relationship, then perfection would never be achievable because the ‘goal-posts’ would continue to change. As such, for some participants, compliance-based strategies may have always inevitably deteriorated in effectiveness over time. Hannah was similarly unsure why her husband became violent again after periods of non-violence. Considering that one of the triggers was her challenging him, particularly in front of other people, it could be that the resumption of violence coincided with interactions where she did not acquiesce to his demands. Certainly, the worst incident of physical violence she experienced within the relationship occurred when she attempted to physically restrain him from taking their children for a car ride because he had threatened to kill them.

7.4 False Desistance – Is It Desistance if It Is Dependent on Women Doing All the Heavy Lifting? In this research, desistance was defined as the reduction or cessation of violence and abuse as reported by participants for a period of six  months or longer while the relationship was ongoing. As described in Chap. 4, this definition is broadly consistent with those used in other studies with a focus on primary forms of desistance.

7.4 False Desistance – Is It Desistance if It Is Dependent on Women Doing All…

125

However, I believe a detailed analysis of the experiences described by women in the Desistance group raises the question of whether they were experiencing what could be referred to as ‘false desistance’. False desistance was alluded to by Feld and Straus when they wrote about desistance which ‘fits the letter of the definition, without fitting its spirit’ (1989, p. 148). Although participants expressed the belief that the violence had reduced in severity or frequency, for several, this change was dependent on their implementation of strategies that were themselves experienced as abusive. This was clearly highlighted in Elaine’s experience (see Case Study 5). When reflecting on the 12-month period during which her partner’s physical violence and emotionally abusive behaviours ceased, Elaine referred to herself as single-minded in her pursuit of being the perfect partner and, by so doing, became her partner’s ‘minion’– doing everything that he asked her to, including acquiescing to sex when she did not want to. Despite the reduction in violence and abuse, the strategies she used to maintain his desistance had a cumulative and negative impact on her health and wellbeing  – during this period, she said she felt ‘numb’. Chelsea similarly reflected that her ability to identify when her partner was becoming upset or aggressive and to appease him through compliance meant that the physical violence within their relationship ceased. However, it also meant that she felt unable to leave the relationship and was constantly questioning her understanding of herself and the abuse she was experiencing. Chelsea and Elaine’s experiences indicate that the cessation of physical violence against them was dependent on their partner’s control over them increasing. For other women, the maintenance of their partner’s desistance was dependent on their hyper-vigilance around mitigating situational stressors associated with the violence and abuse, particularly avoiding arguments and challenging their partner’s behaviours that were viewed as attempts to control them. For example, although Yvette reported that her husband had not been violent towards her for six months, she felt she was constantly planning and thinking ahead to mitigate any potential triggers for the violence. Although Yvette did not see these behaviours as themselves abusive, she reported that they were emotionally draining and very stressful. Relatedly, Chelsea, Elaine, Yvette and others reported that despite the absence or reduction in violence and abuse, they could not relax or trust that their partner would not be violent towards them if he became emotionally heightened or stressed again. Several referred to the ever-present threat of the violence starting again or even escalating, and this was a significant motivator for their involvement in strategies and activities to maintain their partner’s desistance. As Grace reflected, every few weeks or so, she would have sexual intercourse with her husband because she believed that doing so would help her to avoid more coercive or physically violent sexual encounters. While still motivated by a desire to avoid the negative consequences associated with the violence and abuse, other participant’s willingness to support their partner’s desistance was also motivated by a desire to maintain the perceived positive aspects or relational goods associated with the relationship. For example, Alison and Yvette both said that their relationship with their partner had considerably

126

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

improved once the violence had stopped, and they had resumed physical and emotional intimacy with them. This intimacy was a primary motivator for Alison to continue to try and support her husband to maintain his desistance and to try and trigger it again when the violence re-started. Although these women were motivated and ‘willing’ to support their partner’s desistance, the fact that they appeared to be doing much of the heavy lifting associated with this behavioural change brings into question whether they were truly experiencing desistance. When the strategies women engage in to support their partner’s non-violence are in themselves abusive, particularly compliance and hyper-­ vigilance, it is perhaps a misnomer to label this as desistance. This highlights the limitations associated with primary definitions of desistance as applied to IPV.

7.4.1 Desistance in the Absence of a Motivated Abuser That several participants had an integral role in the maintenance of their partner’s desistance through ongoing compliance and management of their own behaviours indicates that in some situations, the behavioural change observed by women may have been what Paternoster and Bushway referred to as ‘desistance by default’ (2009, p.  1148). More specifically, men’s non-violence may have been brought about by the influence of external structures – the ability of women to manage their own and their partner’s emotional states through compliance and the mitigation of stressors. Without actually speaking directly with the male abusers described by participants in this study, it is difficult to determine whether the cessation or reduction in violence was driven in whole or in part by agentic decision-making on the part of men and any interrelated identity change. As noted in earlier sections of this chapter, some participants  described their partner as taking purposive actions to maintain their desistance. However, it is important to remember that their understanding and knowledge of their partner’s actions and cognitive processes were limited by contextual awareness. This is particularly relevant when thinking about the potential role of identity change in the desistance, experienced by the women. In the absence of speaking directly to these men, it is helpful to look for ‘clues’ or signs that the men in the sample were motivated to maintain their desistance. Over the past 10 years, a small number of studies have started to explore mechanisms for differentiating between desisting and non-desisting IPV perpetrators that do not require following abusers for extended periods of time to observe their behaviours. For example, Bushway and Apel (2012) and Reich (2017) have suggested that motivated abusers may ‘signal’ their desistance through their actions to attempt to make invisible traits observable by others. Bushway and Apel suggested that effective desistance signals are: Voluntary, they must be attainable by a comparatively small proportion of the population of interest, and they must have opportunity costs for the individual that vary inversely with desistance probabilities or work productivity. (2012, p. 33)

7.4  False Desistance – Is It Desistance if It Is Dependent on Women Doing All…

127

Maruna (2012) similarly emphasised the importance of signals involving a cost to the individual and that signals that involve some form of sacrifice on the part of the ex-abuser may translate into reputational capital that can then be used to leverage access to pro-social structures. He used the example of gang members tattooing their face as a costly signal, which serves to communicate their ‘bona fides’, whereas wearing their cap backwards is one that involves little cost (Maruna, 2012). Reich (2017) describes hard signals as those that are externally detectable, such as job-­ skill training or certificates from the court that the abuser has been ‘rehabilitated’. Soft signals are those that are more difficult to detect but may actually be more important for external others (e.g. potential employers) in their decision-making around whether to provide abusers with access to pro-social structures. These include being ‘well-presented’, having a positive attitude and disclosing prior criminal history. To date, the literature has focused on the role of employment programs, targeted at ex-abusers, in ‘signalling’ to prospective employers that graduates have changed and would make good employees, despite their criminal histories (Bushway & Apel, 2012; Reich, 2017). However, other examples of desistance signals suggested in the literature include verbal declarations of intent to not offend, disclosure of prior criminal offending, attending probation meetings and participation in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs (Bushway & Apel, 2012; Ha et al., 2019; Maruna, 2012; Reich, 2017). Furthermore, redemption scripts or narratives developed by abusers to describe and reconcile their past criminal behaviours with their current non-­ offending state have been described as important for not only helping abusers to themselves understand their journey but to also signify and communicate to others how their current non-abuser selves are reconcilable with their former criminal selves (Maruna, 2001).7 There were few ‘signals’ described in the sample that could be interpreted as evidence of abusers’ motivation to maintain their desistance. For example, the majority of participants did not report that their partner had completed anger management courses, voluntarily participated in MBCPs and/or voluntarily disclosed their abusive behaviours to their family members or friends. Even when participants

 Desistance signals are not only important for communicating to external others that the abuser has ‘changed’, but also for confirming for abusers that this change has indeed occurred. In this way, signals are iterative and constantly negotiated between external others and the abuser – an abuser may signal they have desisted, which is then received and interpreted by an external other, who reflects this back to the abuser through their own actions; this in turn confirms for the abuser that they have desisted and so consolidates their commitment to desistance. As Maruna described: 7

If signalling theory is taken to its logical extreme, one finds that all of the things we think of as essences of a person (e.g., wisdom, genius, bravery, and evil) may all be simply signals and perceptions bouncing back and forth between perceivers and the perceived. They become “real” through social negotiation – the person proves themselves to be X through their actions and acquisition of symbols (penalties, prizes, recognitions, and remembrances) themselves. (Maruna, 2012, pp. 81–82)

128

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

said that their partners had attended relationship counselling, as described in Chap. 6, they were often described as sabotaging sessions. Notable exceptions to this general finding were Bella and Alison, who reported that their partners did participate in mental health counselling and anger management. Critically, Alison’s husband’s participation in these services was voluntary and initiated independently of Alison, while Bella’s partner’s participation was coercive and initiated by his university’s mental health support team. According to the above criteria articulated by Bushway and Apel (2012), the fact that Bella’s partner’s participation was not voluntary undermines the ability of this particular signal to notify others of his motivation to maintain their desistance. Certainly, as shown in Table 7.3, although the physical violence perpetrated against Bella ended after her partner engaged in mental health services, sexual violence commenced and persisted from this point onwards. Further, participation in support services and programs intended to reduce the violence and abuse was reported by a small number of participants who did not experience desistance. For example, Estelle reported that her partner participated in anger management and an MBCP while he was incarcerated for sexually assaulting her, which she viewed as evidence that he was motivated to be non-abusive. However, the violence persisted: A: He ended up serving jail time for three or four months and then had a suspended sentence for a further seven or ten months, I can’t remember which one it was. And in that time, he had to do, like, anger management, AA [Alcoholics Anonymous] all that kind of stuff. And he finished all that, I don’t know if he did pee tests, like, I know he had to if he was requested, but I don’t think they actually did one on him. Then, after all that, like, he came back to me and was, like, ‘Look, I’ve done this, I’ve done this and I’ve done this’, you know. ‘We have two kids together. Please let me do this, let me try again’… Q: So, he came back, said he had done all this stuff… A: And he provided proof. When they finish some programs, they get certificates and stuff like that. Like, he’d proven it as well. (Estelle, 27 years old, Persistence)

Although it was unclear whether Estelle’s partner’s participation in these courses was voluntary, the fact that he was intoxicated when he had sexually assaulted her suggests that his participation may have been a condition of his sentence. That the violence persisted and even escalated after his participation again highlights the need for abusers’ actions to be voluntary for them to be used to differentiate between individuals who are and are not motivated to desist. Consistent with the findings from a small number of studies, several of the participants in the sample reported that their partner acknowledging the harm they had caused and that their behaviours were violent and abusive was critical to their understanding of whether their partner was motivated to desist (Gondolf & Hanneken, 1987; Morran, 2013; Walker et  al., 2017). For example, Yvette reported that her husband would become emotional and apologetic when she talked to him about his prior behaviours, which included significant physical and sexual violence. Although she was wary of his promises to not harm her again, she said his remorse and willingness to discuss his abuse with her  – together with his non-violence for

7.4  False Desistance – Is It Desistance if It Is Dependent on Women Doing All…

129

six months – made her confident that he was motivated to maintain his desistance and was unlikely to harm her again in the future: We often talk about things that happened. And… that [act of sexual violence], I know was one of his biggest regrets. You know. He said, ‘If I could give you both of my hands and my arms for what I [did], I would give them to you’. (Yvette, 54 years old, Desistance)

She also pointed towards his decision not to contest or challenge her application for a protection order as evidence that he understood his behaviours were harmful and was motivated to maintain his desistance. Conversely, Grace believed that because her husband had never apologised for his behaviours, the reduction in sexual violence within her relationship had been triggered by his desire to avoid legal sanctions rather than because of remorse associated with the impact of his behaviours on her. This made her not only unable to forgive him for his violence but also meant that she did not believe that his behaviour change was permanent: And I guess there’s a part of me that was still annoyed, cos there was never a sorry or… OK, like, there’s obviously an understanding of it and I know that he understood it…I don’t necessarily want to mess up his career or what he does at all. Like, I’m fine with him doing his own thing and enjoying what he has. But I don’t want, I don’t want myself to go through that process anymore and we have a son, I definitely don’t want him to think this sort of thing is normal. And so… and we both take our parenting relatively seriously, we understand that this is something that we want to stick through, we shall do that. But within these limits. (Grace, 45 years old, Desistance)

On the surface, it would appear that acknowledging the harm caused by their behaviours is a low-cost signal, as it does not require an obvious sacrifice in the same way that participating in an employment program does (i.e. time and resources). However, for abusers, acknowledgement of the harm they have caused may involve the acquisition of an identity that may not be consistent with their perceived self and is certainly difficult to integrate within a redemption narrative. This is consistent with the work of Harris (2017); in relation to sexual abusers, she questioned whether there are some ‘stains’ that are so irredeemable that they cannot be expunged from the self through desistance narratives. Seen in this way, for male abusers the acknowledgement of the harm they have caused and the assumption of this identity was very costly. In some instances, male abusers’ acknowledgment of the harm they had caused was revocable. Alison noted that the 3-year period of desistance she experienced was preceded by a confrontation with her partner where he apologised for the harms he had caused and made a commitment to non-violence. However, when the violence recommenced, he refused to admit that he was perpetrating violence against her. Instead, he returned to previous patterns of behaviour where he would be very emotionally abusive towards Alison and yell and scream when she confronted him about his behaviours. The resumption of the violence and his denial of the harm he was again inflicting on her made Alison question whether her husband had ‘really’ changed or if he had been purely motivated by a desire to maintain access to their children. This is demonstrated in the following extract from her interview:

130

7  The Desistance of Violence and Abuse as Described by Female Victims-Survivors

I have a theory that his change was deliberate the first time, because he looked at the evidence against him and he knew that he would lose the children if I left then. So, he changed, in order to get evidence that he was [a] fit parent. I don’t know, because it was such a sustained change… I don’t know, but the fact that he didn’t change the second time… makes me think it was a conscious decision. Like, he’s a very smart man. Very very smart. So, I, I don’t know. I’ve kind of always had this question now of what, was it really change or was he just pretending to change? (Alison, 40 years old, Desistance)

For Alison and for a number of other women, behavioural change in the perceived absence of identity change was viewed as false desistance and a potential explanation for why the violence re-commenced in many circumstances. This hypothesis is supported by the experiences of a number of women in the Persistence group who attributed the continuation of violence in their relationship to the perceived absence of identity change within their partner. This is reflected in the extract from Lisa: Q: Do you think that he ever acknowledged what he was doing? A: No. No. I don’t think he ever will. I don’t think he sees it that way. I think… I think he was so sincere with those lies, because he believes them. I think he has no idea why I left. So, yeah. Q: So he had a complete lack of insight? A: Complete confidence in his own rightness, I think is what it is. (Lisa, 44 years old, Persistence)

7.5 Chapter Summary This chapter provided a detailed analysis of the narratives of the 15 women who reported that they had experienced the cessation or reduction of violence and abuse for a period of six months or longer while they were still partnered with their abuser. The analysis identified that the complete cessation of all forms of abuse was relatively rare within the sample. Instead, it was more common that participants reported the cessation of physical forms of abuse, while the emotional abuse and sexual forms of violence persisted, escalated or even started for the first time.8 This highlights the limitations associated with traditional definitions of desistance when applied to IPV, which can involve the co-occurrence of multiple forms of abuse that may be on different trajectories at any one point in time.  That respondents primarily based their definition of desistance on the cessation or reduction of physical violence perhaps highlights that, despite contemporary discourse emphasising non-physical and controlling forms of IPV, physical forms of abuse may still be predominant in people’s minds when they think about IPV. As noted in other sections of this book, a number of Australian jurisdictions are considering the implementation of legislation that criminalises coercive control. One of the purported benefits of coercive control legislation that have been put forward by advocates and reformers is that it will improve community recognition and understanding that controlling behaviours are harmful and serious. This said, sexual violence perpetrated against intimate partners has been criminalised in Australia for many years, and respondents still struggled to integrate their experiences of these behaviours within their definitions of desistance. This points to the complexity of changing societal understandings of IPV and calls into question the importance of legislation in these processes. 8

7.5  Chapter Summary

131

The analysis also found that there was no panacea that explained the cessation or reduction of the IPV experienced by participants in this study. The most frequently identified mechanisms involved deterring the abuser from engaging in abuse by: • Increasing the perceived costs or consequences associated with the behaviours • Increasing the risk of detection by formal services, family members and friends • Increasing the level of effort involved in offending through the presence of capable guardians It was particularly common that women would threaten (implicitly or explicitly) to end the relationship and limit the abuser’s access to shared children if they did not stop being violent. What this suggests is that participants were often attempting to bring about behavioural change through the withdrawal of relational goods (e.g. affection, being part of a family unit). Respondents also reported that their compliance with the rules of the relationship had appeared to appease their partner’s need for control and dominance, which in turn may have caused the reduction in violence. Other mechanisms included the mitigation of abuser distress related to their perceived inability to conform to traditional gender roles, feelings of shame and the evocation of feared selves. Although rates of mental illness, including alcohol and drug dependence, were relatively common across both participant groups, only two women in the Desistance group reported that their partner had engaged with mental health treatment and that this had a positive impact on the violence. A key question raised in this chapter is whether we can consider desistance to have truly occurred when its maintenance is largely reliant on the hyper-vigilance, compliance and work of victims-survivors. When considered alongside the finding that several participants were sceptical of the authenticity or permanence of their partner’s non-violence because of a perceived absence of identity change, the analysis makes a valuable contribution to a key debate within the desistance literature – specifically, the relative importance of structures and agentic decision-making in understanding why some abusers desist and others do not. It appears that at least for women experiencing abuse and violence, true desistance – in definition and spirit – may require the abuser to undergo some form of identity change (Feld & Straus, 1989). If we believe that the motivations of male abusers may be important for understanding the occurrence of desistance, within a dyadic lens, the motivations and thought processes of female victims-survivors may also be relevant. Exploring and describing the motivations of participants, particularly when confronted with a partner who may have been unmotivated to change, is the focus of the next chapter.

Chapter 8

Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female Victims/ Survivors

In the previous chapter, it was hypothesised that some of the participants in this study might have experienced desistance by default. What this means is that their partner’s behavioural change was largely brought about by the influence of external factors – participant strategies – rather than intentional or agentic action on the part of abusers or significant identity change. The distinction between desistance primarily influenced by structures and external factors rather than abuser identity change is a critical one and goes to the heart of an ongoing debate within the desistance literature. As noted in Chaps. 2 and 6, an unresolved question in the literature is whether an agentic or motivated abuser is necessary for desistance to occur, or if behavioural change is possible in the absence of identity change (Bottoms et  al., 2004; Giordano et  al., 2002; Maruna & Roy, 2007; Vaughan, 2006). This was a question that many of the participants in the sample appeared to struggle with. Several suggested that in the absence of identity change – operationalised as men holding themselves accountable for the violence – they did not believe that their partner’s behavioural change was authentic or permanent (Maruna & Roy, 2007). However, in existing discussions regarding the role of social relationships and victims-survivors in supporting desistance processes, very little attention has been paid to the motivations of these individuals. As discussed in Chap. 2, in many frameworks, it is sufficient for third parties to be either present or absent to impact the behaviours of people who engage in criminal behaviours. Considering that participants in this study did appear to have a critical role in the initiation and maintenance of IPV desistance, this raises the question of whether the motivations and thought processes of these women was relevant for understanding why desistance may have occurred in some relationships, but not others. In particular, was an agentic and motivated victimsurvivor required to have a positive influence on abuser behaviours? This chapter seeks to understand whether participants were consciously attempting to initiate or support the desistance of abuse perpetrated against them, or whether their actions were underpinned by other goals and intentions. Further, this chapter © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_8

133

134

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

contributes to the above-described ongoing debate among desistance scholars by exploring the impact of female victims-survivors’ motivations or intentions on men’s behavioural change. This chapter involves the analysis of the entire sample of participants (n  =  40) to identify whether the occurrence of desistance could be explained by variations in the motivations of women.

8.1 Were Participants Aware of Their Role in Desistance Pathways? Overall, there is a wealth of evidence from the participant’s narratives that most were consciously implementing strategies to try and keep themselves safe and end the violence and abuse being perpetrated against them. In particular, several women described themselves as ‘fixers’ and viewed the violence as a problem to be solved. This is reflected below in the quotes from Jackie and Nicole: I’m just like, you know, he would just flare up, well what can I do for you, how can I make things better you know? I was the fixer. Always. We had lots of significant events in our lives that happened, and I was the fixer. I just busied myself doing all those things. (Nicole, age unknown, Desistance) How can I fix it? How can I fix the situation? That’s all I wanted to do. And somebody once said to me, and I can’t remember if it was my psychologist or not… ‘Are you a fight or a flight response?’ They talk about that. And I said ‘No, I’m a fixer response. Like, I needed to fix what was going on and that was all that mattered at that time. So, like, I remember taking some time off work, just because I needed to fix what was going on, I had to be at home when he got home, when he got home from work, so that I could... try and fix it. Otherwise, he would be gone again, and I wouldn’t know where he was or what he was doing or when I would see him. So, yeah, it was very much, OK, all this terrible stuff is happening, but I can’t... the focus is making sure he’s OK. (Jackie, 25 years old, Persistence)

Participants like Jackie, Hannah, Daisy, Kate, Bethany and Jess, who all described themselves as actively attempting to bring about behavioural change, said they were motivated to do so by their ongoing emotional attachment to their partner and their belief that the violence and abuse could end (see the discussion below regarding the concept of abuser redeemability). Certainly, a number of participants reported that their belief that they had tried everything to make their partners change their behaviour was a major factor in their decision to eventually leave the relationship (see Case Study 5). Alternatively, a small number of participants – Chelsea, Alison and Grace – said that their strategies were not motivated by a desire to remain in the relationship but to keep themselves safe until they had the resources they needed to separate from their partner permanently. Women in this group were often waiting for the resolution of risk factors that they did not believe could be mitigated in the short term, such as the immediate threat posed by their partner to their lives (see Case Study 6), concerns related to the custody of their children or the impact of a separation or divorce on the emotional wellbeing of their children and their ability to co-parent effectively. Although not aiming to bring about long-term behavioural change, these

8.1  Were Participants Aware of Their Role in Desistance Pathways?

135

women were consciously implementing strategies that they believed would minimise their risk of violence in the short term. Although some respondents like Chelsea, Alison and Grace were emphatic that the strategies they implemented to mitigate their short-term risk were strategic and purposive, another group of participants said that during their relationship and even afterwards, they did not view themselves as acting in ways that were designed or intended to bring an end to the violence and abuse they were experiencing, either in the longer term (i.e., desistance) or short term. Instead, participants like Harriet and Zoe referred to themselves as being in ‘survivor’ mode, living from hour to hour and primarily focused on protecting themselves and their children. This is highlighted in the below quote from Harriet, where she reflected on her immediate response to her partner punching her in the face and knocking her tooth out: A: They tried to fix my tooth and have root canal and, but they said that the tooth would die, and it would be black. Even then, I was trying to make [my partner] feel better, because I said, ‘Oh who else is going to have me when I’ve got a black tooth?’ What the? See I’m still trying to...justify… ‘See I’m not going to leave you, cos who else would have me?’ Is that trying to keep myself safe? Was that in the background – my thought was, ‘You keep telling me I am having an affair, but yeah who else is going to have me when I have a black tooth?’ So, I dunno... why would you say something like that? I don’t know quite what I was thinking... Q: It seems very much like it is survivor mode. And you say what you need to in the moment to keep safe. I think what survival mode looks like differs depending on the relationship. So maybe that’s what you needed to say to feel safer and to make him feel more secure. A: I think...Yeah. Cos if I had have said something like ‘Oh, well, that’s great, now I have a black tooth for the rest of my life’ or whatever,… then that would make him aggressive. ‘Oh so, now it’s my fault’. Yes, so, yes trying to deflect. Probably. That it’s just spur-­ of-­the-moment things that you did for whatever is happening in your space. Q: And it’s very adaptive. A: So, you can’t unfortunately write a script to it. (Harriet, 58 years old, Persistence)

Harriet’s confusion about her response to her partner’s actions during this episode of abuse was shared by a number of other participants. For these women, their inability to see themselves as actively selecting strategies to reduce the risk of violence and support desistance processes was in part impaired by the perceived passivity of their responses  – primarily compliance (as demonstrated in the above excerpt from Harriet) and avoiding triggers. Many participants expressed feelings of shame, anger and frustration when recounting their experiences and spoke of themselves as ‘letting’ their partner abuse them. However, in situations where women were engaging in compliance-based strategies, it was apparent that they were making decisions and selecting strategies that they believed, through their experience and knowledge of their partners, would reduce the violence within their relationships. For example, although she could not see it herself, Harriet appeared to have used having her tooth knocked out by her partner as a means of mitigating potential future abuse brought about by his jealousy. Further, although she viewed her desire to appease her husband after this incident as evidence that she was trying to justify his behaviours, it could be that by mitigating his shame related to his actions, she may have also been able to prevent

136

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

future violence (see the next chapter for a discussion about the role of shame mitigation in desistance). In her study of a sample of women who had experienced IPV in the UK, Wilcox (2006) similarly noted that many of the  participants  in her study engaged in compliance-­focused strategies, and these actions were viewed by participants and others as passive. Wilcox strongly contested this, arguing: In examining the capacity of women to resist male coercion it is necessary to redefine what we mean by resistance and the different ways in which resistance may be carried out. Conventionally resistance is often conceptualised through a masculinist lens as being aggressive and active; however, whilst women’s resistance could be, and was often, confrontational it could also be expressed in other ways. (Wilcox, 2006, p. 30)

What the above discussion demonstrates is that most women were actively aware of the actions they were taking to ensure their safety, and some were actively and intentionally trying to initiate longer-term desistance. This finding is important because it demonstrates that regardless of whether women should be involved in their partner’s desistance processes, they already are. Even when they were not conscious of their attempts to change their partner’s behaviours, women were acting in ways that should be viewed as agentic.

Case Study 6: Chelsea’s Story Chelsea was 17 when she met Jim, who was 13 years older than her and also her drug dealer. She described the start of the relationship as ‘sweet’ and said that Jim was ‘Prince Charming’. However, this all changed when she moved in with him, and she was ‘in his grasp’. A pattern of violence emerged, where he would lash out physically against her when they were having a fight, particularly when she would challenge him or make him feel guilt or shame about the abuse. He was also very jealous and possessive of her, and she noted that she could not have friends because he would assume they were sleeping together. During the early stages of their relationship she fell pregnant twice within a short period of time. Both times he pressured her to terminate the pregnancies which she did under duress. Chelsea described these events as highly distressing for her. Soon after the violence started, she attempted to leave Jim on a number of occasions. However, Jim had a wide social network because of his drug-dealing, so when she would run away he was always able to find her and would force her to return. She noted that Jim’s behaviours mirrored those of his father, who had enlisted Jim when he was younger to help him ‘hunt’ down his sister when she would run away. After being forced to return home with Jim on a number of occasions, Chelsea felt helpless and could not see a way to leave him while he was so threatening and violent. She said that she was very scared of him. Chelsea also noted that, even though she knew that what he was doing to her was wrong, he was very adept at manipulating her and making her second-guess her understanding of events. This manipulation, in combination with her ongoing drug

8.1  Were Participants Aware of Their Role in Desistance Pathways?

137

use, sometimes made her confused about what was actually happening in their relationship. However, Chelsea noted that because she had cognitive behavioural therapy when she was younger, to deal with her significant history of abuse and neglect as a child, she had a strong sense of self and the necessary skills to differentiate between what was real (her understanding of the relationship and the abuse) and what was not (Jim’s narrative). After a number of years of living with Jim, Chelsea realised that she would not be able to leave him safely until he became less dangerous and physically capable of hurting her. Unable to determine when this would occur or how she could mitigate the significant risk he posed to her, she decided that she would bide her time and reduce her risk on a day-to-day basis until she could leave. Using what she described as her ‘problem-solving brain’, she watched him closely and used her knowledge of him to develop an understanding of the ‘rules’ within the relationship and how to avoid his triggers. She said this was made difficult by his own significant use of ice and other amphetamines, which made him erratic and unpredictable. However, she started to be able to identify the point at which, after he had taken drugs, she was at increased risk. She also found that: I learnt that, the more I reacted to his aggression, the more I would get hurt. So, I started trying to walk on eggshells, sort of thing, like, realising what his triggers were and some of them were a little unpredictable, because of the drugs at the time.

After implementing these strategies, Chelsea reported that the violence and aggression stopped almost entirely for a period of seven  years. She directly attributed this to her ability to follow the rules and avoid triggers, although she also conceded that purchasing a large dog who acted as her protector was also a significant deterrent for Jim. However, despite the reduction in violence, she had no emotional attachment to Jim and said that she hated him. She was not committed to the relationship and instead saw herself as biding her time before she could leave. She said she would tell herself, ‘I will get out of this one day, I’ve just got to keep myself sane while I’m doing it’. After being together for a number of years, Chelsea stopped having sex with Jim because she had an adverse reaction to her birth control medication and she did not want to fall pregnant. At this point, Chelsea also began working longer hours at her job as a machine operator. She said that both of these events made Jim more insecure and jealous and one night he raped Chelsea which led to her becoming pregnant. Chelsea believed that Jim had intended to impregnate her as a way of trying to keep her at home with him. However, it had the opposite effect because she attempted to leave Jim again. She recalled waking up one morning and thinking ‘no, enough’s enough. Even without the physical [violence], it’s still not good’. But when she tried to leave, he became violent again. At this point, her dog had also died, and so she felt very vulnerable. Despite the fact he had arthritis in his hands, meaning

138

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

that if ‘he hits me, it’ll hurt him a hell of a lot longer than it hurts me’, he still assaulted her with weapons, making her feel like she could not leave. Again, she decided to bide her time until she felt she could leave him safely. After she had the baby, she returned to work full-time. Although it is unclear what the major trigger for her finally leaving was, one day she told him they were over. When she said she was also taking their child, he threatened to ‘flog’ her, and so she again made a strategic decision to leave her child behind so that she could find a way to safely extract them. She said she felt very guilty about this decision but noted that if she had tried to leave with her child, Jim would likely have killed her. After Chelsea left Jim, she spent a number of years planning how she was going to regain custody of her child. I had to be smart, smarter than [Jim], knowing everything I’ve learnt about him in the last 16 years. So, I started having to record everything, every conversation, every text message kept on file. Because, yeah, he’s very manipulative, turns everything around on me, to even the point where I’m not sure whether I was right.

She was eventually able to contact and enlist the support of Jim’s friend to help her extract her child. Chelsea tricked Jim into giving her access to their child overnight, at which point she applied for a protection order which listed her child and commenced legal proceedings to have primary custody. The custody battle was ongoing at the time of the interview, although she was her child’s interim primary carer. Chelsea’s story highlights the strategic agency of many women in relationships with abusive men. In the absence of options to leave her partner safely, she instead decided to wait and mitigate her risk on a day-to-day basis while waiting for the risk associated with her partner to subside. She achieved this by playing by the ‘so-­called rules’ within their relationship, which included not fighting back, challenging his perspective or making him feel shame or guilt about his behaviours. Even at the point of leaving, and afterwards, she was constantly planning and observing Jim to identify strategies to protect herself and her child. For Chelsea, there was no need to change her identity, come to a realisation about the situation or her partner or reach a saturation point. She was always planning to leave, and, when she could do so safely, she did.

8.2 Belief in Men’s Redeemability – Helping Men to Find Their ‘True Selves’ Whether participants were attempting to mitigate their day-to-day risk of being harmed by their partner or were trying to bring about longer-term behavioural change appeared to be influenced by their views regarding their partner’s ‘redeemability’  – the extent to which they believed their partner was capable of change (Maruna & King, 2009; Reich, 2017). Many participants who said they were attempting to bring about longer-term behavioural change expressed the belief that their partner was capable of non-violence.

8.2  Belief in Men’s Redeemability – Helping Men to Find Their ‘True Selves’

139

Interestingly, some participants argued that their belief regarding their partner’s redeemability was supported by the patterns of violence and abuse they were experiencing. Although violence and abuse were certainly a feature of their relationships, some women such as Olivia, Grace, Bethany and Hannah also described their partner as being periodically warm and loving and as having positive character traits. For example, Bethany described her husband as occasionally the ‘nicest person I’ve ever known’, despite his increasing levels of emotional abuse towards her throughout their relationship. Participants' belief in their partner’s redeemability was oftentimes supported by memories of the beginning of the relationship prior to the onset of the abuse and violence (Wilcox, 2006). Several participants, including Jackie, Estelle, Olivia, Bethany and Lisa, reported that their relationship had been very positive and loving during the initial phases of their relationship, which may have lasted for a number of years. As shown in the extract below from Estelle, these extended periods of non-­violence were viewed as evidence that their partner was capable of desistance: The first – I can’t be exactly precise – about two years, we were amazing. Like we were that annoying lovie couple that everybody got the shits with and told to go get a room. Like we were amazing, and he treated me amazingly… And I think that’s why I had so many issues because, it was never, physically violent until he was physically violent. And then it just stayed that way. Yeah. It was, yeah. And I think that’s why I always kind of had hope, because everything was so perfect for so long. And that little bit of hope, because I knew how good it could be, kind of kept me going with wanting to fix things. (Estelle, 27 years old, Persistence)

For Jackie, Dimity and Antonette, their belief in their partner’s redeemability was also reinforced by their perceived abhorrence of violence towards women, as well as support for gender equity and feminist causes more generally. For example, Antonette recalled that early in her relationship with her partner, he physically attacked someone who had sexually assaulted her. This act reinforced in her mind a view of her partner as her passionate defender who would use violence to protect her but not harm her. As she describes below, this narrative and the traits that Antonette projected onto her partner both impeded her ability to recognise the violence and abuse when it started, but also motivated her to remain with the relationship. My ex had a violent fight, including glassing the sleazebag who raped me... So therefore, he rescued me and ‘won’ me. So that is partly why I thought I was in the wrong story when he hit me – we were supposed to live happily ever after. More power to feminist fairy tales, hey? (Antonette, 64 years old, Desistance)

Jackie similarly recalled an incident where her partner had physically assaulted his uncle after he discovered he had been abusing his wife (see Case Study 2). Although in retrospect, Jackie believed that this incident was indicative of her partner’s propensity for violence more than anything else, when he told her this story, she recalled being impressed by his actions and believed that they were demonstrative of his passionate abhorrence of violence towards women. Certainly, as noted in Table 5.3, some of the men in the sample were described by participants as having been violent towards others in the past, which may be indicative of an antisocial personality or traits (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998; Johnson, 2010), or attitudes supportive of male violence more generally.

140

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

Participants who believed that their partner was redeemable viewed themselves as having a role in supporting them to return to their true self. For many participants, their partner’s true self was the person they observed during periods of reconciliation or at the beginning of the relationship, prior to the start of the violence and abuse, or the imagined protector or knight in shining armour they believed them to be. As Tasmin reflected: I think I’d always thought, that’s not the real him. The real him is the nice, is the guy after the blow-up, who’s trying to make amends and you know, keep, keep me happy and keep me there. I kept telling myself that’s the real guy, that’s the real him. (emphasis added; Tasmin, 35 years old, Persistence)

8.2.1 The Role of Attributions and Emotional Affect on Redeemability Interwoven with women’s belief in their partner’s redeemability and their true self was their understanding of the causes of the violence and abuse. In particular, many participants were able to remain optimistic that their partner could be rehabilitated by framing the behaviours as attributable to external factors, such as mental illness, alcohol and other substance use and prior traumatic experiences, rather than an active and voluntary choice to be violent. Among participants who blamed factors like alcohol and substance use for their partner’s abuse, there appeared to be an assumption that their partners could be altered or ‘fixed’ and that these were not static traits associated with the individual. For example, in addition to his excessive consumption of alcohol, Daisy attributed her partner’s violence to his prior traumatic experiences  – the death of a sibling when he was a child. She believed that because she had similarly lost a sibling when she was young she understood his pain and could help him to move past his trauma and, in turn, become non-violent. Meanwhile, Dimity attributed her partner’s violence to his loss of meaningful purpose and self-esteem because of his periodic unemployment. This influenced the strategies Dimity implemented to try to reduce the violence, which included encouraging him to develop business ideas and then purchasing multiple investment properties for him to manage, as well as her perceptions of his redeemability. As she reflected: I felt sorry for him as a trailing spouse and how hard it was. Even though we had a full-time maid for most of the time, looking after the kids, even though on weekends and so forth I was the one doing the cooking and stuff like that. I did really worry that it was very hard for him, with his loss of identity, and I really wanted to help make things better for him. (Dimity, 47 years old, Persistence)

The most common cause attributed by participants for the violence was their partner’s prior experiences of abuse and neglect within their families of origin (see Table 5.3). This was viewed as impacting their partners in multiple ways, particularly their ability to form functional and positive attachments to others, their emotional regulation and self-control and their attitudes towards women more generally.

8.2  Belief in Men’s Redeemability – Helping Men to Find Their ‘True Selves’

141

This was certainly Mary’s view, who directly attributed her partner’s poor emotional regulation and need to control and dominate her to his experiences of emotional neglect as a child: I could see that, well, I knew from very early on that he was... quite emotionally distraught within himself…His mother was always mean to him…I think that was his big problem, that he suffered from that attachment with his mother. He didn’t ever have that attachment, and she always kept him at arm’s length. And now I think that’s really sad, you know. And even when he was a young child, she always gave him lots of opportunities, but he needed more *starts to cry*. I find that really sad. Anyway. I always felt for him. (Mary, 72 years old, Desistance)

As demonstrated in the above quotes from Anne, Mary and Dimity, many of the participants felt empathy for their partner and expressed a strong desire to help them. This, in turn, reinforced their motivation to remain in the relationship and influence behavioural change.

8.2.2 Prospective Redemption Scripts Scholars have consistently noted the importance of redemption narratives in supporting desistance processes (Maruna, 2001; O’Sullivan et al., 2015). To date, this research has primarily focused on the role of offenders in generating these redemption narratives for themselves, albeit with input or feedback from external others (Bushway & Apel, 2012; Maruna, 2012; Reich, 2017). Further, redemption narratives have been described as a process whereby offenders narrate and explain a change that has already occurred, as opposed to something which has yet to happen. In this way, redemption scripts have been primarily discussed as important for the maintenance of behavioural change rather than the initiation of desistance processes. However, it appeared that many of the participants in this study generated prospective redemption narratives for their partner, centred around the belief that they were redeemable and capable of returning to their true self. The redemption narratives crafted by participants for their partners comprised five consistent components: 1 . My partner is capable of change – this is not who he really is. 2. My partner does not want to be violent. 3. My partner deserves sympathy and understanding. 4. My partner needs help to change his behaviours. 5. My partner’s violence is attributable to external causes, which are fixable. The cumulative impact of these prospective redemption scripts was that participants were able to maintain their view of their partner as a good man and that the abusive behaviours were not consistent with who they really were. This was crucial for participants to remain motivated to support their partner to desist and stay in the relationship. Interestingly, the development of prospective redemption scripts for their partners is highly consistent with deviance disavowal processes. Originally developed

142

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

by Fred Davis (1961) in his study of people with a physical disability, deviance disavowal processes have since gone on to be used within criminological research to understand the identity management processes some offenders undergo (see, e.g. Coleman & Straus, 1983; Durkin, 2009; McCaghy, 1968). Generally, deviance disavowal involves the active rejection of offender labels and their associated stigma. In particular, these processes allow offenders to maintain their view of self as ‘normal’ and their deviant behaviours as not indicative of who they are as a person (Durkin et al., 2001). For example, several studies have shown that violent offenders, including child sex abusers, explain their behaviours by saying they are a different person – i.e., not who they really are – when they are intoxicated (Coleman & Straus, 1983; McCaghy, 1968). Although deviance disavowal has typically been discussed as an offender-centric process, in the present study, it appeared that the participants themselves were engaging in projected deviance disavowal processes. In other words, participants were generating narratives in which they rejected negative labels that were, or could have been, associated with their partners because of their abusive behaviours. As described above, deviance disavowal processes were reinforced by their partners’ behaviours at different stages of the relationship, as well as their ongoing interactions with them. For example, when abusers apologised for their behaviours, participants often took this as a sign that their partner could be non-violent. In this way, the participant’s views about their partners’ redeemability, and motivations for remaining in the relationship, were being co-produced with their abusers. The participants were not generating meaning or engaging in identity management processes for their partner in a vacuum, but were doing so alongside and with their partners. This is consistent with dyadic theories of IPV. Contributing to processes of co-production were the actions of some participants, which could be viewed as attempts to reflect elements of the redemption script back to their partners. For example, several participants said that when they discussed the violence with their partner, they would remind them that they loved them and wanted to help them to get ‘better’. Further, as noted in Chap. 6, when they felt safe enough to do so, some participants would encourage their partner to seek assistance for their mental health or other issues that they believed contributed to the violence. These two examples demonstrate how the women were attempting to convey to their partners a view of the violence as attributable to external factors and as something to be ‘fixed’. Finally, during periods where their partners expressed remorse for the violence and described themselves in negative terms, some participants said they would challenge these descriptions and remind them that they were good people, or at least not the person they said they were. This practice is demonstrated in the below quote from Tasmin: Some of the times when he’d be really awful and then he’d go, and be like, you know, in a ball on the floor crying and saying he’s a terrible person [and] he should just kill himself, because he’s so awful and the [children] don’t deserve him as their dad and I don’t deserve him as a husband. So, then I’d be comforting and saying it’s OK. (Tasmin, 35 years old, Desistance)

8.2  Belief in Men’s Redeemability – Helping Men to Find Their ‘True Selves’

143

Redemption scripts and the associated deviance disavowal processes were used by a number of participants to justify their decision to stay in the relationship and support their partner to achieve long-term behavioural change. In turn, the decision made by participants to leave the relationship often coincided with the script being challenged or dismantled entirely. For example, several participants said that they came to realise that although the underlying causes of the abuse may have been attributable to external factors, these factors were not ‘fixable’ or their partner would never do the work needed to mitigate the impact of these factors. In turn, many participants determined that their partner was not capable of changing their behaviours. Bethany said that engaging with a drug and alcohol counsellor about her husband’s addiction to marijuana made her realise that he would not ‘choose her over the drugs’. This supported her decision to leave the relationship, at which point her mindset shifted from supporting long-term behaviour change to mitigating her day-to-day risk of experiencing serious harm until she could leave him. Furthermore, Estelle reflected that although she maintained her belief that her partner’s violence towards her was attributable to external factors – specifically the abuse and neglect he experienced as a child  – she determined that the influence these experiences had on him was irrevocable. Q: Do you think that he had any kind of insight into what he was doing, or do you think he thought he was completely within his rights [to abuse you]? A: I think it was more, he would realise what he was doing and that it was wrong and that he was going to lose me. But he didn’t know what else to do. Q: As a way of keeping you close to him? A: Yeah. And I can remember suggesting this ‘Why don’t we just go out for dinner? Why don’t I have a bath and you can just sit here, and we’ll chat’. Or you know, little, little things that meant we would still be in the same room but yeah...I just don’t think he knew what else to do and because his father and his own family kind of...I think because that’s all he knew; he was never taught any different. And it just became like a, the next generation cycle kind of thing. (Estelle, 27 years old, Persistence)

For another group of participants, their shift in thinking regarding their partner’s redeemability was influenced by incidents or events that made them believe that the behaviours were within his control, and so he was making an active choice to be violent. Whereas these women previously believed that their role was to uncover their ‘real’ partner, many came to believe that the violent and abusive version was actually who they truly were – it was a stable personality trait. As Rosie reflected: ‘He was never going to change. He was always going to be this person’ (emphasis added; Rosie, 50 years old, Persistence). Participants’ realisation or perception that their partner was choosing to be violent towards them and in turn was choosing to be a person they did not want to be with was highly distressing and upsetting for many women. As shown in the quotes below from Alison and Lisa, and in Case Study 7, the empathy and love they felt towards their partner turned into rage and disgust when they started to believe that they were choosing to be violent towards them. I hated him. Hated him. I hated him for the last couple of years of marriage. Hated him…I lost all respect for him. I saw him as a boy. A boy throwing a tantrum. (Alison, 40 years old, Desistance)

144

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

At the point, where he was never going to change and I was done done, there was nothing. [The relationship] was dead. (Lisa, 44 years old, Persistence)

It is unclear whether the failure of prospective redemption scripts – as described by the women and projected onto their partners – influenced their decision to leave their partner or whether it was used retrospectively to justify or explain their decision to leave. As noted earlier, within the desistance literature, redemption narratives have typically been used by people involved in crime to explain or understand their own desistance journeys once they have stopped offending. As such, redemption scripts have been described as having a role in maintaining desistance processes that are already underway. The same could be tentatively hypothesised here; the failure of prospective redemption scripts may have been used by participants to explain or understand their own decisions to leave the relationship after years of emotional attachment and the implementation of various strategies to bring about non-violence. In the first instance, they could be used to explain to external third parties both why they stayed in the relationship and their subsequent decision to leave. Certainly, as I noted above, several women emphasised to me the positive traits of their partner and the evidence that they used to justify their belief that their partner was redeemable. The prospective redemption scripts prepared and described by women in this study could be an attempt to provide a rational framework for helping others to understand their seemingly irrational decision to stay with their partner and support their behavioural change processes.

Case Study 7: Alison’s Story Alison met Cameron at a nightclub and started dating shortly afterwards. The relationship was on-off for many months, mainly because Cameron had a job which meant he was frequently overseas which made Alison wary about committing to him. However, after a few years together, they got married and Alison quickly became pregnant with their first child. The pregnancy and birth was a very stressful period for Alison; her beloved father died during this period, and she and Cameron moved interstate away from her support network for his job. Alison also developed post-natal depression and said that she was ‘not coping’ with the baby. These factors, in combination with Cameron’s belief that Alison was responsible for the majority of household tasks and his sexual gratification, cumulatively appeared to coincide with the onset of violence within the relationship. So, I moved cities to somewhere where I knew nobody. I had baby five weeks later, I had my dad die and then I got... postnatal depression really bad after I had him. And not surprisingly cos of all the other factors that were involved. And that perfect storm *laughs* started the cycle of violence, essentially. I... was not coping day-to-day with the baby. I was getting very overwhelmed; I was crying all the time. I didn’t want to have sex. He, that to him was, just something that was an expectation and if I didn’t want it there was a problem and it just blew out of proportion basically.

Alison said that Cameron would enter rooms and shout abuse at her, and then follow her around the house demanding sex. She recalled several incidents when she would be breastfeeding their son and Cameron would threaten

8.2  Belief in Men’s Redeemability – Helping Men to Find Their ‘True Selves’

145

to harm himself. Later, Alison also found out that he had been stalking her online which she said he had the skillset to do because of his job in IT. The abuse and violence continued for a period of nine months, at which point she said things ‘calmed down’ again. She attributed this to her increasing interest in sex. However, she soon fell pregnant with their second child, and they moved interstate again for Cameron’s job. At this point, the violence and abuse started again, although this time they were living near her best friend who provided Alison with emotional support and was present to witness many of his behaviours. When she was in the hospital giving birth, the midwives also witnessed an incident where Cameron came in and shouted abuse at Alison, which led to the hospital making a report to child protection services. Although nothing happened as a result of the report, Alison said she found this experience highly distressing as she was concerned about child protective services taking her children away. The violence and abuse continued to escalate, and her friend encouraged her to contact the police. However, Alison decided not to because she was concerned about negatively impacting Cameron’s career. A few months after giving birth for the second time, Alison slipped down the stairs and broke her back. Because Cameron was often away, she qualified for government-­funded in-home assistance. She found the presence of a third party in the house beneficial because they witnessed the behaviours and were able to reassure her that Cameron was being abusive and his behaviours were not ‘normal’. A lot of them actually saw the abuse as well because they were in the house and would see it. And so, I would talk to them about it, and I would be like ‘Is this normal? I don’t know what’s normal’. Like, you know, I’d never had a really serious relationship before this, this is the person that I’d lost my virginity to. Yeah, I didn’t know, I guess... I knew that it wasn’t nice, but I didn’t know whether it was normal. I guess. So, and they were like ‘This is not OK, this is not good at all’, you know? But I guess I felt like I had that level of protection of, a witness, in the house with me.

From this point onwards, while she was still partnered with Cameron, Alison always insisted on having live-in au pairs. This was not only to assist her with the children – which was difficult due to ongoing health issues related to her back – but also to witness the abuse and help protect her from her husband. After they moved interstate again, Alison decided to leave Cameron because she did not want her children to believe that the behaviours were acceptable. Alison started to gather evidence which she believed would support any future application she made for sole custody of their children. In particular, she kept a diary detailing all of his behaviours, as well as her contacts with IPV services. However, Alison received legal advice that if she moved interstate with the children after leaving Cameron, he could apply for a recovery order and then they would be required to remain in their current state. As such, Alison decided to wait to leave Cameron until he received a posting that would relocate them closer to her family and support networks. Once this happened, she started to make more detailed plans to leave, supported by a local IPV service.

146

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

However, while Alison was setting her plans in motion, Cameron found all of the evidence that she had been collecting. He confronted her and completely broke down emotionally, saying that he did not want to be his father – Cameron had grown up in a very abusive household, had witnessed significant physical and emotional abuse perpetrated by his father against his mother and had also been a target for abuse. Alison reported that on one occasion, Cameron’s father had held a shotgun to his head and threatened to kill himself in front of his thenadolescent son. Cameron promised Alison that he would change and she decided to give him another chance, although she did not believe that he would be able to. I didn’t believe it for the first 4–6 months, I kind of just went along thinking ‘Oh it’ll start up again’…Anyway it continued, it was nice and calm. I felt really good. Things were better than they had ever been in our relationship. So, I actually don’t know exactly what he was doing during that time, I know that he was seeing a psychologist. And I know that he was talking to people about what was going on. But things changed and the whole dynamic in the relationship changed and it was a normal, non-abusive relationship.

Alison reported that Cameron was not violent or abusive for three years following his discovery of her records, which she characterised as the ‘best’ time within their relationship. They became close and affectionate and went on numerous family holidays. Alison eventually believed that he had changed, and they decided to try and have a third child, despite her recognition that this had been a ‘trigger’ for the violence previously. As she reflected – ‘He was bad when I’m pregnant and when they’re newborn, because it takes the attention away from him and he can’t cope with that’. Alison’s third pregnancy was difficult, and she was put on extended bed rest after the first few months. It was at this point that Cameron started to become violent again. When she confronted him about his behaviours, he refused to change and instead told her that it was her fault that he was abusive. Alison started attending relationship counselling with Cameron, which she said helped to at least to minimise the children’s exposure to the violence; when Cameron would become aggressive, Alison would suggest that they save it for the counselling session. When they would attend counselling, Cameron would scream and yell at Alison, making sessions difficult and ineffective. At this point in the relationship, Alison became emotionally detached from Cameron and lost all respect for him. She attributed this to her belief that he was choosing to be violent, because the previous period of desistance had indicated that he was capable of non-violence. She eventually fled to a refuge with her children and applied for primary custody of their children. However, Cameron applied for a recovery order and was instead granted primary custody. Alison was horrified because her children were ‘court-ordered back into a house with no protection with an abusive man’, and she was left fighting for even part-time access to her children. After the separation, Cameron was extremely angry and would verbally and emotionally abuse his children. He also started abusing Alison through

8.3  Did Participant’s Motivations and Thought Processes Impact Desistance?

147

the child protection and family law systems; Cameron contested Alison’s petition for equal custody of the children, which she was ultimately successful in receiving. At the time of the interview, Alison still shared custody of her children with Cameron and she reported that his behaviours towards her and their children had de-escalated significantly. However, she said that if she had known that her children would have been removed from her care post-separation, she would not have left Cameron and instead would have stayed with him so she could protect them from his abuse.

8.3 Did Participant’s Motivations and Thought Processes Impact Desistance? There was little evidence that participant motivation had any impact on whether desistance did or did not occur, as well as the variation in desistance outcomes observed within the sample (e.g., complete cessation of all forms of abuse vs. de-­ escalation in the frequency and severity of abuse). Even within the Desistance cohort, there appeared to be significant variation in the motivations of respondents. Grace, Imogen, Elsie, Bella and Yvette all reported that they were primarily motivated by a desire to bring about long-term behavioural change. By contrast, Chelsea, Genevieve and Zoe said that they were primarily motivated to keep themselves safe and mitigate their risk of significant violence on a day-to-day basis. In other words, the former group was aiming to support their partners to address the underlying causes of the violence (as understood by them) and to end the violence within their relationships so they could remain partnered. The latter group, although similarly motivated to end the violence, described themselves as being in ‘survivor’ mode and were reacting to the violence and abuse on an incident level. As such, the change in violence and abuse they experienced was largely a result of the cumulative impact of strategies implemented to de-escalate high-risk situations, as well as reducing situational stressors associated with violence and abuse. Meanwhile, Alison and Antonette both reported that they did not intend to mitigate their immediate risk of violence and abuse or even support long-term behavioural change. Instead, they were in the process of leaving the relationship, and this initiated the cessation or reduction of violence. However, the causal mechanisms that may have underpinned the reduction in violence appeared to differ between the two women. In Alison’s situation (see Case Study 7), her partner became motivated to end his behaviours so that he could maintain the relationship and his access to relational goods. In comparison, Antonette hypothesised that it was possibly the resolution of her husband’s feelings of shame related to his numerous affairs that caused the change in behaviour. Finally, Mary and Tasmin did not view the strategies they had implemented as playing a role in reducing the violence. Instead, they directly attributed the change in behaviour to external factors beyond their control. This was an increase in capable guardianship within the relationship (Mary) and the abuser’s need for

148

8  Agency and Resistance – The Motivations and Thought Processes of Female…

dominance and control being satisfied in his work life (Tasmin). This was despite both of these women acknowledging that at the time of desistance occurring they were highly motivated to support their partner’s long-term behavioural change and wanted the relationship to persist.

8.4 Chapter Summary Building on the findings from Chaps. 6 and 7, the above discussion identified that women were highly motivated to end the violence and abuse they were experiencing. However, the extent to which participants were consciously attempting to initiate and support desistance processes differed. This said, even in situations where women described themselves as being in ‘survivor mode’ rather than proactively planning strategies to mitigate risk on an ongoing basis and support longer-term behavioural change, it was apparent that their responses and actions were agentic. This finding highlights the implications of excluding social relationships and victims of crime from theories of desistance as they relate to IPV and other forms of crime. In particular, victims-survivors have a key role in supporting IPV desistance, even when not intending to. Certainly, the motivations or intentions underlying participant strategies did not appear to be important for explaining the impact of these strategies on their abusers. Interrelatedly, this finding demonstrates the importance of understanding abuser thought processes when attempting to initiate and support desistance. Although the intentions and motivations of women may not have been relevant for distinguishing between the desistance outcomes observed across the sample, consistent with the findings from the broader desistance literature, how the men interpreted and responded to women’s strategies may be important. Furthermore, the analysis identified that participant motivation to remain within the relationship and support their partner to change his behaviours was influenced by the development of prospective redemption scripts and the interrelated processes of deviance disavowal. In particular, many participants strongly believed throughout their relationship that their partner was redeemable and that they had a role in supporting him to rediscover his true self. This belief in their partner’s redeemability was supported by the causes of the violence and abuse identified by the women, which were typically described as external factors that could be ‘fixed’ (e.g., mental illness, drug and alcohol dependence and the trauma related to histories of intergenerational violence). In some situations, participants attempted to influence the behaviour of their partners by reflecting back to them elements of the redemption narrative that they hoped would resonate and take hold. As described in Chap. 2, several desistance researchers have noted the reciprocal or performative aspect of desistance (Maruna, 2001; Pelikan & Hofinger, 2016; Vaughan, 2006; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). However, the prevalence of persistence observed within this sample, as well as the resumption of violence and abuse experienced by eight women in the Desistance group, perhaps highlights again the need for abusers themselves to initiate the process of desistance in order for it to be authentic and maintainable.

Chapter 9

Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors in the Desistance of Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence?

The aim of this study was to understand the role of female victims-survivors in the desistance of IPV perpetrated against them by their male partners. By so doing, I also sought to understand the processes underpinning the desistance of male-­ perpetrated IPV and examine the relevance of current desistance frameworks for understanding IPV desistance. In this chapter, I describe the main findings from this research, the implications of this research for policy and practice and areas for future research.

9.1 Victims-Survivors Were Agentic and Motivated to Support Their Partner’s Behavioural Change Processes As set out in Chap. 6, the participants implemented various strategies throughout their relationship to protect themselves, mitigate their risk of violence and abuse and also support longer-term behavioural change processes. On a day-to-day basis, they were making strategic decisions that had the effect of de-escalating high-risk situations, as well as preventing the onset of violent episodes. This included, in particular, avoiding triggers and being the perfect partner. Although these actions may be perceived as passive, it was apparent that even the participants who referred to themselves as being in ‘survivor mode’ were often making strategic decisions designed to keep them safe in the longer term (Wilcox, 2006). This was perhaps best demonstrated by Harriet, who used her partner knocking her tooth out as a means of allaying his anxiety related to her having an affair, something he would frequently accuse her of throughout their relationship. Participants were also highly motivated to remain within the relationship and support longer-term behavioural change processes. As described in Chap. 8, for © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7_9

149

150

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

many participants, this motivation was contingent on their belief that their partner was redeemable. Although women cited numerous structural barriers to leaving their partner such as financial dependence on their partner and lack of access to safe and affordable housing, it is critical that we understand and acknowledge that for many women, their decision and motivation to remain within the relationship and support their partner was driven by feelings of love, affection and empathy. Participants consistently referred to wanting to help their partner and indicated that they thought that the violence was not demonstrative of who their partner really was. Instead, for many women, their partner’s ‘true self’ was the individual they had fallen in love with prior to the onset of violence and abuse; the person who apologised for the violence, expressed remorse and said they wanted to change; or the ‘knight in shining armour’ they had imagined. Certainly, participants appeared to have generated well-articulated prospective redemption scripts for their partners, which were typically only dismantled or challenged after the relationship (and violence) had been ongoing for a number of years. All of these factors should be considered when challenging persistent narratives that female victims-survivors of IPV ‘should just leave’ (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 151; Hill, 2020; Meyer, 2016), or even that in order for victims-survivors to leave abusive relationships they only require structural supports. Crucially, while relationships were intact, participants were often the only people in their partners’ lives attempting to support them to change their behaviours. As described in Chap. 6, many participants who engaged in third-party help-seeking strategies, including asking for support from family members and friends (their own and their partner’s), attending relationship counselling and calling the police, said that victim-blaming and denial and minimisation of the abuse were often the response they received. Not only did these experiences potentially contribute to men’s own deviance disavowal processes, but they served to challenge participants’ own understanding of the violence and abuse, as well as their view of their role in supporting their partner to change their behaviours. Seen through a desistance lens, the experiences of participants appear to support the views of researchers who have suggested that ‘knifing off’ deviant networks is crucial for desistance processes to occur (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Warr, 1998). Relatedly, it should make us question the efficacy of IPV interventions that focus on the abuser in isolation without any regard for the social relationships within their lives that may serve to reinforce and condone their use of violence, either implicitly or explicitly. Further, if, as some research suggests, the desistance of IPV is dependent on abusers acknowledging the harms associated with their behaviours (Morran, 2013; Walker et al., 2017), the findings from this study raise important questions about how likely this is to occur if abusers are exposed to family members and professionals who deny or minimise their abuse and instead  emphasise their positive traits and that they are good men. This was certainly the experience of many participants in the current sample. For example, Lucy recalled that, even after her partner was imprisoned for IPV offences perpetrated against her, her mother-in-law emphasised that her son was a good father because ‘he loves the children’.

9.1  Victims-Survivors Were Agentic and Motivated to Support Their Partner’s…

151

Overall, despite well-founded concerns that including victims-survivors of IPV in discussions about male abuser behavioural change processes (including as part of research and the development and delivery of abuser treatment programs) is akin to victim-blaming, the findings from this study demonstrate that women are already engaging in desistance ‘work’ and may do so for a number of years prior to receiving any kind of external support. When designing interventions that aim to support IPV abusers to desist, it is necessary to provide victims-survivors who are still partnered with abusers the opportunity to have a role in this process. This will not only be of benefit to practitioners who can work with victims-survivors to receive detailed information about the violence and abuse, triggers and underlying causes, but would also empower victims-survivors who want to remain in the relationship to best support their partner while they are undergoing behavioural change processes. These programs can be informed by and build upon the work of feminist practitioners and therapists who have developed protocols for engaging with both victims-survivors and abusers in ways that empower women while also holding men accountable for the violence, while also providing a structured and safe space to discuss the violence and mitigation strategies (Gray, 2004; Harris, 2006; Shaw et al., 1996). One such response may be RJ processes. Although original iterations of these programs focused on early-career offenders  – particularly juveniles  – and low-level offences,1 there are now numerous examples of RJ programs that include more serious and complex offences, including sexual assault, family violence and IPV. At time of writing, in Australia, four jurisdictions provided options for sexual violence, family violence and IPV matters to be referred to RJ conferencing  – the ACT, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. Importantly, providing family violence and IPV victims-survivors with the option of participating in appropriate RJ processes was recommended by the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence in 2016. Within the limited research that has looked at the impact of these programs (see Gang et al., 2021), there is some evidence that participating in RJ may reduce family violence and IPV-related reoffending, compared to traditional criminal justice responses (Daly et al., 2013; Mills et al., 2016; Pennell & Burford, 2002). The findings from the current study provide further insight into the mechanisms that may account for the impact of RJ on desistance. For example, Alison’s partner stopped using violence against her for a period of three years after he had been confronted with her diaries which documented his extensive abuse. This appeared to trigger a strong emotional response from him, because he did not want to be like his father who had also been violent. RJ provides victims-survivors with a space in which they  There are ongoing debates regarding the suitability of including family violence and sexual violence offences within RJ programs. Concerns raised by some advocates focus on the potentially retraumatising impact on victims-survivors, particularly when the offender does not appear to want to take responsibility; the victim-survivor being coerced to participate in RJ processes by their abusers, because it may impact any ongoing criminal justice processes favourably; as well as victims-survivors being coerced into agreements and to ‘forgiving’ their abusers (Curtis-Fawley & Daly, 2005). However, practitioners and researchers have argued that, while these concerns are valid, they can be mitigated by well-trained facilitators and by ensuring that the process is always victim-centric. 1

152

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

can openly discuss the abuse and its impact on them without being interrupted by perpetrators, or their experiences minimised. Being confronted with this information, perpetrators may similarly experience a strong emotional response and seek to change their behaviour as a result. Further, RJ also provides an opportunity for perpetrators of IPV to demonstrate the work they have done already to change their behaviour and to have this change reflected back to them by victims-survivors and others. Again, this is comparable to the prospective redemption scripts used by participants in the current study who attempted to reflect back to their partners their ability to be non-violent. Crucially however, beyond their potential impact on IPV reoffending, RJ processes can have significant benefits for victims-survivors. For example, victims-survivors can  ask questions directly of perpetrators, including  why the violence occurred, which was certainly a question that many of the participants in the current study had. Further, victims-survivors are provided with a safe and supportive space to describe the abuse and its impact on them and to have these experiences and their feelings validated and acknowledged by external third parties (i.e. facilitators), which again several participants in the current study said they had not received during their relationship with their partner. Although many RJ programs primarily receive referrals from the police or other criminal justice agencies, there are ongoing conversations about the possibility for community-based referrals as well. This could provide a valuable opportunity for women who are experiencing IPV to be provided with a safe space, in which they can be supported in their attempts to initiate and support the desistance of the violence and abuse perpetrated against them, without being required to engage with the criminal justice system. As noted in Chap. 6, this was one of the reasons that many respondents viewed relationship counselling as a viable option for receiving external support, without having to engage with the criminal justice system.

9.2 Where Desistance Did Occur, Victims-Survivors Played an Important Role Of the 40 women interviewed as part of this study, 15 said that they had experienced the cessation or reduction in the violence and abuse perpetrated against them for a period of six months or longer while still partnered. In each of these situations, it was possible to demonstrate that the observed behavioural change was attributable to actions taken by participants. This was true even in situations where the participant did not intend to bring about desistance (see, e.g. Case Study 7). Furthermore, considering the absence of evidence that the partners of women in the Desistance group were participating in treatment or interventions or were engaged in any other obvious agentic actions to address their behaviours, I would argue that desistance would not have occurred at all if it were not for the actions taken by the women. For some participants, the observed change in their partner’s behaviour was attributable to the actions they were taking on a day-to-day basis to de-escalate high-risk situations where violence was likely to occur. This was demonstrated by

9.3  The Selection of Strategies and Their Impact on Desistance Was Mediated…

153

Chelsea who, in her analysis of her partner, became very effective at identifying his triggers and would know when to engage in compliance-based responses to reduce her risk of experiencing severe violence (see Case Study 6). Genevieve similarly reported that during disagreements with her partner, when he became emotionally heightened, she would acquiesce to his demands and stopped challenging him so that he would calm down. Several participants also reported engaging in more proactive strategies focused on mitigating the impact of situational stressors on their partners (Walker et  al., 2017). For example, in addition to the above-identified strategies of de-escalating fights with her partner, Genevieve moved their family to be closer to her parents so they could provide assistance with childcare, which she believed would resolve some of her partner’s day-to-day stress. Similarly, Hannah placed their children in day-care while she was studying and working so that he would not have to look after the children, which was a source of stress for him. Meanwhile, Bella and Zoe both reported that their partners experienced stress related to their academic studies, and so, in the lead-up to exam periods, they would make themselves more available to provide emotional support and, in turn, mitigate their risk of violence. For participants whose strategies focused on the mitigation of their daily risk of experiencing violence, which involved both proactive and reactive initiatives, the desistance they experienced may have been attributable to the cumulative impact of these strategies, as opposed to any conscious change within the abuser. However, for a small number of women, their actions moved beyond the mitigation of daily risk and attempted to address underlying causes of the violence – as understood by participants  – or encourage the abuser to acknowledge their behaviours and make a conscious attempt to change. For example, Grace used the implicit threat of reporting the sexual abuse to the police as a way of encouraging her partner to attend relationship counselling with her, which she viewed as crucial for the desistance of the abuse she experienced. Meanwhile, Alison’s partner’s discovery of her diaries, where she was recording his use of violence and abuse against her, appeared to evoke a feared self which in turn triggered positive behavioural changes. Based on the narratives provided by participants, it appears that the implementation of specific strategies coincided with the initiation of desistance and was also important for maintaining this non-violence. However, these strategies particularly – managing stressors, compliance and being the perfect partner – made participants feel stressed, emotionally exhausted and denigrated, meaning that they had the same impact on their day-to-day lives as the abuse itself (see Case Study 5 for an example of this).

9.3 The Selection of Strategies and Their Impact on Desistance Was Mediated by a Range of Factors A key component of the analysis undertaken as part of this study focused on comparisons between the Persistence and Desistance participant cohorts. The purpose of this analysis was to identify whether the occurrence of desistance could be explained by variations between the groups, particularly the characteristics of

154

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

participants and abusers, the nature of the violence and abuse and the type of strategies implemented by participants. As described in Chaps. 5 and 6, a key difference between the Desistance and Persistence groups was the level of economic power held by participants within their relationships. In particular, I identified that a number of women in the Persistence cohort reported that they were financially dependent on their partners, while participants in the Desistance group were often either the primary breadwinner or had comparable earning capacity to their partner. In turn, the nature and impact of financial abuse on these two cohorts differed significantly (see, e.g. Case Study 3), with more women in the Persistence cohort citing a lack of financial security as a significant barrier to leaving the relationship when compared to the Desistance group. The relative disparity in economic power between participants and their partners may have had implications for their ability to bargain and negotiate with them in order to bring about behavioural change (Hughes et al., 2015). This hypothesis was supported by the findings from Chap. 6; a larger proportion of participants in the Desistance group said they had implemented strategies focusing on the abuser changing their behaviour (e.g. asking them to seek help) and third-party help-­ seeking (e.g. relationship counselling and reporting the violence to the police), compared to the Persistence group. While numerous women in the Persistence group said they had not used these strategies because of concerns about violent reprisal from their partners, participants in the Desistance group may have been more willing to challenge their partners and demand change because they knew they had the financial means to leave. Furthermore, several studies have shown a strong interrelationship between the economic status of women, attitudes towards violence against women and gendered norms at a relationship and societal level (Eze-Ajoku et al., 2020; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015). What this suggests is that participants with more economic bargaining power within their relationship may have been more likely to view the abuse as unacceptable and were, therefore, more willing to push their partner to change. However, many of the strategies implemented by participants in the Desistance group that coincided with the reduction or cessation of violence were also used by women in the Persistence group. This would indicate that in many situations, the impact of the particular strategies implemented by participants was similarly mediated by other factors. As described in Chap. 5, another point of difference between the two participant cohorts was that a larger proportion of participants in the Persistence group reported that their partner had been violent towards other people besides themselves. This included former intimate partners, family members and non-family members (see Case Study 2). Abusers who were violent towards others may have been less likely to desist in response to strategies implemented by participants because these men were on a more established trajectory than the partners of women in the Desistance group (Buzawa & Hirschel, 2008; Goodman et al., 2003; Quigley & Leonard, 1996). In other words, these were men who had been using violence as a means of conflict resolution or for other reasons for an extended period of time and so their

9.4  IPV Desistance Involves Multiple Trajectories at Any Point in Time

155

behaviours were more ingrained and difficult to change. Alternatively, more significant histories of violence against others could be attributed to motivations, factors (e.g. attitudes that are supportive of male violence) and symptoms associated with an antisocial personality. The latter factor, in particular, has been shown to be negatively associated with the willingness to change and desistance among IPV abusers (Carbajosa et al., 2017; Loinaz, 2014). As such, the ability of participants who are partnered with these generally violent men to change their behaviours could be more limited. Overall, the findings from this analysis identified a small number of potentially important differences between the two participant cohorts that could explain why desistance occurred for some participants and not others. These differences, taken together, suggest that the selection and impact of strategies used by participants were mediated by a number of factors. This means that identifying the types of strategies used by female victims-survivors may be limited in its ability to explain variations in desistance outcomes. Instead, it is important to understand how these strategies ‘fit’ within the perpetrators’ offending trajectory, how they interact with and challenge or confirm existing power dynamics within relationships and the meaning derived from these strategies by abusers.

9.4 IPV Desistance Involves Multiple Trajectories at Any Point in Time As described in Chap. 7, the complete cessation of or reduction in all forms of violence and abuse within relationships was rarely reported by participants. Instead, it was apparent that during the periods of desistance described by the women, different types of violence and abuse were on varying trajectories. Critically, most participants reported the cessation of physical forms of abuse, while emotional abuse and coercive controlling behaviours often persisted or escalated, and others, especially sexual abuse, started for the first time (see Table 7.2). Further, for eight women in the Desistance group, the violence and abuse resumed after the period of desistance (see Table 7.3; see Case Study 7). That participants did not experience desistance as a unitary phenomenon is important when considering the relevance of current desistance frameworks for understanding IPV. Within the literature, there is an implicit assumption that desistance involves the cessation of all forms of criminal behaviour an individual may be engaging in. However, the findings from this study should make us question of whether this is an accurate reflection of offending patterns in all circumstances. The variation in trajectories for the different forms of violence and abuse described by the participants in this study, and even within individual relationships, highlights an important area of future research  – the examination of within-­ individual variation in desistance trajectories. Understanding whether the trajectories associated with specific types of offending differ within individuals and whether they are interrelated in any way (e.g. drug offending and property offending) could

156

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

assist in the development of interventions, particularly those targeted at generalist offenders. However, the finding that desistance was not experienced as a unitary phenomenon is not to suggest that the participants in the sample did not experience, or believe that they had experienced, desistance. Although the complete cessation of all forms of violence and abuse within relationships was rare, participants did report that there had been a noteworthy ‘break’ in the abuse they were experiencing. This disruption was sufficiently meaningful and memorable that participants were able to identify when it had occurred and its duration, describe what was happening in the lead-up and their role in its occurrence. Although the patterns of desistance described by women in this study are not necessarily consistent with current definitions of desistance (see Chaps. 2 and 4), information about breaks in patterns of violence and abuse is important for improving understanding of both IPV and desistance. In particular, if we view breaks in abuser trajectories as potential desistance signals, this information could be used to identify when abusers may be more susceptible to external intervention or motivated to change their behaviours. At these points, abusers could be supported to ‘scale up’ their desistance journeys to include non-physical forms of violence and abuse. This may be particularly likely if the evidence of the desistance they have already achieved is reflected back to them to assist in the creation of alternate selves (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Vaughan, 2006).

9.5 IPV Desistance Processes Have a Dyadic Component Dyadic models of IPV, as described in Chap. 2, emphasise the importance of situating violence and abuse within the context of the relationship (Capaldi & Kim, 2007; O’Leary & Smith Slep, 2003; Pandya, 2009; Péloquin et al., 2011). While violence and abuse are influenced by broader social structures, including gender inequity, gendered norms and attitudes towards violence and abuse, at a dyadic level, the actions and interactions of victims-survivors with their partners will inevitably have an impact on their partner’s behaviours and vice versa. Participants’ narratives provided evidence of IPV desistance involving some form of negotiation or co-production undertaken between victim-survivors and their partners. For example, deviant disavowal processes, as described in Chap. 8, were co-produced, with participant beliefs regarding their partner’s redeemability being reinforced by their partner’s behaviours and actions. This included apologising for the violence, periods of non-violence and memories from the beginning of the relationship. This is demonstrated in the experiences of both Hannah and Antonette, who recalled that after significant incidents of violence their partners would become motivated to ‘start again’ by making significant changes in the relationship, such as moving house or planning family holidays and gatherings. Furthermore, Grace and Dimity, who were still in relationships with their partner at the time of the interview, both reported that the persistence of the relationship had

9.5  IPV Desistance Processes Have a Dyadic Component

157

been made possible by ongoing negotiations with their partner about the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within the relationship. For Grace this involved frequent discussions about consent to engage in sex, whereas, for Dimity, this involved allowing her partner to gradually increase the amount of time he spent cohabiting with her as a result of his continuing non-violence. Also, as noted in Chap. 6, one in four women in the study attended relationship counselling with their partner during their relationship. Although the findings from this study appear to support some of the concerns raised by advocates, practitioners and researchers about these measures for addressing IPV (Drewitt-Smith et  al., 2019; Gilmore, 2019; McGregor, 1990; McKay, 2019),2 the point is that the participants viewed relationship counselling as an opportunity for them to be actively involved in the desistance process, supported by a trained professional, and to help their partner understand their behaviours and implement mitigation strategies (Brown & James, 2014). For other participants, like Elaine, Chelsea and Grace, the desistance of at least physical and sexual forms of violence within their relationship was brought about by their conscious decision to acquiesce to their partner’s demands. This was described as a reciprocal arrangement whereby the abuser may have desisted from specific forms of abuse in return for having his ‘needs’ met. Critically, these women viewed themselves as active participants in the desistance process and felt that their involvement in these behaviours ensured their safety. Women who did not experience desistance also frequently referred to unspoken or explicit ‘deals’ or agreements that they had struck with their partners: if they engaged in specific behaviours, they would not experience significant harm. This was reflected in the experiences of Kate, who said that during her relationship she believed that if she was a ‘good girl’, she would not be physically assaulted by her partner. These findings support and build upon the work of researchers who have described the role of social relationships in the co-production of desistance processes and, in particular, the withdrawal of relational goods in motivating abusers to change their behaviours (Weaver, 2013, 2015; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). For many participants in the current study, it appeared that their primary mechanism for encouraging their partner to change was through their control over access to relational goods. This included sexual and emotional intimacy, a sense of ‘belonging’ to a family unit, their access to shared children as well as other goods specific to the relationship (e.g. the prospect of having more children).  At the beginning of 2019, the Australian Commonwealth Government announced $10 million in funding for IPV victims-survivors and abusers to access counselling, which included relationship counselling. The announcement attracted criticism from IPV researchers, advocates and service providers, who argued that these responses empower abusers to continue their behaviours and make women responsible for managing their partners’ behaviours. In particular, concerns were raised about the capacity of relationship counsellors to understand and mitigate the impact of imbalanced power dynamics within counselling sessions and the potential risk to victims/survivors after sessions ended. Despite pressure from the IPV sector in Australia, the Government maintained their funding commitment. For an excellent overview of the ongoing controversies regarding relationship counselling as a therapeutic response to IPV in Australia, see Brown and James (2014). 2

158

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

9.6 Strategies Used by Victims-Survivors Were Highly Consistent with Desistance Theory Crucially, strategies implemented by participants were highly consistent with desistance theory. More specifically, the mechanisms underpinning the strategies implemented by participants are supported by research and evidence, which suggests that they could have had a positive impact on their partner’s behaviour. For example, a number of participants who experienced the desistance of their partners’ violence reported utilising formal third-party help-seeking as a means of increasing the consequences associated with offending (Giordano et  al., 2002; Laub & Sampson, 2001; Vaughan, 2006). This included threats to call the police, applying for protection orders or making a report to child protection services. For example, Imogen reported calling the police after the first incident of physical violence and every incident thereafter, while Grace implicitly threatened the use of legal sanctions as a means of encouraging her partner to attend relationship counselling. Another consequence described by participants related to withholding relational goods, including sex and emotional intimacy (Weaver, 2015; Weaver & McNeill, 2015). It is unlikely that participants were cognisant of the consistency between their actions and desistance theory. Rather, they appeared to be acting in ways that they believed would motivate their partner to change based on their understanding of them. The use of sanctions may have impacted desistance by decreasing the benefits associated with IPV and increasing the consequences – as perceived by the abusers – and triggering dissatisfaction with criminal identities. For some men described in the sample, this may have been sufficient to evoke a feared self that they wanted to avoid becoming. Often this feared self resembled their father or another abusive family member who may have terrorised them as children. Alternatively, some women described using different strategies to encourage their partners to understand and acknowledge the impact of the violence and abuse on them and others and experience shame as a result. However, participants were not only effective at evoking feared selves and making their partners feel shame. They were also very effective at creating and reflecting back to their partners’ alternative positive selves. These alternative selves were the individuals that their partners were prior to the onset of the violence or during periods of reconciliation. The evocation of alternate selves has been identified as crucial by desistance researchers, who have argued that feared selves may only be effective at bringing about behavioural change when they can be replaced by a more desirable self (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009; Vaughan, 2006). Desistance theory may also have a role in explaining situations where desistance appeared to be initiated and maintained as a result of the risk mitigation activities undertaken by participants on a day-to-day basis. In particular, as noted in Chap. 7, desistance in the absence of an agentic abuser making a conscious decision to change their behaviour has been described as ‘desistance by default’ (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009, p. 1148). Desistance by default occurs via the impact of sociogenic factors, of which strategies implemented by victims/survivors could play a part.

9.6  Strategies Used by Victims-Survivors Were Highly Consistent with Desistance…

159

Critically, these men may not even be aware that the change has occurred or the reason behind it. However, despite participant strategies being consistent with desistance theory, they were not effective in every situation in bringing about the reduction or cessation of IPV. Even within the Desistance group, the observed reduction or cessation of at least some forms of violence and abuse was not permanent (see Table 7.3). Different hypotheses may explain the resumption of violence after periods of desistance, as well as the absence of long-term behavioural change for the majority of women in the current sample (n = 25). These are: • Theories of change were misconceived. • Victims-survivors were not viewed as legitimate as agents of change in the eyes of abusers. • Abusers were unmotivated to change.

9.6.1 Misconceived Theories of Change: Strategies Exacerbated Rather than Mitigated Risk of IPV Often, when an intervention fails to have the desired impact on its target population, it can be attributed to the theory of change underpinning the intervention being misconceived or incorrect (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). In other words, interventions may not have the desired effect because it was pulling the wrong levers. Participants in this study implemented strategies that they believed would have a positive impact on the behaviours of their partner, informed by their detailed knowledge of them after often years of domestic co-existence. However, the failure of many of these strategies to bring about desistance, at least in the longer term, suggests that in some situations, the mechanisms were not appropriately matched with the underlying drivers of the violence. For example, among women whose primary strategy for addressing the violence was being the perfect partner (i.e. compliance, avoiding triggers and managing stressors), almost all said that the rules within the relationship would constantly change, making perfection difficult to achieve and maintain. In response to these moving goalposts, participants reported constantly adapting and changing their behaviours to try and remain compliant with their partners’ demands, with their partner’s controlling behaviours increasing over time. That perfection was impossible to achieve highlights the difference between control as a process and an outcome. Many people who use coercive control need constant affirmation that they have power over their partner and so create situations where this control can be demonstrated or reaffirmed (Mahalik et al., 2005; Stark, 2009). This perhaps explains Lucy’s experience of her husband changing his mind about how he wanted his shirts ironed every day. For men such as Lucy’s partner, compliance and dominance were not the desired outcomes but rather the demonstration of his power and control. This is supported by the finding in Chap. 5 that a

160

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

higher proportion of  women in the Persistence group said  that their partner was highly controlling in every domain of their lives, and would respond to rule-­breaking with escalations in the violence and abuse, compared to participants in the Desistance cohort. Alternatively, if men’s use of violence against their partner was attributable to their insecure attachment style, some of the strategies used by participants – particularly establishing emotional boundaries  – could be interpreted as a threat to this attachment and, in turn, trigger violence. Certainly, many of the men described in the study displayed behaviours that were consistent with insecure or preoccupied attachment styles. This included over-reliance on participants for their emotional needs, emotional dysregulation when women withdrew from the relationship, clinginess, constant anxiety related to infidelity and abandonment as well as low self-­ esteem and view of self (Bond & Bond, 2004). The inference that many of the men in the study may have had dysfunctional attachment styles is supported by the finding that the majority had experienced abuse and neglect as children and adolescents which has been linked to insecure and preoccupied attachment styles (see Table 5.3; Kesner & McKenry, 1998). Similarly, some research has suggested that men’s use of violence against their female partners may be more likely in situations where men experience gender role stress. Gender role stress occurs when men who adhere to traditional gender norms perceive themselves to either be failing or at risk of failing to live up to these standards (Mahalik et  al., 2005; McDermott & Lopez, 2013).3 Several studies have highlighted the role of gender role stress in IPV (Jakupcak, 2003; Mahalik et al., 2005; Moore et al., 2010). Men experiencing gender role stress may use violence and aggression as a means of confirming their masculinity and mitigating the psychological distress associated with their failure to comply with traditional gender norms. A potential source of gender role stress among men is their perceived subordination to women. Attempts by participants in this study to re-establish control or agency within their relationship  – no matter how minor  – may have been

 Attachment and gender role stress research have typically been siloed, meaning that attachment theory has rarely been examined through a gender lens. However, McDermott and Lopez (2013) suggested that there is an interrelationship between the two, with men who have dysfunctional attachment styles becoming attracted to and internalising traditional gender norms, because they provide a means by which they can manage their stress and anxiety related to emotional vulnerability within relationships, as well as controlling the outcomes of relationships – i.e. because men ‘own’ women, women cannot leave the relationship. As they noted: 3

Anxiously attached men may overly identify with traditional male values because they may offer some degree of protection from fears of abandonment. Likewise, avoidantly attached men may rigidly adhere to masculine gender role norms because such norms may allow them to control the level of intimacy in their relationships. Therefore, violence and coercion may be viewed by some men as an acceptable way of managing attachment-related threats to one’s masculinity. (McDermott & Lopez, 2013, p. 133)

9.6  Strategies Used by Victims-Survivors Were Highly Consistent with Desistance…

161

experienced by the men as a loss of control within the relationship and, in turn, subordination to their partners. Certainly, many participants noted that one of the main identified triggers for the escalation of violence within their relationships was challenging their partners in any way (see Case Study 6; Copenhaver et al., 2000; Jakupcak, 2003). Another source of gender role stress is emotional expressiveness.  When men who adhere to or endorse rigid gender norms experience emotional vulnerability, feel that they are not in control of their emotional affect or are confronted with another person’s vulnerable emotional state, they may become psychologically distressed. Some of the strategies implemented by participants were intended in some way to make their partners experience uncomfortable emotions, such as shame, guilt, fear or sadness, as a means of motivating them to change their behaviours. This typically involved discussing the violence and abuse and its impact and asking them to get help. However, these strategies were not just intended to make male abusers feel ‘bad’ but to help them to evoke a feared self (Paternoster & Bushway, 2009). For the majority of participants, the evocation of feared selves did not appear to reduce the violence or abuse being perpetrated against them. Indeed, in many situations, it had the opposite effect and made men more aggressive and violent. Seen through a gender role stress lens, it could be that for some of the men described in this sample, feared selves were unlikely to be effective as a means of triggering desistance processes because violence itself was a means by which they mitigated uncomfortable or psychologically distressing affective states (Kaplenko et al., 2018; Lisak et al., 1996). Furthermore, as described in Chap. 7, mitigating their partner’s feelings of shame may have contributed to the cessation or reduction of violence in Antonette’s relationship. Antonette reflected that her partner had multiple affairs throughout their relationship and became violent and aggressive when questioned about them. When Antonette told him she wanted to end the relationship, he appeared to be ‘relieved’, and the violence reduced significantly. Potentially, by indicating her intention to end the relationship, Antonette’s partner was able to justify or excuse his infidelity or at least minimise its ongoing impact on her in his own mind. What this highlights is the need to further explore the role of shame in the persistence and desistance of IPV and evaluate programs that aim to provide male abusers with mechanisms to engage with and deal with negative emotions like shame and guilt (Hill, 2020). Current understandings of the developmental or antecedent causes of men’s violence against their female partners are still evolving. If, as described in Chap. 6 and above, we believe that men’s use of violence against women may be influenced by factors such as attachment dysfunction, gender role stress and the need to have power and control over their partner, as well as to mitigate uncomfortable emotions, the strategies implemented by participants may have had the unintentional effect of exacerbating underlying causes of violence rather than mitigating them. As such, the implicit theory of change that women employed when deciding which strategies to use may not have been appropriate.

162

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

To test this hypothesis  – that the failure of some victim-survivor strategies to initiate and support desistance is attributable to misconceived theories of change – future research should engage with male abusers, as well as victims-survivors, about the perceived causes of the violence and abuse, the nature of strategies and their impact. If the hypothesis is found to be supported by evidence, it will point to the need to provide education and support to both victims-survivors and their abusers to develop safety plans that mitigate the day-to-day risk of violence while victims-­ survivors are still motivated to remain in the relationship. These safety plans would be informed by a detailed analysis of the nature of the violence reported within the dyad and its underlying causes. What this would look like in practice is unclear and would need to tread a fine line between empowering women to keep themselves safe but not holding them accountable for the violence and abuse being perpetrated against them (Goodman et al., 2005). However, if our primary aim is to keep women safe and support them to have the relationships that they want, we need to provide alternative service delivery models where they can receive support and advice while they are partnered.

9.6.2 The Perceived Legitimacy of Victims-Survivors as Agents of Change in the Eyes of Abusers was Limited An alternative hypothesis is that the strategies participants used may have been ineffective in bringing about desistance because the participants were not viewed by their abusers as legitimate sources of information about the violence or as agents of change within the relationship. Giordano et al. (2002) argued that abusers might be more likely to desist if they have access to ‘hooks for change’. Hooks for change are comparable to ‘turning points’, as described by Laub and Sampson (1998, 2003), in that they are key events or opportunities that may present themselves to or be sought out by abusers that can assist them to move away from criminal identities and towards more pro-social lifestyles. Typical examples of hooks for change include employment opportunities, the threat of imprisonment or other contacts with the criminal justice system, geographic moves, training opportunities and access to friendship groups. Many of the strategies described by the participants could be viewed as hooks for change as they provided abusers with an opportunity to change their trajectory and become non-violent. These included women asking their partners to attend relationship counselling or mental health counselling, attempting to engage them in conversations about the violence and its impact on them and the relationship, and supporting them to seek employment. Critically, Giordano et al. (2002) argued that for an offender to accept a hook for change, the hook and the person offering it has to be perceived as meaningful and legitimate by the abuser. Defining legitimacy and identifying who is perceived as legitimate requires engaging with the abuser themselves. However, it could be suggested that some participants may not have been effective in supporting the

9.6  Strategies Used by Victims-Survivors Were Highly Consistent with Desistance…

163

desistance of violence and abuse perpetrated against them because they were not viewed as a legitimate source of information about the violence and abuse by their partners. It is unclear why some women were viewed as legitimate sources of information and agents for change, while others were not. However, Alison’s story (Case Study 7) provides some potential insights. Alison said that she had spoken to her partner about his abusive behaviours on a number of occasions, but he had responded by minimising and denying the violence. It was only when he discovered her diaries and logs of his behaviours that he appeared to become motivated to change. It could be that directly speaking to her partner was less likely to be an effective means of communicating her concerns about his behaviours because he had become adept at ‘tuning her out’ and ignoring her. This may have been exacerbated by her heightened emotional state when she had these conversations with him. In contrast, seeing a detailed log of his behaviours may have been more difficult for him to ignore or dismiss because it was written down in ‘black and white’. That the logs also included information about Alison’s contacts with the police and IPV services and the advice they had provided may have also contributed to the weight of the evidence provided in these logs, as well as increased the perceived threat of detection. Similar to Alison, Grace also reported that even though she had told her partner on numerous occasions that sexual violence against partners was illegal in Australia, he did not believe her and dismissed her concerns. It was only when she was able to speak to a relationship counsellor, and they confirmed her understanding of Australian law, that her partner was able to move past his denials and agreed to not have sex with her unless she had explicitly provided her consent. In the currently limited research exploring the role of victims-survivors and social relationships in desistance processes, there has been no discussion about who is likely to be more effective in supporting abuser desistance processes. The unique power dynamics that are associated with IPV, particularly the subordination of women and dominance of men (Stark, 2009), highlights that different individuals are likely to have varying levels of perceived legitimacy in the eyes of abusers. As described in Chap. 2, feminist theories suggest that IPV is attributable to patriarchal systems that prioritise the needs of men over women. When these systems are internalised by individuals, they are likely to endorse traditional gender norms and hold attitudes that are supportive of violence against women and men’s violence more generally (McPhail et  al., 2007). Several studies have shown that men who hold these beliefs are more likely to be violent towards their partners (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015; Heise & Kotsadam, 2015; McCarthy et  al., 2018; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009; Santana et al., 2006). As such, it could be argued that the participants in this study were unlikely to be viewed as legitimate hooks for change because they were female and thus viewed as subordinate or less worthy of respect. This is not to suggest that victims-survivors of abuse are always going to be viewed as illegitimate; it will likely to be dependent on the individual abuser and the relationship. However, it consolidates the importance of others in supporting and endorsing the views of victims-survivors which could in turn support desistance processes. These third parties include criminal justice representatives, relationship counsellors, RJ practitioners and MBCP facilitators.

164

9  Discussion and Conclusions: What Is the Role of Female Victims-Survivors…

9.6.3 The Unmotivated Abuser Finally, most of the men described in this sample appeared to be unmotivated to change their behaviours and were not taking active steps to achieve non-violence – at least as far as participants were aware. This is not true for all of the men; a small number were reported to have sought support from counsellors and friends and families to address their behaviours, while a larger group did express remorse for their behaviours and made promises not to be violent again in the future. However, as noted previously, many men demonstrated their adeptness at minimising or denying their role in the abuse and even blaming their partners. As noted in Chap. 2, there has been an ongoing debate among desistance researchers as to the relative importance of the agentic abuser and identity change and social structures in promoting desistance. Although current desistance theory recognises the need for both, if we view women as sociogenic actors who exert influence on their partner’s behaviours, the fact that the strategies utilised by participants did not have the desired effect of bringing about long-term change in their partner’s behaviours again highlights the importance of the abusers’ cognitive state in desistance processes. If the men themselves were unmotivated to change, they were unlikely to reach out and accept women’s proffered hooks for change (Giordano et al., 2002). This again reaffirms the dyadic nature of IPV desistance processes. Although the actions of victims-survivors may be intended and designed to maximise opportunities for desistance to occur, if they are not accepted or interpreted as such by abusers, they may be ineffective.

9.7 Conclusion Despite IPV being one of the most harmful and common forms of violence against women in Australia and internationally, there is very little research which has examined the processes by which violence and abuse within relationships end or decrease in frequency and severity. There is significant value in undertaking research focused on understanding the desistance pathways of IPV abusers and taking into consideration the implications of this information for the development of interventions aimed at supporting victims-survivors and abusers. However, the relevance of desistance theories to IPV is currently unclear. In particular, IPV occurs within the context of a domestic relationship and so has an important dyadic component. In comparison, desistance frameworks are offender-centric and pay little attention to the actions of victims of crime. The aim of this study was to understand the role of female victims-survivors in the desistance of the IPV perpetrated against them by their male partners. Taken together, the findings from this study provide support for a hypothesis suggested by numerous IPV researchers over the past 30 years – victims-survivors have a crucial

9.7 Conclusion

165

role in the desistance of the violence and abuse perpetrated against them (Capaldi et al., 2003; Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Daniels & Murphy, 1997; Feld & Straus, 1989; Holtzworth-Munroe et  al., 1998; Pandya, 2009; Timmons Fritz & Smith Slep, 2009; Vickerman & Margolin, 2008; Walker et al., 2013a). As Aldarondo argued, ‘women are both the victims of assault and part of the natural process of its cessation’ (1996, p. 149). Consistent with dyadic models of IPV, when desistance did occur, it was brought about primarily through processes of co-production, including explicit and implicit agreements and negotiations being undertaken by victims-survivors and abusers over time. Although participants were unequal partners in these negotiation processes, they were also highly motivated and agentic. Future research should explore these ideas in more depth by speaking to both victims-survivors and abusers within the same relationship. This research should focus on not only understanding the actions (if any) that are taken by each partner to bring about behavioural change but also the responses to these actions and how they influence ongoing interactions. More generally, the findings from this study indicate that speaking to victims-­ survivors provides a wealth of information about the nature of the violence and abuse occurring within their relationships, but also what they were doing on a day-­ to-­day basis to attempt to affect their partner’s behaviours. Critically, it is unlikely that many of these strategies would have been known to perpetrators – including speaking to family and friends, engagement with government and non-government services when the perpetrator was not present as well as the minutiae of decisions that they were making in every interaction they were having with them. Although desistance researchers have historically acknowledged that desistance is likely influenced by the machinations of others, the discipline has typically not explored the role of social relations in desistance processes. There has been even more limited engagement with victims of crime when discussing desistance narratives. This book makes a significant contribution towards filling this gap. By excluding the voices of victims of crime, including victims-survivors of IPV, we not only minimise or sideline the efforts of these individuals in supporting offender desistance processes, but we also miss out on key information that could facilitate the development of desistance theory. Rather than being an island, IPV abusers and other offenders are likely to be supported and buoyed by the crucial work of others on their desistance journeys.

Attachment A: Interview Schedule

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me today. Hearing about your experiences will help me understand a lot more about intimate partner violence. I also think that the information you give me today could help women like you experiencing violence get better support, and also help design better treatment for men. Before we begin I need to remind you of a few things: • Your participation today is completely voluntary. You do not have to answer any question that you do not want to and you can stop the interview at any point. You can also withdraw from the study if you want to – just contact me using my information on the sheet I gave you. • The information you give me today will be kept confidential. However, I need to remind you that if you tell me something that makes me think that you or someone else is likely to be seriously harmed, I may have to tell the police. So try not to tell me anything like that. Also, please don’t describe in detail any crime that you or someone else has been involved in, that hasn’t already been dealt with by the police (e.g. robbery, drug dealing) • Interviews typically take about 60–90 minutes but it can be shorter or longer. Is there a time that you need to leave here by? I’ll keep an eye on the time, and I’ll check in at certain points to make sure you don’t need to run off. • Do you have any questions for me about the study or what we are going to talk about today? (If yes, note questions on written consent form and answer as best as possible). Feel free to ask me any questions you want to at any point. I’m more than happy to answer them if I can. • Are you still happy to consent to participate today? (If yes, ask them to complete written consent form OR complete the oral consent form with them (phone). If no, thank them for their time and close interview) Now that the admin stuff is done, let’s get a bit more comfortable. We’re here to talk about your experiences of intimate partner violence, and the things that you did to protect yourself and to stop the violence. I have a couple of questions I need to © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7

167

168

Attachment A: Interview Schedule

ask, but really this is your show. I’m hoping you can tell me your story in your own words. You don’t have to tell me anything that you don’t want to. You’re in control. Does that sound good? 1. To kick us off, can you tell me a bit about your relationship with your partner? To protect everyone’s privacy, let’s call him XXX while we are together today? • Prompts: ––How did you meet? ––How long have you been/were you together for? ––Did you ever live together? ––Do you have any kids? 2. Now I’d like to learn a little bit about the violence you experienced with Mark. Just remember you don’t have to answer any question you don’t want to, and we can take a break or stop at any point. Can you tell me a bit about the violence within your relationship with XXX? • Prompts: ––At what point in the relationship did the violence start? ––Was the violence physical? Emotional? Controlling? ––How often do you think he was violent towards you per week/month? ––Was there anything that you can think of that seemed to trigger the violence? (eg alcohol, drug-use, financial stress, arguments about fidelity) ––Did the abuse change over time or was it pretty stable/predictable? ––Was this the first time a partner had been violent towards you? Thank you for telling me about what happened to you. It sounds like you had to deal with a lot at that time in your life, and it means a lot that you are willing to let me hear your story. What you experienced is unfortunately very common, I’ve heard similar stories before. You’re not alone in your experiences of violence. 3. When women experience violence, they can react in a bunch of different ways – and there really is not a right or wrong way to respond. When Mark was violent towards you, what strategies did you use to try and stop the violence? • Prompts: ––Fight back, give him what he wanted, distract him, leave the relationship, sought help from others (formal and informal), withdraw, go ‘limp’ ––What strategy do you think you used the most? Why was this your go-to? ––What strategy did you use the least? Why was this? ––Did the strategies you use change over time? (eg when the violence first started and when it had been going on for a while) Why did you change your approach?

Attachment A: Interview Schedule

169

––Did your knowledge of him impact the strategies you used? In what way? 4. When you did [strategy], what would XXX do/what happened? • Prompts: ––How did he react emotionally? Did he become belligerent, angry, frustrated, apologetic, tearful, depressed, conciliatory. ––Did he do anything differently? Did he withdraw, leave, seek treatment, apologise, threaten. ––Did the violence change at all? Did he become more violent, less violent, violence remained unchanged. ––Did you predict he would react the way he did? ––Why do you think he reacted that way? ––What strategy do you think had the biggest impact on the violence? ––What strategy do you think had the smallest impact? It sounds like you tried a lot of different things to try and get him to stop hurting you. Thank you for telling me about that. 5. Can you tell me a bit about your emotional state (how you felt) when you tried these different strategies to end the violence? • Prompts: ––Hopeful, angry, exasperated, optimistic, hurt, frustrated, depressed, distressed etc. ––Did your emotional state change over time? ––Did the strategies you used influence how you felt about yourself, your partner and the violence within your relationship? 6. Now I’d like to talk about when the violence stopped/reduced. Can you tell me about that? • Prompts: ––How long after the violence started, did it stop/reduce significantly? ––Was it a gradual process or was it a sudden change? ––What do you think triggered or started the process of him stopping/reducing the abuse? (Treatment, police intervention) ––Were you expecting the change when it occurred? 7. Do you think that you had a role in the violence stopping? What was it? Thank you for telling me about what was happening to you at that time in your life. You went through a lot and it’s great that you can talk about it. Hearing your story I felt XXXXXXXXXXX. 8. How are you feeling right now? 9. How do you think this process went? Was there anything I could do differently to make the next person I speak to more comfortable? 10. Do you have any advice for any women who are experiencing violence?

170

Attachment A: Interview Schedule

11. What do you think needs to change so that women experiencing violence are better supported? 12. Do you have any questions for me? Thank you for speaking to me today. I think it was really brave of you to tell me your story and the different things you have experienced which I think anyone would agree with. You have made a really important contribution to the research, and I think your story will help us to better help other women who are experiencing violence. I’ll check in with you tomorrow to see how you’re doing. If before then you’re feeling upset or distressed about what we’ve spoken about, there’s a list of services that you can get hold of on the Information Sheet and this card.

Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet

Researchers: Two researchers, XXX and XXX, from the Australian National University (ANU) College of Arts and Social Sciences, are conducting this study. XXX is a PhD candidate at the ANU and XXXX is an Associate Professor. Project Title: Desistance from intimate partner violence: the role and experiences of women supporting men’s behaviour change General Outline of the Project: Description and Methodology: The ANU is conducting a study that looks at the strategies that women who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) use to protect themselves, to try and stop the violence from happening, and the impact of these strategies. To better understand this important issue, researchers from the ANU will be conducting interviews with women who have experienced IPV and have some experience of the ‘desistance’ of violence against them. Desistance means that their partner has either completely stopped being violent towards them, OR has reduced the amount of abuse he was committing against them, for a period of at least 6 months. Intimate partner violence can be physical (slapping, grabbing, shoving, hitting) or emotional/verbal (name-calling, stopping someone from seeing their friends, trying to frighten or intimidate someone etc). During the interviews, researchers will be asking women about the violence they experienced, the things the women did at different points in the relationship to try and stop the violence, what they think happened because of these strategies and what role they think they had in their partner stopping or reducing his abusive behaviour. Participants: The research team will be talking to 20–30 women who meet the following criteria: • have experienced IPV from a current or former male partner; • have experienced the desistance of their partner’s violence towards them, which means: © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7

171

172

Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet

–– their partner stopped being violent towards them for at least the past 6 months; or –– their partner’s violence has reduced a lot for at least the past 6 months. • currently live in Canberra (or the surrounding areas eg Queanbeyan); and • are currently 18 years or older. Use of Data and Feedback: The findings from this research will be described in a report that will be submitted to the ANU as part of XXXX PhD studies. The findings will also be published in research reports, journal papers and conference presentations. Copies of these reports (and summaries of key findings) will be made available to you via a Dropbox accessible through the following link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zuyxnn0sll99rhj/AACJAfXCtRtI6 2wY9GxZFidpa?dl=0 Participant Involvement: Voluntary Participation & Withdrawal: You do not have to participate if you do not want. It is entirely up to you. You can pull out of the research at any point before June 2020 when the research team will be writing the final report. You do not have to say why you don’t want to participate any more. You can also choose not to answer any question during the interview. That is completely fine. To withdraw all you have to do is contact a member of the research team using the contact details listed at the end of this sheet. If you withdraw, the researchers will destroy any information that you have provided. What does participation in the research entail? During the interview a researcher will ask you questions about the violence you experienced, the strategies you used to protect yourself and stop the violence, and what impact you think it had. You are free to skip any question you would prefer not to answer  – you don’t have to tell the researcher anything you don’t want to. With your consent, the interview will be taped and the researcher will be taking notes. The interview will not be taped unless you say it’s OK. Location and Duration: The interview will take about 60–90  min, but it entirely depends on how much you want to say. Interviews will be conducted in-person at a suitable and private place agreed between you and the researcher. This may be at the ANU, a community centre, or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women may want to meet at the Winnunga Nimitija health service centre. Interviews cannot take place at your own or the researcher’s home. If you would prefer not to meet in-person, the interview can be done over the phone. Remuneration: As a token of appreciation for the time and effort taken to participate in an interview, women who participate will be given a (maximum) $50 cash. This will be provided to you at the beginning of the interview. Risks: The researcher will be asking you about your experiences of IPV, and require you to remember events that could be upsetting. If you think that answering questions about the violence you experienced would be very

Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet

173

d­ istressing and make you unwell, you should not participate in this study. Remember, you can ask to stop the interview at any time or choose not to answer any question that the researcher asks. If the researcher conducting the interview becomes concerned about anything, they may stop the interview. They will also check in with you a few days after the interview to make sure you are still OK. If you feel upset, you will be encouraged to contact a support service like Lifeline, 1800Respect or the Domestic Violence Crisis Centre in Canberra. If you need any kind of help or support, it is available for you. Benefits: Some people feel pretty good after talking to a researcher about their experiences, but this does not happen for everyone. However, it is expected that the study will provide important information about what women in violent relationships do to try and bring about an end to the violence, which could help design better services for women experiencing violence. It is also expected that this study will provide information that could help to design better treatment programs for men who are violent towards their partners. Confidentiality: Confidentiality: The protection of your privacy is very important. Your name and any other information that could be used to identify you (eg names of other people, places of work, school names etc), will not be used in any report that comes out of this study. With your consent the interview will be recorded. The recording will be used so the research team can create a correct written account of what you said. Once the written record of the interview has been created, the electronic copy will be destroyed. No identifying information will be included in written interview records. The researcher will not tell anyone about what you say during the interview. However, if you say something that makes them think it is likely that you or someone else will be seriously hurt or harmed in the future, they may have to tell the police. So try not to tell the researcher anything like that. If the researcher thinks you are going to tell them something that they have to tell the police about, they will stop the interview. Also, please don’t describe in detail any crimes that you or someone else has been involved in that haven’t already been dealt with by the police (eg robbery, drug-dealing). This is to protect both you and the researcher. Confidentiality will be protected as far as the law allows. Privacy Notice: In collecting your personal information within this research, the ANU must comply with the Privacy Act 1988. The ANU Privacy Policy is available at https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_010007 and it contains information about how a person can: access or seek correction to their personal information; complain about a breach of an Australian Privacy Principle by ANU, and how ANU will handle the complaint.

174

Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet

Data Storage: Where: The information you provide will be handled with care. All information collected will be stored under secure password protected conditions. Hard copy data will be stored in  locked filing cabinets on ANU premises. Electronic data will be kept on secure ANU servers. Only the researchers named in this document will have access to the data. How long: Data will be kept for a minimum of 5 years following publication. If you consent, the information you give can be stored in the Australian Data Archive. This will mean that after the project is finished the information will be preserved and protected indefinitely. The reason for doing this is that community members, community groups and researchers may wish to access this information to answer other questions about IPV they might have. All information will be stored securely. Remember, no identifying information will be included in these records (eg names, dates of birth, place names, school names, unique or unusual details relating to events like police contacts, court cases, violent episodes). Queries and Concerns: Contact Details for More Information: If you have any questions or complaints about this project, please feel free to contact XXX (XXXXXXXX) or XXX (XXXXXXX). Contact Details if in Distress: If you experience any distress as a result of participating in this project, you are encouraged to contact one of the services listed below. Emergency services (available 24/7) • Police/ambulance/fire: 000 –– For assistance in life-threatening or time critical emergency situations only • Lifeline Australia anytime: 13 11 14, or visit the website: https://www.lifeline.org.au. –– A provider of general and emergency counselling, information and referrals Other services include (available 24/7): • Domestic Violence Crisis Service: 02 6280 0900 –– Provides crisis intervention services as well as programs for both women experiencing domestic violence and male perpetrator treatment. Based in Canberra. • Relationships Australia: 1300 364 277 –– A provider of relationship support services for individuals, families and communities

Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet

175

• National Sexual Assault and Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service (1800 RESPECT): 1800 737 732 or go to the website https:// www.1800respect.org.au/ –– Provides counselling, information, and referrals for domestic and family violence related situations. • Family Relationship Advice Line: 1800 050 321 –– Provides information on family relationship issues and advice on parenting arrangements after separation. This support line is for anyone who is affected by family relationship or separation issues. They can also provide referrals to local services. • Family Drug Support Australia: 1300 368 186 –– A telephone support service for users, families, and carers in crisis due to alcohol and other drug use. • SANE Australia: 1800 187 263 –– Information about mental illness, treatments, where to go for support and help carers. • Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team: 1800 629 354 –– Provides acute mental health assessment and treatment services in a place that is suitable for you. • ACT Access Mental Health: 1800 629 354 or 6205 1065 –– 24/7 mental health emergency access and support service Other services include (weekday availability) • Social Work Services: 13 28 50 (available Mon–Fri 8am–5pm) –– Provides information, support and short-term counselling for a range of issues: personal and family crisis, mental health concerns, family and domestic violence, health services, legal services, emergency accommodation and housing support, and financial help. • Parentline ACT: 02 6287 3833 (available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm) –– Confidential counselling service for parents and carers. They can offer immediate counselling, information and referrals. • ANU Counselling Centre: 02 6125 2442 (available Mon–Fri 8:55am–4.45pm during teaching semesters) –– Provides confidential general counselling and referral services to enrolled ANU students.

176

Attachment B: Participant Information Sheet

• Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service: 02 6284 6222 (available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm) –– Provides physical and mental health support services to Indigenous identified Canberra residents. Ethics Committee Clearance The ethical aspects of this research have been approved by the ANU Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol 2019/142). If you have any concerns or complaints about how this research has been conducted, please contact: Ethics Manager The ANU Human Research Ethics Committee The Australian National University Telephone: +61 2 6125 3427 Email: [email protected]

Attachment C: Consent form for Participants

Desistance from intimate partner violence: the role and experiences of women supporting mens’ behaviour change I have read and understood the Information Sheet you have given me about the research project, and I have had any questions and concerns about the project (listed here)

addressed to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in the project.

YES ☐ NO ☐

I agree to this interview being audio-recorded

YES ☐ NO ☐

I agree to be identified in the following way within research outputs: Pseudonym No attribution

YES ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ NO ☐

Signature:…………………………………………….

Date:………………………………………………….

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7

177

Attachment D: Online Survey

In 2016, an estimated 2700 women in Canberra said they had experienced violence from a former or current partner in the past 12 months, and 9100 said they had experienced emotional abuse. These numbers are TOO HIGH. Women and their children have the right to feel safe in their homes and in their relationships, and we need to do more to prevent violence from occurring and to help women get the support they need when it does happen. To do this, we need to know more about how intimate partner violence (IPV) begins and ends, and hear from women who have experienced IPV. The ANU is conducting a study that will explore the strategies that women who have experienced IPV used to protect themselves and to try and stop the violence, and the impact that these strategies had. To improve our understanding of this important issue, we want to speak to women who:

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7

179

180

Attachment D: Online Survey

• have experienced IPV from a current or former male partner; • have experienced the desistance of their partner’s violence towards them, which means –– their partner stopped being violent towards them for at least 6 months; or –– their partner’s violence has reduced a lot for at least 6 months. • currently live in Canberra (or the surrounding areas eg Queanbeyan); and • are currently 18 years or older. Intimate partner violence can be physical (slapping, grabbing, shoving, hitting) or emotional/verbal (calling you names, stopping you from seeing your friends, trying to frighten you etc). Women do not have to still be in a relationship with the person who was violent towards them to participate in the study. What are you asking me to do? We are inviting women who meet the above criteria to participate in an interview with a member of the research team (XXXXX). During the interview, you will be asked about the violence you experienced, the things you did at different points in the relationship to try and stop the violence and what you think happened because of these strategies. The interview will take about 60–90 minutes and will be conducted in person or over the phone. If you say it is ok, the researcher will tape the interview and take notes. So that we can make a time with you to hold the interview, you will be asked to provide the research team with your contact details (phone or email). As a token of appreciation for the time and effort taken to participate in an interview, women who participate will be given $50 cash. This will be provided to you at the beginning of the interview. Do I have to participate? You don’t have to participate in the study if you don’t want to. It is entirely up to you. You can also choose not to answer any question we ask you during the interview or stop the interview at any point. You can withdraw from the study at any point before June 2020 when the research team will be finalizing the report. 1

Now that you have read some information about the study, are you interested in meeting with a researcher to participate in an interview?

◻ Yes ◻ No (If selected, survey skips straight to end page 1)

Attachment D: Online Survey

181

Thank you for your interest in the study. We believe that by speaking to you and hearing about your experiences our understanding of violent relationships and how women react and try to end the violence will improve a lot. Before going any further, could you please read the linked Participant Information Sheet. This provides more details about how the information you provide will be used and stored, how your identity will be protected and what to do if you decide you do not want to participate any more. It should only take you a few minutes to go through this information, but please read it carefully. The Participant Information Sheet can be accessed here. Now that you have read the Information Sheet, if you are still happy to participate please answer the following questions. Your answers to these questions ill make sure that you are eligible to be a part of the study. 2 What is your gender? ◻ Male (If selected, survey skips to end page 2) ◻ Female 3 How old are you right ◻ Under 18 (If selected, survey now? (In years) skips to end page 2) ◻ 18–24 years old ◻ 25–34 years old ◻ 35–44 years old ◻ 45–54 years old ◻ 55 years or older 4 Do you live in Canberra ◻ Yes, I live in Canberra or the surrounding areas ◻ Yes, I live in the surrounding right now? areas ◻ No (If selected, skips to end page 2) 5 Has your current partner ◻ Yes (Current partner) or an ex ever been ◻ Yes (Previous partner) violent towards you? ◻ No (If selected, survey skips to Violence can be physical end page 2) (eg being hit, grabbed, slapped, beaten up, choked etc) or emotional (being called names, controlled, made to feel frightened and threatened). 6 Has this person been ◻ Yes violent towards you over ◻ No (Skips to q9) the past 6 months? 7 Would you say that the ◻ Yes violence has reduced ◻ No (If selected, survey skips to over the past 6 months? end page 2) For example, the violence is not happening as much as it used to, or it’s less extreme or severe. 8 What is the gender of ◻ Male the person who was ◻ Female (If selected, survey skips violent towards you? to end page 2)

182 10

Attachment D: Online Survey How did you find out about this study?

◻ Social media (eg Facebook) ◻ IPV support service ◻ Newspaper/magazine ◻ Posters/flyers on community notice board ◻ Word of mouth ◻ Other (please specify) ____________________________

End page 1 (Respondents who do not want to participate in the study): Thank you for visiting this page and reading about the study. If you feel upset or distressed about anything to do with the study (now or later), we encourage you to contact someone who can help. We have provided a list of services for you to look at below. Emergency services (available 24/7) • Police/ambulance/fire: 000 –– For assistance in life-threatening or time critical emergency situations only • Lifeline Australia anytime: 13 11 14, or visit the website: https://www.lifeline.org.au. –– A provider of general and emergency counselling, information and referrals Other services include (available 24/7) • Domestic Violence Crisis Service: 02 6280 0900 –– Provides crisis intervention services as well as programs for both women experiencing IPV and male perpetrator treatment. Based in Canberra. • Relationships Australia: 1300 364 277 –– A provider of relationship support services for individuals, families and communities • National Sexual Assault and Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service (1800RESPECT): 1800 737 732 or go to the website https:// www.1800respect.org.au/ –– Provides counselling, information, and referrals for domestic and family violence related situations. • Family Relationship Advice Line: 1800 050 321 –– Provides information on family relationship issues and advice on parenting arrangements after separation. This support line is for anyone who is affected by family relationship or separation issues. They can also provide referrals to local services.

Attachment D: Online Survey

183

• Family Drug Support Australia: 1300 368 186 –– A telephone support service for users, families, and carers in crisis due to alcohol and other drug use. • SANE Australia: 1800 187 263 –– Information about mental illness, treatments, where to go for support and help carers. • Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team: 1800 629 354 –– Provides acute mental health assessment and treatment services in a place that is suitable for you. • ACT Access Mental Health: 1800 629 354 or 6205 1065 –– 24/7 mental health emergency access and support service Other services include (weekday availability) • Social Work Services: 13 28 50 (available Mon–Fri 8am–5pm) –– Provides information, support and short-term counselling for a range of issues: personal and family crisis, mental health concerns, family and IPV, health services, legal services, emergency accommodation and housing support, and financial help. • Parentline ACT: 02 6287 3833 (available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm) –– Confidential counselling service for parents and carers. They can offer immediate counselling, information and referrals. • ANU Counselling Centre: 02 6125 2442 (available Mon–Fri 8:55am–4.45pm during teaching semesters) –– Provides confidential general counselling and referral services to enrolled ANU students. • Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service: 02 6284 6222 (available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm) –– Provides physical and mental health support services to Indigenous identified Canberra residents. End page 2 (Respondents who said they were interested in participating, but do not meet criteria for inclusion in study): Thank you for your interest in this study. Your views and experiences are very valuable and no doubt would help us to understand IPV better. However, unfortunately at this stage you do not meet the criteria for participation in the study. To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be female, and:

184

Attachment D: Online Survey

• have experienced IPV from a current or former male partner; • have experienced the desistance of your partner’s violence towards you, which means: –– your partner stopped being violent towards you for at least the past 6 months; or –– your partner’s violence has reduced a lot for at least the past 6 months. • currently live in Canberra (or the surrounding areas eg Queanbeyan); and • are currently 18 years or older. This is a small study, and unfortunately we cannot speak to everyone we would like to. Hopefully this study will lead to other, larger research projects that are not as limited in scope. We apologise if you are disappointed or inconvenienced in any way. If you are feeling distressed or upset now or at a later stage, we encourage you to contact one of the below listed services. If you would like to talk to a member of the research team about the study eligibility criteria, or the study more generally, please contact XXXXX on XXXXXX (Mon–Fri 9am–5pm). Thank you again. Emergency services (available 24/7) • Police/ambulance/fire: 000 –– For assistance in life-threatening or time critical emergency situations only • Lifeline Australia anytime: 13 11 14, or visit the website: https://www.lifeline.org.au. –– A provider of general and emergency counselling, information and referrals Other services include (available 24/7) • Domestic Violence Crisis Service: 02 6280 0900 –– Provides crisis intervention services as well as programs for both women experiencing IPV and male perpetrator treatment. Based in Canberra. • Relationships Australia: 1300 364 277 –– A provider of relationship support services for individuals, families and communities • National Sexual Assault and Domestic Family Violence Counselling Service: 1800 737 732 or go to the website https://www.1800respect.org.au/ –– Provides counselling, information, and referrals for domestic and family violence related situations. • Family Relationship Advice Line: 1800 050 321 –– Provides information on family relationship issues and advice on parenting arrangements after separation. This support line is for anyone who is

Attachment D: Online Survey

185

affected by family relationship or separation issues. They can also provide referrals to local services. • Family Drug Support Australia: 1300 368 186 –– A telephone support service for users, families, and carers in crisis due to alcohol and other drug use. • SANE Australia: 1800 187 263 –– Information about mental illness, treatments, where to go for support and help carers. • Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team: 1800 629 354 –– Provides acute mental health assessment and treatment services in a place that is suitable for you. • ACT Access Mental Health: 1800 629 354 or 6205 1065 –– 24/7 mental health emergency access and support service Other services include (weekday availability) • Social Work Services: 13 28 50 (available Mon–Fri 8am–5pm) –– Provides information, support and short-term counselling for a range of issues: personal and family crisis, mental health concerns, family and IPV, health services, legal services, emergency accommodation and housing support, and financial help. • Parentline ACT: 02 6287 3833 (available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm) –– Confidential counselling service for parents and carers. They can offer immediate counselling, information and referrals. • ANU Counselling Centre: 02 6125 2442 (available Mon–Fri 8:55am–4.45pm during teaching semesters) –– Provides confidential general counselling and referral services to enrolled ANU students. • Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service: 02 6284 6222 (available Mon–Fri 9am–5pm) –– Provides physical and mental health support services to Indigenous identified Canberra residents. End page 3 (participants who said they were interested in participating AND met the eligibility criteria): Thank you for answering these questions, your responses confirm that you are eligible to be a part of the study. We are excited to speak to you, hear about your experiences and learn from you.

186

Attachment D: Online Survey

To participate in an interview, a member of the research team (XXXX) will need to contact you. To help with this, can you either provide your preferred contact details in the form below, or you can contact XXXX directly on XXXXXXX. Interviews will be conducted in a safe and private place agreed between you and XXXXX. This might be a community centre, at the ANU, or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women may want to meet at Winnunga Nimitija health service centre. Have a think about where you would like to meet, although XXXX will have some suggestions as well. If you do decide to provide your contact details, please note: • this information will not be accessed by anyone outside of the research team; • once we have made contact with you and completed an interview, this information will be deleted using secure methods; and • we will not leave any voicemails on your phone about the study unless you say it is ok. To protect your privacy, any contact we make with you, the researcher will identify themselves as ‘XXXXX from Marketing Solutions 101’. XXXXX will do this until you tell her it is no longer needed. This ensures that if someone else sees the message, they will not be aware of your participation in the study. ◻ I will contact XXXX ◻ XXXX can contact me (If selected, skips to q12) 10a Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. Please contact XXXX by email or phone over the next few days to organize a time for an interview. We look forward to hearing from you! 12 What is your first name? 13 What is the best way for XXXX to contact you? ◻ Phone call (Choose one) ◻ Text ◻ Email 14 What is your phone number? 14a Is it ok if we leave voicemails on your phone? ◻ Yes Remember – XXX will not mention the study in any ◻ No voicemails. She will introduce herself as XXXX from Marketing Solutions 101. 14b What is your email address? 15 Over the next 7 days, when is it ok for XXXX to ◻ Monday Time: contact you? (e.g., Monday 9am–11am) ◻ Tuesday Time: ◻ Wednesday Time: ◻ Thursday Time: ◻ Friday Time: ◻ Saturday Time: ◻ Sunday Time: 16 Do you have any other instructions for us about contacting you for the study? Thank you for providing this information. XXXX will be in contact with you over the next few days to organize a time to meet for the interview. If between now and then you decide you do not want to participate, just let XXXX know when she contacts you and she will remove your details from the study. 10

Would you like XXXX to contact you, or will you call/email XXXX yourself?

References

Aizer, A. (2010). The gender wage gap and domestic violence. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1847–1859. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.4.1847 Akoensi, T. D., Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F., & Humphreys, D. K. (2013). Domestic violence perpetrator programs in Europe, part II: A systematic review of the state of evidence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(10), 1206–1225. https://doi. org/10.1177/0306624X12468110 Aldarondo, E. (1996). Cessation and persistence of wife assault: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080164 Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(5), 1010–1019. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­006X.64.5.1010 Alexander, P. C., & Morris, E. (2008). Stages of change in batterers and their response to treatment. Violence and Victims, 23(4), 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.23.4.476 Amanor-Boadu, Y., Messing, J. T., Stith, S. M., Anderson, J. R., O’Sullivan, C. S., & Campbell, J. C. (2012). Immigrant and nonimmigrant women: Factors that predict leaving an abusive relationship. Violence Against Women, 18(5), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212453139 Ameral, V., Palm Reed, K. M., & Hines, D. A. (2020). An analysis of help-seeking patterns among college student victims of sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5311–5335. Anderson, C., & Kirkpatrick, S. (2016). Narrative interviewing. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(3), 631–634. Anderson, C., & Rouse, L. (1988). Intervention in cases of woman battering: An application of symbolic interactionism and critical theory. Clinical Sociology Review, 6(1), 134–147. Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby, N. (2003). “Why doesn’t she just leave?”: A descriptive study of victim reported impediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023564404773 Ard, K. L., & Makadon, H. J. (2011). Addressing intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(8), 930–933. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11606-­011-­1697-­6 Arias, E., Arce, R., & Vilariño, M. (2013). Batterer intervention programmes: A meta-analytic review of effectiveness. Psychosocial Intervention, 22(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.5093/ in2013a18 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Personal safety, Australia, 2016 (4906.0). ABS. https:// www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7

187

188

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). National health survey: First results, 2017–18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-­conditions-­and-­risks/ national-­health-­survey-­first-­results/latest-­release Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019a). Education and work, Australia, May 2019. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/ education-­and-­work-­australia/latest-­release Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019b). Estimates and projections, aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 to 2031. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/ aboriginal-­and-­torres-­strait-­islander-­peoples/estimates-­and-­projections-­aboriginal-­and-­torres-­ strait-­islander-­australians/latest-­release Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019c). Household income and wealth, Australia, 2017–18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPag e/6523.02017-­18?OpenDocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019d). Recorded crime—Victims, Australia 2018. ABS. https:// www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4510.02018?OpenDocument Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020b). Labour force, Australia, September 2020. ABS. https:// www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-­and-­unemployment/labour-­force-­australia/ latest-­release Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020c). Migration, Australia, 2018-19. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/migration-­australia/ latest-­release Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020d). National, state and territory population, March 2020. ABS.https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-­state-­and-­territory-­population/ latest-­release Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020e). Recorded crime—Victims, Australia, 2019. ABS. https:// www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-­and-­justice/recorded-­crime-­victims-­australia/latest­release Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019a). Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia: Continuing the national story 2019. AIHW. https://www.aihw. gov.au/reports/domestic-­v iolence/family-­d omestic-­s exual-­v iolence-­a ustralia-­2 019/ contents/data-­s ources-­f or-­m onitoring-­f amily-­d o m e st i c -­a n d -­sex u a l -­v i o l e n c e / aihw-­national-­hospital-­morbidity-­database-­nhmd-­2016-­17 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019b). Specialist homelessness services annual report: 2018-2019. AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/homelessness-­services/ shs-­annual-­report-­18-­19/contents/summary Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021). Income and work: Census 2021 [Data set]. https:// www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/income-and-workcensus/2021#datadownloads Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Yerington, T. P. (2000). Attachment, emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between secure, preoccupied, and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family Violence, 15(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007558330501 Bachman, R., & Carmody, D. C. (1994). Fighting fire with fire: The effects of victim resistance in intimate versus stranger perpetrated assaults against females. Journal of Family Violence, 9(4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531942 Banyard, V.  L., Rizzo, A.  J., & Edwards, K.  M. (2020). Community actionists: Understanding adult bystanders to sexual and domestic violence prevention in communities. Psychology of Violence, 10(5), 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000281 Barnham, L., Barnes, G. C., & Sherman, L. W. (2017). Targeting escalation of intimate partner violence: Evidence from 52,000 offenders. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(2–3), 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-­017-­0008-­9 Barr, Ú. (2019). Desisting sisters. Springer.

References

189

Belfrage, H., Strand, S., Storey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2012). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the spousal assault risk assessment guide. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0093948 Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., DeMaris, A., & Wyk, J. V. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024930208331 Berg, K. K. (2014). Cultural factors in the treatment of battered women with privilege: Domestic violence in the lives of white European-American, middle-class, heterosexual women. Affilia, 29(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913516448 Bland, M., & Ariel, B. (2015). Targeting escalation in reported domestic abuse: Evidence from 36,000 callouts. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 30–53. https://doi. org/10.1177/1057567715574382 Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press. Bond, S.  B., & Bond, M. (2004). Attachment styles and violence within couples. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(12), 857–863. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. nmd.0000146879.33957.ec Bottoms, A. (2006). Desistance, social bonds, and human agency: A theoretical exploration. In The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms, and development (pp. 243–290). Cambridge University Press. Bottoms, A., & Shapland, J. (2010). Steps towards desistance among male young adult recidivists. In Escape routes: Contemporary perspectives on life after punishment. Routledge. Bottoms, A., Shapland, J., Costello, A., Holmes, D., & Muir, G. (2004). Towards desistance: Theoretical underpinnings for an empirical study. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(4), 368–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2311.2004.00336.x Bowker, L. H. (1983). Beating wife-beating. Lexington Books Lexington. Boxall, H., & Morgan, A. (2020). Repeat domestic and family violence among young people (No. 591; Trends & Issues in crime and criminal justice). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi591 Boxall, H., Boyd, C., Dowling, C., & Morgan, A. (2018). Understanding domestic violence incidents using crime script analysis. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 558. https:// www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi558 Boxall, H., Dowling, C., & Morgan, A. (2020). Female perpetrated domestic violence: Prevalence of self-defensive and retaliatory violence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 584. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti04176 Boxall, H., Doherty, L., Lawler, S., Franks, C., & Bricknell, S. (2022). The “pathways to intimate partner homicide” project: Key stages and events in male-perpetrated intimate partner homicide in Australia (No. 4; Research report). ANROWS. Bricknell, S. (2019). Homicide in Australia 2015–16 (No. 17; Statistical report). AIC. https://aic. gov.au/publications/sr/sr17 Bricknell, S. (2020). Homicide in Australia 2017–18 (No. 23; Statistical report). AIC. https://nla. gov.au/nla.obj-­2649286545 Brown, J. (1997). Working toward freedom from violence: The process of change in battered women. Violence Against Women, 3(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801297003001002 Brown, J. A. (2004). Shame and domestic violence: Treatment perspectives for perpetrators from self psychology and affect theory. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19(1), 39–56. https://doi. org/10.1080/14681990410001640826 Brown, J., & James, K. (2014). Therapeutic responses to domestic violence in Australia: A history of controversies. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 35(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1053 Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R.  S. (1993). America’s angriest home videos: Behavioral contingencies observed in home reenactments of marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­006X.61.1.28

190

References

Bushway, S. D., & Apel, R. (2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming: Training completion as a desistance signal. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-­9133.2012.00786.x Bushway, S.  D., Brame, R., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Chapter 4: Connecting desistance and recidivism: Measuring changes in criminality over the lifespan. In After crime and punishment (pp. 85–101). Willan. Buzawa, E.  S., & Hirschel, D. (2008). Domestic violence: The beginning, continuation, or final act in a criminal career? Victims & Offenders, 3(4), 391–411. https://doi. org/10.1080/15564880802338518 Caetano, R., Field, C. A., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & McGrath, C. (2005). The 5-year course of intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(9), 1039–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505277783 Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2016). Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318 Calverley, A. (2009). An exploration investigation into the processes of desistance amongst minority ethnic offenders. PhD thesis, Keele University. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C. R., Campbell, D. W., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., McFarlane, J. M., Sachs, C., & Sharps, P. (2003). Assessing risk factors for intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 14–19. Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(3), 253–265. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.001 Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at-­ risk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0001 Carbajosa, P., Catalá-Miñana, A., Lila, M., & Gracia, E. (2017). Differences in treatment adherence, program completion, and recidivism among batterer subtypes. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 9(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2017.04.001 Carmody, D. C., & Williams, K. R. (1987). Wife assault and perceptions of sanctions. Violence and Victims, 2(1), 25–38. Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross-disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(2), 141–175. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524838005275088 Chan, K.  L. (2011). Co-occurrence of intimate partner violence and child abuse in Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1322–1342. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260510369136 Chang, D. B. (1989). An abused spouse’s self-saving process: A theory of identity transformation. Sociological Perspectives, 32(4), 535–550. Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). Sage. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1. Choi, A. W.-M., Wong, J. Y.-H., Lo, R. T.-F., Chan, P.-Y., Wong, J. K.-S., Lau, C.-L., & Kam, C.-W. (2018). Intimate partner violence victims’ acceptance and refusal of on-site counseling in emergency departments: Predictors of help-seeking behavior explored through a 5-year medical chart review. Preventive Medicine, 108, 86–92. Claes, B., & Shapland, J. (2016). Desistance from crime and restorative justice. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2016.1245912 Clarke, R. V. G., & Felson, M. (1993). Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5).

References

191

Clements, C. M., & Sawhney, D. K. (2000). Coping with domestic violence: Control attributions, dysphoria, and hopelessness. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/1 0.1023/A:1007702626960 Cohen, L.  E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589 Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook-Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., Fisher, B.  S., & Recktenwald, E.  A. (2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. amepre.2017.01.020 Coleman, D.  H., & Straus, M.  A. (1983). Alcohol abuse and family violence. In E.  Gottheil, K.  A. Druley, T.  E. Skolada, & H.  Waxman (Eds.), Alcohol, drug abuse and aggression (pp. 104–124). C.C. Thomas. Copenhaver, M. M., Lash, S. J., & Eisler, R. M. (2000). Masculine gender-role stress, anger, and male intimate abusiveness: Implications for men’s relationships. Sex Roles, 42(5–6), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007050305387 Cordova, J. V., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Rushe, R., & Cox, G. (1993). Negative reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(4), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-­843X.102.4.559 Cornish, D. B. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 3, 151–196. Craparo, G., Gori, A., Petruccelli, I., Cannella, V., & Simonelli, C. (2014). Intimate partner violence: Relationships between alexithymia, depression, attachment styles, and coping strategies of battered women. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(6), 1484–1494. https://doi. org/10.1111/jsm.12505 Curtis-Fawley, S., & Daly, K. (2005). Gendered violence and restorative justice: The views of victim advocates. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 603–638. Daly, J. E., & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of dropout among men who batter: A review of studies with implications for research and practice. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 137–160. Daly, K., Bouhours, B., Broadhurst, R., & Loh, N. (2013). Youth sex offending, recidivism and restorative justice: Comparing court and conference cases. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46(2), 241–267. Daniels, J.  W., & Murphy, C.  M. (1997). Stages and processes of change in batterers’ treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 4(1), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1077-­7229(97)80015-­6 Davis, F. (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly handicapped. Social Problems, 9(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/799007 Department of Social Services. (2019). Fourth action plan of the national plan to reduce violence against women and their children 2010–2022. Department of Social Services. https://www.dss. gov.au/women-­publications-­articles-­reducing-­violence/fourth-­action-­plan DiClemente, C. C., & Prochaska, J. O. (1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and addictive behaviors. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Applied clinical psychology: Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 3–24). Plenum Press. Doherty, E. E., & Ensminger, M. E. (2013). Marriage and offending among a cohort of disadvantaged African Americans. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 104–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811423106 Doumas, D. M., Pearson, C. L., Elgin, J. E., & McKinley, L. L. (2008). Adult attachment as a risk factor for intimate partner violence: The “mispairing” of partners’ attachment styles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 616–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313526 Dowling, C., & Morgan, A. (2019). Predicting repeat domestic violence: Improving police risk assessment (No. 581; Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi581

192

References

Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Boyd, C., & Voce, I. (2018a). Policing domestic violence: A review of the evidence (Research report). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/ publications/rr/rr13 Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Hulme, S., Manning, M., & Wong, G. (2018b). Protection orders for domestic violence: A systematic review (No. 551; Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice). Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi551 Downs, W. R., Rindels, B., & Atkinson, C. (2007). Women’s use of physical and nonphysical self-­ defense strategies during incidents of partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206294807 Drewitt-Smith, A., Kennedy, J., & James, M. (2019, April 9). ‘Avalanche’ of criticism from DV groups, survivors over Government fund for couples counselling. ABS News. https://www.abc. net.au/news/2019-­04-­09/couples-­counselling-­for-­families-­dealing-­with-­dv/10984010 Durkin, K. F. (2009). There must be some type of misunderstanding, there must be some kind of mistake: The deviance disavowal strategies of men arrested in Internet sex stings (2008 presidential address). Sociological Spectrum, 29(6), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170903189043 Durkin, K., Bucklin, A., & Clifton, D. B. (2001). Deviance avowal and disavowal. In Encyclopedia of criminology and deviant behavior, volume I: Historical, conceptual, and theoretical issues (pp. 85–87). Branner-Routledge. Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality. Violence and control in intimate relationships (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer association as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 857–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­006X.68.5.857 Edwards, K. M., Shorey, R. C., & Glozier, K. (2020). Primary prevention of intimate partner violence among sexual and gender minorities. In B. Russell (Ed.), Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community: Understanding power dynamics (pp. 161–176). Springer. Eggers Del Campo, I., & Steinert, J.  I. (2020). The effect of female economic empowerment interventions on the risk of intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020976088 Ehrensaft, M.  K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J.  G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­006X. 71.4.741 Emery, C. R., Jolley, J. M., & Wu, S. (2011). Desistance from intimate partner violence: The role of legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and social disorganization in Chicago neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3–4), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-­010-­9362-­5 Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2013). A general strain theory of intimate partner homicide. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(5), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.002 Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family-of-origin violence, attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(6), 945–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514539759 Eze-Ajoku, E., Fakeye, O., Atanda, A., & Sosina, O.  A. (2020). Economic empowerment and tolerance of domestic violence among married women: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520943727 Fagan, J. (1989). Cessation of family violence: Deterrence and dissuasion. Crime and Justice, 11, 377–425. https://doi.org/10.1086/449158 Farrall, S., Hunter, B., & Sharpe, G. (2014). Criminal careers in transition: The social context of desistance from crime. Oxford University Press. Farrell, G. (2010). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice and harm reduction versus ‘cultural criminology’. Social Policy & Administration, 44(1), 40–66. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9515.2009.00699.x

References

193

Feder, L., Austin, S., & Wilson, D. (2008). Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence—The Campbell collaboration. Campbell Collaboration. https://www. campbellcollaboration.org/better-­evidence/domestic-­violence-­individuals-­court-­mandated-­ interventions.html Fedovskiy, K., Higgins, S., & Paranjape, A. (2008). Intimate partner violence: How does it impact major depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder among immigrant Latinas? Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 10(1), 45–51. Feld, S.  L., & Straus, M.  A. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage*. Criminology, 27(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-­9125.1989.tb00866.x Feldman, C. M., & Ridley, C. A. (2000). The role of conflict-based communication responses and outcomes in male domestic violence toward female partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4–5), 552–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500174005 Felson, M. (2013). Routine activity approach. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 92–99). Willan. Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2021). Our National Shame: Violence Against Women. Monash University Publishing. Flake, D. F. (2005). Individual, family, and community risk markers for domestic violence in Peru. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204272129 Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2006). The factors influencing community attitudes in relation to violence against women: A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131 Follingstad, D. R., Hause, E. S., Rutledge, L. L., & Polek, D. S. (1992). Effects of battered women’s early responses on later abuse patterns. Violence and Victims, 7(2), 109–128. https://doi. org/10.1891/0886-­6708.7.2.109 Franklin, C. A., Franklin, T. W., Nobles, M. R., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). Assessing the effect of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal, and sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1296–1315. Gadd, D. (2002). Masculinities and violence against female partners. Social & Legal Studies, 11(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/096466390201100103 Gadd, D. (2006). The role of recognition in the desistance process: A case analysis of a former far-right activist. Theoretical Criminology, 10(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606063138 Gadd, D., & Farrall, S. (2004). Criminal careers, desistance and subjectivity: Interpreting men’s narratives of change. Theoretical Criminology, 8(2), 123–156. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362480604042241 Gadd, D., & Jefferson, T. (2007). On the defensive: A psychoanalytically informed psychosocial reading of The Jack-Roller. Theoretical Criminology, 11(4), 443–467. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362480607081834 Gadd, D., Henderson, J., Radcliffe, P., Stephens-Lewis, D., Johnson, A., & Gilchrist, G. (2019). The dynamics of domestic abuse and drug and alcohol dependency. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(5), 1035–1053. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz011 Gang, D., Loff, B., Naylor, B., & Kirkman, M. (2021). A call for evaluation of restorative justice programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(1), 186–190. Gay, L. E., Harding, H. G., Jackson, J. L., Burns, E. E., & Baker, B. D. (2013). Attachment style and early maladaptive schemas as mediators of the relationship between childhood emotional abuse and intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(4), 408–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.775982 Gilchrist, G., & Hegarty, K. (2017). Tailored integrated interventions for intimate partner violence and substance use are urgently needed. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36(1), 3–6. https://doi. org/10.1111/dar.12526 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.12.009

194

References

Gilmore, J. (2019, April 10). ‘A disaster’: Budget funds for couples counselling criticised. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-­and-­relationships/a-­disaster-­ budget-­funds-­for-­couples-­counselling-­criticised-­20190410-­p51cqc.html Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064. https:// doi.org/10.1086/343191 Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Holland, D. D. (2003). Changes in friendship relations over the life course: Implications for desistance from crime. Criminology, 41(2), 293–328. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00989.x Giordano, P.  C., Johnson, W.  L., Manning, W.  D., Longmore, M.  A., & Minter, M.  D. (2015). Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistance. Criminology, 53(3), 330–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-­9125.12073 Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction. Gleeson, H. (2021, January 4). ‘The moment I hit her, I dropped to the floor’: The clinical trial testing a potential solution to domestic violence. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/ news/2021-­01-­05/reinvest-­trial-­men-­domestic-­violence-­antidepressant/12988544 Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Juvenile Court Judge Journal, 2, 32. Gondolf, E.  W., & Hanneken, J. (1987). The gender warrior: Reformed batterers on abuse, treatment, and change. Journal of Family Violence, 2(2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00977041 Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Weinfurt, K., & Cook, S. (2003). The intimate partner violence strategies index: Development and application. Violence Against Women, 9(2), 163–186. https://doi. org/10.1177/1077801202239004 Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005). Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11(3), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204273297 Goodrum, S., Umberson, D., & Anderson, K. L. (2001). The batterer’s view of the self and others in domestic violence. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1475-­682X.2001.tb01109.x Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. (2005). Communication and frightening behavior among couples with past and recent histories of physical marital aggression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-­005-­6241-­6 Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Graham, H., & McNeill, F. (2017). Desistance: Envisioning futures. In P. Carlen & L. A. Franca (Eds.), Alternative criminologies (pp. 433–451). Routledge. Gray, I. (2004). Working with a couple after violence: Reflections on a differentiation-based approach. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(4), 206–211. https://doi. org/10.1002/j.1467-­8438.2004.tb00620.x Griffing, S., Lewis, C. S., Chu, M., Sage, R. E., Madry, L., & Primm, B. J. (2006). Exposure to interpersonal violence as a predictor of PTSD symptomatology in domestic violence survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(7), 936–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506288938 Ha, O.  K., McCuish, E.  C., Andresen, M.  A., & Corrado, R.  R. (2019). Signalling desistance? Crime attitudes, perceptions of punishment, and exposure to criminogenic models. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 5(3), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40865-­019-­00114-­7 Hageman, S. A., & St. George, D. M. M. (2018). Social workers, intimate partner violence (IPV), and client financial concerns. Journal of Social Service Research, 44(3), 391–399. https://doi. org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1476288

References

195

Hamberger, L. K. (1997). Female offenders in domestic violence: A look at actions in their context. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 1(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1300/ J146v01n01_07 Hansen, N., Huis, M. A., & Lensink, R. (2020). Microfinance services and Women’s empowerment. In L. San-Jose, J. Retolaza, & L. van Liedekerke (Eds.), Handbook on ethics in finance (pp. 1–22). Springer. Harris, G.  E. (2006). Conjoint therapy and domestic violence: Treating the individuals and the relationship. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19(4), 373–379. https://doi. org/10.1080/09515070601029533 Harris, D.  A. (2017). Desistance from sexual offending: Narratives of retirement. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­63200-­1 Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy & Administration, 41(3), 232–250. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­9515.2007.00550.x Heise, L. L., & Kotsadam, A. (2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys. The Lancet Global Health, 3(6), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-­109X(15)00013-­3 Herbig, F. J., & Warchol, G. (2011). South African conservation crime and routine activities theory: A causal nexus? Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology, 24(2), 1–16. Hermanns, H. (1987). Narrative interviews-a new tool for sociological field research. Folia Sociologica, 13, 43–56. Hill, J. (2020). See what you made me do: Power, control and domestic abuse. Oxford University Press. Hilton, N.  Z., Harris, G.  T., Rice, M.  E., Lang, C., Cormier, C.  A., & Lines, K.  J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario domestic assault risk assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 267–275. https://doi. org/10.1037/1040-­3590.16.3.267 Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552–584. https://doi.org/10.1086/227905 Hockenberry, S. L. (1995). Dyadic violence, shame, and narcissism. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 31(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1995.10746912 Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & May, D. C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 378–395. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12103-­011-­9117-­3 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G.  L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476–497. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-­2909.116.3.476 Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Stuart, G.  L. (1998). Demand and withdraw communication among couples experiencing husband violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­006X.66.5.731 Horton, A. L., & Johnson, B. L. (1993). Profile and strategies of women who have ended abuse. Families in Society, 74(8), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/104438949307400804 Hughes, C., Bolis, M., Fries, R., & Finigan, S. (2015). Women’s economic inequality and domestic violence: Exploring the links and empowering women. Gender and Development, 23(2), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2015.1053216 Hulme, S., Morgan, A., & Boxall, H. (2019). Domestic violence offenders, prior offending and reoffending in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 580. https://aic.gov. au/publications/tandi/tandi580 Humphreys, C., & Thiara, R. K. (2003). Neither justice nor protection: Women’s experiences of post-separation violence. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 25(3), 195–214. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0964906032000145948

196

References

Hutchings, A., & Hayes, H. (2008). Routine activity theory and phishing victimisation: Who gets caught in the net. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20, 433. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034532 9.2009.12035821 Iverson, K. M., Litwack, S. D., Pineles, S. L., Suvak, M. K., Vaughn, R. A., & Resick, P. A. (2013). Predictors of intimate partner violence revictimization: The relative impact of distinct PTSD symptoms, dissociation, and coping strategies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21781 Jacobs, B.  A., & Wright, R. (2010). Bounded rationality, retaliation, and the spread of urban violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(10), 1739–1766. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260509354502 Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). Breaking the cycle: New insights into violent relationships. PHP. Jacobson, N.  S., Gottman, J.  M., Waltz, J., Rushe, R., Babcock, J., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1994). Affect, verbal content, and psychophysiology in the arguments of couples with a violent husband. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(5), 982–988. https://doi. org/10.1037/1522-­3736.3.1.319a Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Wu Shortt, J. (1996). Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abuse decrease? Violence and Victims, 11(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.11.4.371 Jakupcak, M. (2003). Masculine gender role stress and men’s fear of emotions as predictors of self-reported aggression and violence. Violence and Victims, 18(5), 533–541. https://doi. org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.5.533 Jasinski, J. L. (2001). Physical violence among Anglo, African American, and Hispanic couples: Ethnic differences in persistence and cessation. Violence and Victims, 16(5), 479–490. Jewell, L. M., & Wormith, J. S. (2010). Variables associated with attrition from domestic violence treatment programs targeting male batterers a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(10), 1086–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810376815 Johnson, H. (2003). The cessation of assaults on wives. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.34.1.75 Johnson, S.  D. (2008). Repeat burglary victimisation: A tale of two theories. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(3), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-­008-­9055-­3 Johnson, M. P. (2010). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Upne. Johnson, R., Gilchrist, E., Beech, A. R., Weston, S., Takriti, R., & Freeman, R. (2006). A psychometric typology of UK domestic violence offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10), 1270–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506291655 Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. E. (1993). A clinical typology of interparental violence in disputed-­ custody divorces. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(2), 190–199. Kaplenko, H., Loveland, J. E., & Raghavan, C. (2018). Relationships between shame, restrictiveness, authoritativeness, and coercive control in men mandated to a domestic violence offenders program. Violence and Victims, 33(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.v33.i2.123 Karakurt, G., & Silver, K.  E. (2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and age. Violence and Victims, 28(5), 804–821. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708. VV-­D-­12-­00041 Kernsmith, P. (2005). Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1891/ vivi.2005.20.2.173 Kesner, J. E., & McKenry, P. C. (1998). The role of childhood attachment factors in predicting male violence toward female intimates. Journal of Family Violence, 13(4), 417–432. https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1022879304255 King, R. D., Massoglia, M., & MacMillan, R. (2007). The context of marriage and crime: Gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology, 45(1), 33–65. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-­9125.2007.00071.x

References

197

KPMG. (2016). The cost of violence against women and their children in Australia: Final report. KPMG. https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2016/the_cost_of_violence_ against_women_and_their_children_in_australia_-­_summary_report_may_2016.pdf Krause, E. D., Kaltman, S., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (2006). Role of distinct PTSD symptoms in intimate partner reabuse: A prospective study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(4), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20136 Krause, E. D., Kaltman, S., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (2008). Avoidant coping and PTSD symptoms related to domestic violence exposure: A longitudinal study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(1), 83–90. Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2000). The spousal assault risk assessment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 101. Kuijpers, K. F., van der Knaap, L. M., & Winkel, F. W. (2012a). Risk of revictimization of intimate partner violence: The role of attachment, anger and violent behavior of the victim. Journal of Family Violence, 27(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-­011-­9399-­8 Kuijpers, K. F., Van der Knaap, L. M., & Winkel, F. W. (2012b). Victims’ influence on intimate partner violence revictimization: An empirical test of dynamic victim-related risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(9), 1716–1742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511430389 Lambe, S., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Garner, E., & Walker, J. (2018). The role of narcissism in aggression and violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650190 Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Whitfield, D. L., Walls, N. E., Kattari, S. K., & Ramos, D. (2016). Experiences of intimate partner violence and subsequent police reporting among lesbian, Gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults in Colorado. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(5), 855–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514556767 Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-­9125.1993. tb01132.x Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/652208 Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238. Lauwaert, K., & Aertsen, I. (2016). With a little help from a friend: Desistance through victim– offender mediation in Belgium. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.108 0/20504721.2016.1245913 Lempert, L. B. (1996). Women’s strategies for survival: Developing agency in abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02336945 Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., & Cohan, C. L. (2007). Victim help seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56(5), 427–439. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-­3729.2007.00471.x Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. S., von Eye, A., & Davidson, W. S. (2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1–2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040149.58847.10 Lisak, D., Hopper, J., & Song, P. (1996). Factors in the cycle of violence: Gender rigidity and emotional constriction. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(4), 721–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jts.2490090405 Lloyd, S., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1994). Preventing repeated domestic violence: A demonstration project on Merseyside. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080205163711/; http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu49.pdf Loinaz, I. (2014). Typologies, risk and recidivism in partner-violent men with the B-SAFER: A pilot study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1068316X.2013.770854

198

References

Mahalik, J. R., Aldarondo, E., Gilbert-Gokhale, S., & Shore, E. (2005). The role of insecure attachment and gender role stress in predicting controlling behaviors in men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(5), 617–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269688 Maneta, E.  K., Cohen, S., Schulz, M.  S., & Waldinger, R.  J. (2013). Two to tango: A dyadic analysis of links between borderline personality traits and intimate partner violence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_082 Mannon, J. M. (1997). Domestic and intimate violence: An application of routine activities theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 9–24. Marsden, S., Humphreys, C., & Hegarty, K. (2021). Why does he do it? What explanations resonate during Counseling for women in understanding their partner’s abuse? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521989850 Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association. Maruna, S. (2012). Elements of successful desistance signaling. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-­9133.2012.00789.x Maruna, S. (2016). Desistance and restorative justice: It’s now or never. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2016.1243853 Maruna, S., & Farrall, S. (2004). Desistance from crime: A theoretical reformulation. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 43(2), 171–194 Maruna, S., & Immarigeon, R. (2004). Ex-offender reintegration: Theory and practice. In After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration. Routledge. Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal?:‘Redeemability’and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-­008-­9088-­1 Maruna, S., & Ramsden, D. (2004). Living to tell the tale: Redemption narratives, shame management, and offender rehabilitation. In Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 129–151). American Psychological Association Books. Maruna, S., & Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “knifing off” and desistance from crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(1), 104–124. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1043986206298951 Mason, R., & Julian, R. (2009). Analysis of the Tasmania police risk assessment screening tool (RAST): Final report. Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies. http://www.safeathome.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/142310/RAST_Report_Analysis_of_Risk_ Assessment_Screening_Tool.pdf McAlinden, A.-M., Farmer, M., & Maruna, S. (2017). Desistance from sexual offending: Do the mainstream theories apply? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(3), 266–283. https://doi. org/10.1177/1748895816670201 McCaghy, C.  H. (1968). Drinking and deviance disavowal: The case of child molesters. Social Problems, 16(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/799524 McCarthy, K. J., Mehta, R., & Haberland, N. A. (2018). Gender, power, and violence: A systematic review of measures and their association with male perpetration of IPV. PLoS One, 13(11), e0207091. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207091 McDermott, R.  C., & Lopez, F.  G. (2013). College men’s intimate partner violence attitudes: Contributions of adult attachment and gender role stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030353 McGregor, H. (1990). Conceptualising male violence against female partners: Political implications of therapeutic responses. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 11(2), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1467-­8438.1990.tb00793.x McKay, G. (2019, August 27). Australian Government moves forward with couples counselling for DV despite objection from women’s safety experts. On the record. https://ontherecordunisa. com.au/2019/08/27/australian-­government-­moves-­forward-­with-­couples-­counselling-­for-­dv-­ despite-­objection-­from-­womens-­safety-­experts/

References

199

McMahon, M., & McGorrery, P. (2016). Criminalising emotional abuse, intimidation and economic abuse in the context of family violence: The Tasmanian experience. University of Tasmania Law Review, 35, 1. McMahon, M., & McGorrery, P. (2020). Criminalising coercive control: An introduction. In Criminalising coercive control (pp. 3–32). Springer. McNeill, F. (2016). Desistance and criminal justice in Scotland. In H.  Croall, G.  Mooney, & M. Munro (Eds.), Crime, justice and Society in Scotland (pp. 200–216). Routledge. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207302039 Melton, H. C., & Belknap, J. (2003). He hits, she hits assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 328–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803030003004 Messing, J.  T., Patch, M., Wilson, J.  S., Kelen, G.  D., & Campbell, J. (2018). Differentiating among attempted, completed, and multiple nonfatal strangulation in women experiencing intimate partner violence. Women’s Health Issues, 28(1), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. whi.2017.10.002 Messner, S.  F., & Tardiff, K. (1985). The social ecology of urban homicide: An application of the “routine activities” approach. Criminology, 23(2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745­9125.1985.tb00336.x Meyer, S. (2016). Still blaming the victim of intimate partner violence? Women’s narratives of victim desistance and redemption when seeking support. Theoretical Criminology, 20(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615585399 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205277356 Miller, P., Cox, E., Costa, B., Mayshak, R., Walker, A., Hyder, S., Tonner, L., & Day, A. (2016). Alcohol/drug-involved family violence in Australia (ADIVA): Final report. AIC. Mills, T. (1985). The assault on the self: Stages in coping with battering husbands. Qualitative Sociology, 8(2), 103–123. Mission Australia. (2019). Out of the shadows: Domestic and family violence a leading cause of homelessness in Australia. Mission Australia. file:///C:/Users/ioubo/Downloads/Out%20 of%20the%20Shadows.pdf. Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(1), 5–36. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­9133.2001.tb00075.x Monckton Smith, J. (2019). Intimate partner femicide: Using Foucauldian analysis to track an eight stage progression to homicide. Violence Against Women, 26(11), 1267–1285. https://doi. org/10.1177/1077801219863876 Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., McNulty, J. K., Addis, M. E., Cordova, J. V., & Temple, J. R. (2010). Domains of masculine gender role stress and intimate partner violence in a clinical sample of violent men. Psychology of Violence, 1(S), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/2152-­0828.1.S.68 Morgan, A., & Boxall, H. (2020). Social isolation, time spent at home, financial stress and domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 609. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti04855 Morgan, A., & Boxall, H. (2022). Economic insecurity and intimate partner violence in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic (No. 02/2022; Research report). ANROWS. https://www. anrows.org.au/publication/economic-­insecurity-­and-­intimate-­partner-­violence-­in-­australia-­ during-­the-­covid-­19-­pandemic/ Morgan, A., Boxall, H., & Brown, R. (2018). Targeting repeat domestic violence: Assessing short-­ term risk of reoffending. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 552. https://www. aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi552

200

References

Morran, D. (2013). Desisting from domestic abuse: Influences, patterns and processes in the lives of formerly abusive men. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52(3), 306–320. https://doi. org/10.1111/hojo.12016 Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 43–62. Nabors, E. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2009). Intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: The role of gender role and gendered violence attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085108325235 Nancarrow, H. (2019). Unintended consequences of domestic violence law: Gendered aspirations and racialised realities. Springer Nature. Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azl013 O’Leary, K. D., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 314–327. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01 O’Sullivan, K., Kemp, R., & Bright, D. (2015). Identity, self-story and desistance from crime. Journal of Forensic Practice, 17(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-­03-­2015-­0020 Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Factors affecting women’s decisions to leave violent relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 2(4), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X8100200402 Pandya, V. (2009). A study of change processes in domestically violent men in group therapy. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 6(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433710802533348 Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and the “feared self”: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 1103–1156. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage. Pelikan, C., & Hofinger, V. (2016). An interactional approach to desistance: Expanding desistance theory based on the Austrian mediation practice in cases of partnership violence. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2016.1245920 Péloquin, K., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Brassard, A. (2011). A dyadic approach to the study of romantic attachment, dyadic empathy, and psychological partner aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(7), 915–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510397988 Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2002). Feminist praxis: Making family group conferencing work. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 108–127). Cambridge Press. Petersson, J., & Strand, S. (2017). Recidivism in intimate partner violence among antisocial and family-only perpetrators. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(11), 1477–1495. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093854817719916 Piquero, A. (2000). Frequency, specialization, and violence in offending careers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 392–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427800037004003 Presser, L., & Gaarder, E. (2000). Can restorative justice reduce battering? Some preliminary considerations. Social Justice, 27(1), 175–195. Price, E., Sharman, L. S., Douglas, H. A., Sheeran, N., & Dingle, G. A. (2019). Experiences of reproductive coercion in Queensland women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260519846851 Quigley, B. M., & Leonard, K. E. (1996). Desistance of husband aggression in the early years of marriage. Violence and Victims, 11(4), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.11.4.355 Reich, S.  E. (2017). An exception to the rule: Belief in redeemability, desistance signals, and the employer’s decision to hire a job applicant with a criminal record. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(2), 110–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1268235 Richards, T. N., Jennings, W. G., Tomsich, E., & Gover, A. (2014). A 10-year analysis of rearrests among a cohort of domestic violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 29(6), 887–906. https:// doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.VV-­D-­13-­00145 Richards, T. N., Tillyer, M. S., & Wright, E. M. (2017). Intimate partner violence and the overlap of perpetration and victimization: Considering the influence of physical, sexual, and emo-

References

201

tional abuse in childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2017.02.037 Robinson, G., & Shapland, J. (2008). Reducing recidivism: A task for restorative justice? The British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn002 Robinson-Edwards, S., & Pinkney, C. (2018). Black men, religiosity and desistance: Exploring Islam, desistance and identity. Safer Communities, 17(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SC-­04-­2017-­0013 Rocque, M. (2015). The lost concept: The (re) emerging link between maturation and desistance from crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 15(3), 340–360 Rodgers, K., & Roberts, G. (1995). Women’s non-spousal multiple victimization: A test of the routine activities theory. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37(3), 363–391. https://doi. org/10.3138/cjcrim.37.3.363 Ronan, G. F., Dreer, L. E., Dollard, K. M., & Ronan, D. W. (2004). Violent couples: Coping and communication skills. Journal of Family Violence, 19(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1023/ B:JOFV.0000019843.26331.cf Sabina, C., & Ho, L. Y. (2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322 Sabri, B., Renner, L. M., Stockman, J. K., Mittal, M., & Decker, M. R. (2014). Risk factors for severe intimate partner violence and violence-related injuries among women in India. Women & Health, 54(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2014.896445 Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41(3), 555–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745­9125.2003.tb00997.x Sampson, R.  J., & Laub, J.  H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602(1), 12–45. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002716205280075 Sampson, R.  J., Laub, J.  H., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-­9125.2006.00055.x Santana, M.  C., Raj, A., Decker, M.  R., La Marche, A., & Silverman, J.  G. (2006). Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men. Journal of Urban Health, 83(4), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11524-­006-­9061-­6 Scott, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2000). Change among batterers: Examining men’s success stories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(8), 827–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015008003 Shapland, J., & Bottoms, A. (2011). Reflections on social values, offending and desistance among young adult recidivists. Punishment & Society, 13(3), 256–282. https://doi. org/10.1177/1462474511404334 Shaw, E., Bouris, A., & Pye, S. (1996). The family safety model: A comprehensive strategy for working with domestic violence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 17(3), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1467-­8438.1996.tb01088.x Skardhamar, T., & Savolainen, J. (2014). Changes in criminal offending around the time of job entry: A study of employment and desistance. Criminology, 52(2), 263–291. https://doi. org/10.1111/1745-­9125.12037 Smith, C.  A., Ireland, T.  O., Park, A., Elwyn, L., & Thornberry, T.  P. (2011). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in intimate partner violence: A two-generational prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3720–3752. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260511403751 Stanley, N., & Humphreys, C. (2017). Identifying the key components of a ‘whole family’ intervention for families experiencing domestic violence and abuse. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868017X14913081639164

202

References

Stark, E. (2009). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. Oxford University Press. Stark, E. (2012). Looking beyond domestic violence: Policing coercive control. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332586.2012.725016 Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031 Storey, J. E., Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Belfrage, H., & Strand, S. (2013). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(2), 256–271. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093854813503960 Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 2003(1), 15–42. Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12(7), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206290173 Suzuki, M., & Jenkins, T. (2020). The role of (self-) forgiveness in restorative justice: Linking restorative justice to desistance. European Journal of Criminology. https://doi. org/10.1177/1477370819895959 Taft, C. T., Resick, P. A., Panuzio, J., Vogt, D. S., & Mechanic, M. B. (2007). Coping among victims of relationship abuse: A longitudinal examination. Violence and Victims, 22(4), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007781553946 Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2013). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd. Timmons Fritz, P. A., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2009). Stability of physical and psychological adolescent dating aggression across time and partners. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410902851671 Tolman, R. M., Edleson, J. L., & Fendrich, M. (1996). The applicability of the theory of planned behavior to abusive men’s cessation of violent behavior. Violence and Victims, 11(4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.11.4.341 Trevena, J., & Poynton, S. (2016). Does a prison sentence affect future domestic violence reoffending? (No. 190; Crime and justice bulletin). Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research New South Wales. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/Report-­2016-­Does-­a-­prison-­ sentence-­affect-­future-­domestic-­violence-­reoffending-­cjb190.pdf Turner, E., Medina, J., & Brown, G. (2019). Dashing hopes? The predictive accuracy of domestic abuse risk assessment by police. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(5), 1013–1034. https:// doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy074 United Nations. (2021). Gender equality and women’s empowerment. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-­equality/ Urquhart, C. (2012). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. Sage. Vaughan, B. (2006). The internal narrative of desistance. The British Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azl083 Vickerman, K., & Margolin, G. (2008). Trajectories of physical and emotional marital aggression in midlife couples. Violence & Victims, 23(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-­6708.23.1.18 Walker, L.  E. (1979). Battered women: A Psychosociological study of domestic violence. Harper & Row. Walker, K. (2017). The role of alcohol as men desist from physical intimate partner violence. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36(1), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12445 Walker, K., Bowen, E., & Brown, S. (2013a). Desistance from intimate partner violence: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2012.11.019

References

203

Walker, K., Bowen, E., & Brown, S. (2013b). Psychological and criminological factors associated with desistance from violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.021 Walker, K., Bowen, E., Brown, S., & Sleath, E. (2017). The process of primary desistance from intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217722238 Ward, T., Fox, K. J., & Garber, M. (2014). Restorative justice, offender rehabilitation and desistance. Restorative Justice, 2(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.5235/20504721.2.1.24 Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36(2), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-­9125.1998.tb01246.x Weaver, B. (2012). The relational context of desistance: Some implications and opportunities for social policy. Social Policy & Administration, 46(4), 395–412. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­9515.2012.00840.x Weaver, B. (2013). Co-producing desistance. In I. Durnescu & F. McNeill (Eds.), Understanding penal practice. Routledge. Weaver, B. (2015). Offending and desistance: The importance of social relations. Routledge. Weaver, B., & McNeill, F. (2015). Lifelines: Desistance, social relations, and reciprocity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550031 Weber, T., & Bouman, Y. H. A. (2017). Intimate partner violence: Variations in perpetrators and treatment allocation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3–4), 1012–1034. https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260517692994 Whitaker, M. P. (2014). Linking community protective factors to intimate partner violence perpetration. Violence Against Women, 20(11), 1338–1359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214552854 Whitaker, D.  J., Le, B., & Niolon, P.  H. (2010). Persistence and desistance of the perpetration of physical aggression across relationships: Findings from a National Study of adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(4), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334402 Wilcox, P. (2006). Surviving domestic violence: Gender, poverty and agency. Springer. Wilson, D. B., Feder, L., & Olaghere, A. (2021). Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence: An updated Campbell systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(1), e1151. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1151 Wolbers, H., Boxall, H., & Morgan, A. (2023). Exposure to intimate partner violence and the physical and emotional abuse of children: Results from a national survey of female carers. (No. 26; Research Report) Australian Institute of Criminology Woffordt, S., Mihalic, D. E., & Menard, S. (1994). Continuities in marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 9(3), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531948 Wojciechowski, T. W. (2018). The development of deviant peer association across the life-course and its relevance for predicting offending in early adulthood. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-­017-­0072-­7 World Health Organisation. (2009). Promoting gender equality to prevent violence against women. World Health Organisation. Yerke, A. F., & DeFeo, J. (2016). Redefining intimate partner violence beyond the binary to include transgender people. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-­016-­9887-­y Yoshihama, M., & Gillespie, B.  W. (2002). Age adjustment and recall bias in the analysis of domestic violence data: Methodological improvements through the application of survival analysis methods. Journal of Family Violence, 17(3), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.102 3/A:1016001211182 Zeoli, A. M., Rivera, E. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Kubiak, S. (2013). Post-separation abuse of women and their children: Boundary-setting and family court utilization among victimized mothers. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-­013-­9528-­7

Index

A Abuse pattern, 3, 20, 30, 39, 52, 56, 71, 100, 101, 107, 139 Attachment, 10, 56, 91, 109, 110, 116–118, 134, 137, 140, 141, 144, 160, 171–177, 179–186 Attachment dysfunction, 161 Attachment style, 14, 28, 77, 95, 160 Australia, 1, 37, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 57, 65, 98, 111, 151, 163, 164, 174, 175, 182–185 Australian Capital Territory (ACT), 39, 42, 43, 48, 49, 151, 175, 183, 185 B Bystander training, 98 C Canberra, 42, 172–174, 176, 179–185 Capable guardianship, 109, 112–113, 147 Case studies, 18, 54, 56, 57, 60, 63–65, 68, 69, 73, 76, 80, 83, 92, 95, 105, 107, 113, 114, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 134, 136, 144 Child abuse, 55, 77, 84 Civil law, 2 Coercive control, 42, 54, 56, 71, 106, 110, 113, 159 Cognitive content, 7 Cognitive processes, 126 Community attitudes, 98 Crime prevention, 19, 20 Criminal careers, 12, 16 Criminal justice system, 22, 41, 49, 152, 162

D Definitions of desistance, 7, 8, 25, 40, 107, 126, 130, 156 Desistance, vii, viii, 2, 3, 7–12, 14–23, 25–37, 39–42, 44–47, 49, 51–53, 55, 56, 58–60, 62–64, 66–69, 71–75, 77–80, 84, 86, 88–92, 96–98, 100–105, 107, 109–131, 133–136, 139, 141–144, 146–165, 171, 180, 184 Desistance of intimate partner violence, 7–23 Desistance processes, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–19, 23, 25, 31–37, 48, 71, 72, 81, 90, 91, 99, 101, 111, 121, 122, 133, 135, 136, 141, 144, 148, 150, 157, 161, 163–165 Domestic violence, 35, 90, 173–175, 182, 184 Domestic violence services, 26, 41, 42, 88, 90 E Emotional abuse, 1, 42, 43, 54–56, 62, 64, 67, 93, 106, 110, 113, 121–123, 130, 139, 146, 155, 179 Emotional states, 77, 94, 120, 124, 126, 163, 169 Escalation, 2, 46, 52, 63, 70, 75, 106, 112, 115, 123, 124, 160, 161 Ethics, 45, 176 Evocation of feared selves, 109, 121, 131, 161 F Family members, 10, 16, 39, 53, 55–58, 60, 63–65, 67–69, 83–86, 91, 96–98, 109, 111, 127, 131, 150, 154, 158

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 H. Boxall, Reimagining Desistance from Male-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32951-7

205

206 Family violence, 2, 29, 43, 63, 64, 66, 67, 151, 175, 182, 184 Financial abuse, 42, 52, 53, 56, 60, 93, 123, 154 G Gaslighting, 53–55, 75, 81, 84, 95 Gender, 13, 26, 70, 117, 118, 131, 139, 156, 160, 161, 163, 181 Gender-based violence, 70 Gender role stress, 160, 161 Government services, 45, 49 Grounded theory, 39, 41, 44, 45 H Help-seeking, 51, 68, 71, 73, 74, 83–92, 96, 102, 150, 154, 158 Hooks for change, 162–164 I Identity, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17–19, 22, 26, 32–34, 98, 126, 129–131, 133, 138, 140, 142, 158, 162, 164, 181 Increasing consequences, 109–111 Intergenerational abuse, 26 Interventions, 1, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 37, 41, 52, 53, 56, 70, 71, 98, 102, 118, 150–152, 156, 159, 164, 169, 174, 182, 184 Interviews, ix, 3, 12, 15, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31–33, 35, 36, 39–41, 44, 45, 47–49, 51, 53, 58, 66, 90, 94, 95, 104, 105, 108, 119, 123, 129, 138, 147, 156, 167, 171–173, 180, 186 Intimate partner violence (IPV), vii, viii, 1–4, 9, 12–15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25–37, 39–43, 46–49, 51–53, 56, 62–64, 66–68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 79, 83, 86–89, 92, 96, 98–100, 102, 104, 106, 107, 110, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 126, 130, 131, 133, 136, 142, 145, 148–152, 155–161, 163–165, 167, 171, 172, 174, 179, 180, 182–185 L Life-course criminology, 12 Longitudinal, 3, 9, 12, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30

Index M Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (MBCP), vii, 2, 30–33, 35, 37, 128, 163 O Offender characteristics, 25–27 Onset, 13–15, 34, 52, 106, 114, 139, 144, 149, 150, 158 Operational definition, 40 P Participant narratives, 44 Physical violence, 26, 30, 34, 52–55, 58, 62, 67, 91, 93, 95, 99, 101, 105, 106, 108–114, 118, 119, 122–125, 128, 158 Police, vii, 20, 26, 34, 35, 43, 44, 58, 63, 74, 80, 82, 83, 88–92, 96, 98, 99, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, 121, 123, 124, 145, 150, 152–154, 158, 163, 167, 169, 173, 174, 182, 184 Primary desistance, 7, 8 Property damage, 53, 59 Protection orders, vii, 2, 74, 90, 95, 99, 129, 138, 158 Q Qualitative data, 20, 39 R Readiness to change, 26, 27 Redemption scripts, 11, 127, 141–144, 148, 150 Relationship counselling, 74, 83, 87, 88, 91, 92, 99, 111, 128, 146, 150, 152–154, 157, 158, 162 Relationships dynamics, 29, 32–34, 37, 69, 72 Reoffending, vii, 2, 20, 21, 35, 36, 41, 98, 151, 152 Restorative justice (RJ), 21, 22, 119, 151, 152, 163 Routine activities theory (RAT), 19–21, 112, 117 S Safety planning, 162 Secondary desistance, 7, 8 Sexual violence, 1, 31, 39, 42, 43, 52–54, 62, 80, 91, 94, 95, 99, 105, 106, 108–111, 116, 128, 129, 163

Index Social media, 41, 57, 61, 182 Stalking, 39, 52, 53, 56, 61, 145 Strategies to support desistance, 51, 73–102, 135 Support services, 35, 41, 92, 108, 119, 128, 173–176, 182–185 T Target hardening, 13, 20, 99, 109, 112–113 Tertiary desistance, 7

207 Theory of change, 31, 159, 161 Transtheoretical model of change (TTM), 26 V Victim agency, 21, 133–148 Victim empowerment, 96 Victim motivation, 133–148 Victimology, 3 Victim strategies, 35