Recent international literature has demonstrated that the public stigma suffered by women victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) makes them less likely to disclose the abuse and to seek help and has a negative influence on third-party responses, with professionals working in the judicial system and law enforcement agencies being particularly susceptible to its impact. The absence of theories explaining how this stigma works and the legal and cultural differences that exist between countries prompted us to explore the process by which professionals working in law enforcement and the judicial system in Spain stigmatize this specific group of victims. Constructivist grounded theory was used to establish meanings and relationships between the components and processes involved in stigmatization, based on the data collected from individual, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 11 professionals working in the aforementioned fields. In addition to the stigmatization that the interviewees claimed to have observed in coworkers, we also analyzed the conscious and/or unconscious stigmatization that they themselves exercised, which became evident during the course of the interview. The results confirmed the existence of stigma among professionals, with the said stigma often being unintentional and implicit in nature. The theoretical model that emerged from the data comprised four broad categories linked to the origin of the stigma, stigmatizing myths about victims and IPV, stigmatizing responses to victims who are seeking help, and the consequences of the stigma for the victims. In the study, we outline the associations observed between these factors and the subcategories included in each, and highlight the need to design training programs for professionals who are designed to fight against the stigma and which include self-analysis exercises as well as theoretical contents. We also discuss other implications of the results for both research and practice.
Public stigmatization of women victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) has begun to be studied because of its negative impact on recovery from violence. This systematic review aimed to analyze such stigmatization in low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) by identifying social norms and perceptions linked to public stigmatizing responses, such responses, negative consequences of those responses on victims, and other factors associated with public stigma. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, five databases were searched using “stigma” and multiple synonyms of IPV as keywords. Selected articles were empirical, written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, and reported findings on public stigma toward women victims of IPV that had occurred in LAMIC. Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Patriarchal gender roles, normalization of IPV and the consideration of violence as a private matter were the most prevalent social norms among the studies. These led to blaming, isolating, and discriminating against the victim, making her feel ashamed, considering her less valuable than before suffering IPV, and dismissing or denying the abuse. Many negative consequences were identified. Anticipated public stigma, associated with not disclosing the abuse and not seeking help, was the most popular. Public stigmatization was stronger when other public stigmas intersected and in the case of disadvantaged social circumstances. Consequences were diminished by protective factors such as informal support and gender-based violence support services. This review provides a global vision for future research in each specific sociocultural context and is a first step in the design of anti-stigma programs in LAMIC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.