Intimate Partner Violence, Women, and Work: Coping on the Job

Abstract

Intimate partner violence is a significant health problem for women, with consequences extending to work as well as society at large. This article describes workplace interference tactics, how women cope with violence at work, and workplace supports for a sample of recently employed women with domestic violence orders (DVO; n = 518). Results indicate that violent partners used a wide range of work interference tactics, that women were more likely to tell someone at work about the victimization than they were to hide the information, and that coworkers and supervisors provided a range of supports to women who did disclose their situation. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.

‘The edge to him was really, really nasty’: abusive tactics used against informal supporters of domestic violence survivors

“…Articles included in the review highlighted the risk of physical harm to friends, relatives, colleagues and neighbours of survivors, (16,17), some of which drew attention to the possibility of mortal danger. (18) Additionally, articles mentioned the possibility of informal supporters being threatened, terrorised, intimidated or harassed by the perpetrator, (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23), with findings from a health impact assessment on DVA indicating that all of the survivors' families were 'to a various degree, intimidated, harassed or bullied'. (24) Many theories and models of domestic violence and abuse (whether focused on the individual, However, even this model is somewhat two-dimensional, because it builds around the individual, considering other people as context, which does little to highlight scenarios where there is more than one person being victimised.…”

Self-efficacy in the context of psychological abuse: a model of efficacy erosion.

“…Survivors of all forms of IPV have limited access to economic or employment/educational successes due to a lack of economic resources, higher rates of unemployment, low educational status (Hien & Ruglass, 2009;Lindhorst, Oxford, & Gilmore, 2007), and/or partners controlling access to employment and education. Among survivors of IPV, between 16-46% were forbidden to seek employment and between 18-31 % were forbidden to attend school by their partners (Brush, 2002;Riger, Ahrens, & Blickenstaff, 2001;Swanberg, Macke, & Logan, 2006).…”

“…The work or educational restraint and interference associated with psychological abuse may also lead to failure experiences (Brush, 2002;Raphael, 1996;Riger et at, 2001;Riger, Raja, & Camacho, 2005;Swanberg et at, 2006). Being prevented from attending work/school, threatened with physical harm if work/school is attended, or regularly harassed while at work/school were some of the most common tactics of restraint and interference reported by IPV survivors (Brush, 2002;Raphael, 1996;Riger et aI, 2001;Riger et aL, 2005;Swanberg et aL, 2006).…”

“…Being prevented from attending work/school, threatened with physical harm if work/school is attended, or regularly harassed while at work/school were some of the most common tactics of restraint and interference reported by IPV survivors (Brush, 2002;Raphael, 1996;Riger et aI, 2001;Riger et aL, 2005;Swanberg et aL, 2006). At least 20% ofIPV survivors reported unwanted termination of employment or education due to experiences of abuse or violence (Riger et aL, 2001;Swanberg et at, 2006).…”

“…Being prevented from attending work/school, threatened with physical harm if work/school is attended, or regularly harassed while at work/school were some of the most common tactics of restraint and interference reported by IPV survivors (Brush, 2002;Raphael, 1996;Riger et aI, 2001;Riger et aL, 2005;Swanberg et aL, 2006). At least 20% ofIPV survivors reported unwanted termination of employment or education due to experiences of abuse or violence (Riger et aL, 2001;Swanberg et at, 2006). Although some studies of economic abuse and work/school interference have included college-aged participants (Brush, 2002;Riger, Raja, & Camacho, 2002;Swanberg et at, 2006), it is rarely assessed in the college population specifically, with some researchers assuming its complete irrelevance.…”