Women’s Decisions to Not Seek Formal Help for Partner Violence

Abstract

This study examined the help-seeking decisions of low-income women (n = 389) in two types of physically violent heterosexual relationships-intimate terrorism (i.e., physical violence used within a general pattern of coercive control) and situationally violent (i.e., physical violence that is not part of a general pattern of coercive control). Intimate terrorism victims were significantly more likely than situational couple violence victims to cite fear as a reason for not seeking help from the police, medical centers, and counselors/agencies. In contrast, situational couple violence victims more often said that they did not need help. Regression analyses also indicate that additional violence-related factors predict women's help-seeking. Findings emphasize the importance of distinguishing between types of male partner violence and recognizing women's exertions of personal choice and perceptions of dangerousness when examining their decisions about seeking help from service providers.

The relationship between violence and depression in migrant women through their experiences in care services

“…Only 8.2% of women involved in intimate partner violence have sought help from women's institutions that offer consultation, social work services and/or legal support. (25) This data, in addition to what has been presented throughout this study, reveals that while emergency room care in the United States fulfills the mandate of early detection, it is perceived as a hostile place for the follow-up of problems of violence, whether due to the fear of deportation or that of state intervention. Thus, these spaces are seen as punitive institutions, rather than ones of accompaniment.…”

A Personal Social History of a Typology of Intimate Partner Violence

“…Janel first did a paper for one of my graduate seminars that established that there are major differences in the consequences of various types for the victims (Johnson & Leone, 2000, then she did a master's thesis in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies (Leone, 2000) that pursued the same question among low-income women (Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). In her doctoral dissertation (Leone, 2003) she did important work on differences in help-seeking behavior (Leone, Johnson, & Cohan, 2007), work that she has continued to do (Leone, Lape, & Xu, 2014).…”

Theoretical framework and protocol for the evaluation of Strong Through Every Mile (STEM), a structured running program for survivors of intimate partner violence

“…Johnson and colleagues [3, 8–14] have empirically established that two major forms of male intimate partner violence against women exist. The distinction between the two forms - intimate terrorism and situational couple violence - is largely based around issues of power and coercive control.…”

“…In contrast, situational couple violence is physical violence against a partner that is situationally provoked, where one person may react physically to the pressures of a specific encounter or conflict. Research consistently finds that intimate terrorism is associated with more severe and frequent physical violence compared with situational couple violence [3, 12, 14]. However, the distinction between the two types is not based on physical violence; intimate terrorism is not a more severe “stage” of situational couple violence but rather a qualitatively different form of IPV.…”

“…The psychological effects of intimate terrorism include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, long- and short-term depression, lowered self-esteem, self-blame, and increased suicidality [12, 13, 15–17]. Socially, intimate terrorists often isolate their partners from friends and family members and victims often report a lack of perceived social support among friends and family members as well as lack of support from formal resources such as police and counselors [14, 18]. The negative impact of intimate partner violence on women’s ability to develop and maintain strong bonds with their children and with other family members has also been established (see Buchanan, Power, & Verity, 2014 [19] and Levendosky et al, 2004 [18]).…”