Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) has profound effects on victim physical and mental health, considerable social and economic costs and is a significant public health concern. Research suggests that the way the public make sense of IPV may vary in different contexts, as certain contextual factors may be used to explain, excuse or legitimise IPV. PTSD diagnostic status and perpetrator gender may be such contextual factors, but little research exists in this area. Objectives: This study explored how the public make sense of IPV in the context of perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and gender identity (female, male or nonbinary) by exploring IPV ratings and IPV discourses. Methods: Two hundred and sixty-five (265) community participants were recruited via snowball sampling and presented one of six versions of the same story containing an account of IPV. Stories were identical across conditions bar perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity. Participants rated the degree to which they thought the behaviour in the story constituted IPV. Approximately half the participants also completed a story completion task, and stories were analysed for themes. Results: IPV ratings were weighted towards abuse and did not vary with diagnostic status or gender identity. Five themes were identified in participant stories: (i) characterise the behaviour; (ii) trajectory of IPV; (iii) show compassion towards victim of IPV; (iv) hold victim of IPV responsible; and (v) context influences decision-making. Limitations, implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Intimate partner violence IPV gender identity PTSD trauma

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is behavior in an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm (World Health Organisation [WHO], 2012). IPV encompasses physical and sexual violence, psychological abuse (e.g., humiliation) and controlling behaviours (e.g., isolating) (WHO, 2012). Reportedly experienced by 2.4 million adults (5%) in England and Wales in 2021–2022 (Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2022a), IPV has profound negative effects on victim physical and mental health (Campbell, 2002), considerable social and economic costs (Home Office, 2019) and is a public health concern.

Often unreported, IPV is a concealed problem, and few reported cases are recorded as crimes (ONS, 2020). Official figures are, therefore, likely to be misleading. Several possible reasons are worth consideration: variation remains in public sense-making of IPV; IPV has been considered a private matter (Montalvo-Liendo, 2008); and physical abuse is often appraised as IPV, but non-physical abuse may be considered less abusive (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Minto et al., 2020). Indeed, many individuals in emotionally, economically or verbally abusive relationships reportedly did not consider this abuse (Cravens et al., 2015).

Common in media headlines, IPV discourses tend to blame victims (e.g., by describing perpetrators as ‘jilted lovers’, insinuating some if not all victim responsibility) (Lloyd & Ramon, 2016). This is concerning as helping agencies such as criminal justice and healthcare systems share contexts with these discourses. Indeed, victim-blaming tendencies reportedly exist among some healthcare professionals (Sprague et al., 2012). Police may be more likely to arrest perpetrators of physical abuse over other forms (Myhill, 2017), and arrests reportedly depend on victim gender (Fagerlund, 2021).

One important factor is perceived acceptability of IPV (Waltermaurer, 2012). IPV sense-making varies with context as individuals reportedly use ‘conditional logics’, or cite certain contextual factors (such as victim behaviour or whether the abuse is novel or repeated), to legitimise abuse (Lelaurain et al., 2018). This is significant as those who maintain that IPV is admissible are less likely as victims to report it and more likely to self-blame (Tran et al., 2016). Such contextual factors may include perpetrator substance use (Javaid, 2015), mental health difficulties (Varshney et al., 2016) and gender (Carlson & Worden, 2005).

Research suggests that IPV perpetrated by men is considered more justified in some contexts (e.g., if his partner neglects the children or goes out without telling him) than others (e.g., if his partner argues with him) (Hayes & Boyd, 2017), and abuse perpetrated by women is less likely to be appraised as IPV than abuse perpetrated by men (Carlson & Worden, 2005). This indicates an ambiguous relationship between IPV and gender. Factors relevant to IPV legitimisation may pertain to cisgender stereotypes (Scarduzio et al., 2016), while the context in gender nonbinary communities is more uncertain. Abuse is reportedly more common in gender nonbinary communities (Peitzmeier et al., 2020), but research is lacking regarding sense-making of IPV committed by gender nonbinary individuals.

Research highlights a relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnoses and IPV perpetration (Shorey et al., 2021). Whether this is a conditional logic, however, is uncertain, although research suggests IPV appraisals may vary with this diagnosis as IPV was less recognised as such when the perpetrator had a diagnosis of PTSD and was a construction worker rather than a military veteran (Mackinnon et al., 2023). Further research is needed regarding perceived admissibility of IPV in this context.

Public sense-making of IPV is nuanced, something the UK government aimed to address via the Domestic Abuse Bill 2020 (Home Office, 2020a), which details a revised description of abuse to include coercive control, psychological and financial abuse. The bill hoped to improve public understanding, victim safeguarding and legal system responses. However, gaps exist in the literature regarding public sense-making of IPV and conditions that facilitate its justification. Victim-blaming narratives may be internalised by victims of IPV and their communities, and may affect disclosures, responses and management. Research is, therefore, necessary to explore public discourses of IPV.

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore how people make sense of IPV in the context of perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and gender identity (female, male or nonbinary) by exploring IPV ratings and IPV discourses. The study differentiated between sex (based on anatomy and typically assigned at birth) and gender (a deep, self-defined internal sense of self, which may or may not correspond with sex) (Stonewall, 2023).

The study explored effects of perpetrator qualities only. Via the exploration of gender identity, it built upon research by Mackinnon et al. (2023), which investigated public IPV discourses regarding military background and PTSD diagnosis.

Owing to its preliminary nature, study hypotheses were broad and no predictions regarding direction of effect were made. Hypotheses were:

(i) IPV ratings would vary with perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity; and

(ii) IPV discourses would vary with perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity.

Method

Ethical Approval

The study received ethical approval from the University of Bath Psychology Research Ethics Panel (reference 21–257).

Design

A between-groups, mixed methods design was used. All participants completed quantitative measures and half completed a qualitative exercise. Independent variables were perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and gender identity (female, male or nonbinary). Dependent variables were IPV ratings and IPV discourses.

Participants

A G*Power analysis indicated that, based on Cohen’s (1992) effect sizes and an alpha of .05, samples of 400 and 107 were needed for small and medium effect sizes, respectively. The study was, therefore, adequately powered to identify medium and small-medium effects. A small-medium effect size was the smallest effect to be considered meaningful in the absence of prior literature on which to base such calculations.

Participants were adults (18+ years) in the UK (N = 265) recruited via social media and research participation panels who participated voluntarily. Age, ethnicity and sexual orientation were collected (N = 265). Partway through data collection, the participant gender question was reworded to reflect the author’s position on gender identity and sex and align with the ONS Census 2021 language regarding sex and gender identity. Therefore, gender data was collected for approximately half the participants (n = 137) and sex assigned at birth and gender identity data for the remaining participants (n = 128) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Data (N = 265).

Demographic Category	n (%)
Gender (n = 137)
Female	101 (73.7)
Male	31 (22.6)
Nonbinary	2 (1.5)
Prefer not to say	3 (2.2)
Sex assigned at birth (n = 128)
Female	85 (66.4)
Male	43 (33.6)
Prefer not to say	0 (0)
Gender identity (n = 128)
Corresponds to sex	127 (99.2)
Does not correspond to sex	1 (.8)
Ethnicity
Asian or Asian British – Indian	8 (3)
Asian or Asian British – Pakistani	2 (.8)
Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi	1 (.4)
Asian or Asian British – Chinese	3 (1.1)
Asian or Asian British – Any other Asian background	1 (.4)
Black, African, Caribbean or Black British – African	1 (.4)
Black, African, Caribbean or Black British – Caribbean	1 (.4)
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups – White and Black Caribbean	3 (1.1)
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups – White and Black African	1 (.4)
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups – White and Asian	2 (.8)
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups – Any other mixed or multiple ethnic background	4 (1.5)
White – English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British	212 (80)
White – Irish	8 (3)
White – Any other White background	14 (5.3)
Other ethnic group – Any other ethnic group	1 (.4)
Prefer not to say	3 (1.1)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/straight	223 (84.2)
Gay/lesbian	13 (4.9)
Bisexual	17 (6.4)
Prefer to self-describe	7 (2.6)
Prefer not to say	5 (1.9)

Age ranged from 18 to 90 years old (median = 31.24; IQR = 26.6) and was positively skewed. Eighty per cent (80%) were White British (vs. 74.4% of the population in England and Wales [ONS, 2022b]). Women were overrepresented (70.2%), and three participants identified as gender nonbinary (2.3%). Of those asked (n = 128), most said their gender identity corresponds to their sex assigned at birth (99.2% vs. 93.5% of the population in England and Wales [ONS, 2023a]). Sexual orientation was reasonably well matched (84.2% heterosexual vs. 89.4% of the population in England and Wales [ONS, 2023b]). Responses from participants who preferred to self-describe their sexual orientation (2.6%) were ‘queer’, ‘pansexual’ and/or ‘asexual’.

Participants were asked about relevant professional experience (working in a professional capacity with someone with experience), indirect personal experience (supporting someone in a personal capacity [assumed positive contact]) and direct personal experience of IPV, PTSD diagnosis and nonbinary gender identity (Table 2; Appendix A).

Table 2.

Participant Relevant Experience (N = 265).

		Experienced IPV n (%)	Perpetrated IPV n (%)	Received PTSD Diagnosis n (%)	Partner Received PTSD Diagnosis n (%)	Identified as Nonbinary n (%)
Professional experience	Yes	140 (52.8)	69 (26.0)	111 (41.9)	52 (19.6)	92 (34.7)
	No	86 (32.5)	124 (46.8)	104 (39.2)	158 (59.6)	149 (56.2)
	Not sure	38 (14.3)	70 (26.4)	49 (18.5)	54 (20.4)	23 (8.7)
	Prefer not to say	1 (.4)	2 (.8)	1 (.4)	1 (.4)	1 (.4)
Indirect personal experience	Yes	145 (54.7)	31 (11.7)	68 (25.7)	31 (11.7)	71 (26.8)
	No	108 (40.8)	215 (81.1)	168 (63.4)	201 (75.8)	186 (70.2)
	Not sure	10 (3.8)	19 (7.2)	29 (10.9)	32 (12.1)	8 (3.0)
	Prefer not to say	2 (.8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (.4)	0 (0)
Direct personal experience	Yes	66 (24.9)	10 (3.8)	20 (7.5)	10 (3.8)	5 (1.9)
	No	183 (69.1)	245 (92.5)	242 (91.3)	239 (90.2)	258 (97.4)
	Not sure	12 (4.5)	9 (3.4)	3 (1.1)	16 (6.0)	2 (.8)
	Prefer not to say	4 (1.5)	1 (.4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)

There were high rates of professional experience with IPV (52.8%) and PTSD diagnosis (41.9%) and indirect personal experience with IPV (54.7%). Rates of direct personal experience of IPV (24.9%) and PTSD diagnosis (7.5%) were elevated compared to UK prevalence rates for IPV (5%; ONS, 2022a) and PTSD diagnosis (3.88%; PTSD UK, 2022).

Materials

Story

A story depicting IPV between two partners was adapted from Mackinnon et al. (2023) (Appendix B). In the story, Alex hid a phone belonging to Frances (control) then hit a wall and threw the phone towards Frances (physical threats; aggression). Frances told a friend, Nicky, and asked for advice. Stories were identical across conditions bar perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and perpetrator gender identity (female, male or nonbinary). Names were chosen to be gender neutral.

Measures

Measures included the quantitative IPV Rating Scale (Mackinnon et al., 2023) and qualitative story completion (SC) task (Clarke et al., 2017) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Study Measures.

Measure	Purpose	Description
Intimate partner violence (IPV) rating scale (Mackinnon et al., 2023)	To test the hypothesis that IPV ratings would vary with perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity	A scale from 0 (definitely not abuse) to 10 (definitely is abuse) measured participant appraisal of the behavior in the story by the degree to which they thought the behavior constituted IPV¹
Story completion task (Clarke et al., 2017)	To test the hypothesis that IPV discourses would vary with perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity	Participants were asked to complete the story stem. The prompt questions ‘what happens next?’ and ‘what advice does Nicky give Frances?’ were given to facilitate story completion

Suitable for various theoretical positions, SC was analysed within a contextualist framework, which acknowledges that realities are mediated by socio-cultural meanings and ‘truth conditions’ of knowledge claims vary with the contexts in which the claims are made (Pynn, 2016). As such, the stories generated by participants reflect wider discourses and narratives around IPV, PTSD and gender, and it is these discourses and narratives that provide the context within which individuals make sense of IPV. Prompt questions were chosen to enable theoretical consistency.

Procedure

The study was hosted online via Qualtrics. Participants were told the study aim was ‘how we make sense of personal relationships’ to reduce priming regarding IPV. Written informed consent and demographic information were collected. Participants were randomly assigned via Qualtrics function to one of six groups: (i) Female-PTSD; (ii) Female-No PTSD; (iii) Male-PTSD; (iv) Male-No PTSD; (v) Nonbinary-PTSD; (vi) Nonbinary-No PTSD. The relevant story was provided, and participants rated the extent to which they thought the behavior constituted IPV. Approximately half the participants were randomly allocated via Qualtrics function to the story completion exercise. Finally, participants were asked to specify their perception of the victim gender. A debrief with information of relevant support organisations was provided to all participants on study completion.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data

Exploratory analysis using box plots identified three outliers each in Male-PTSD and Nonbinary-No PTSD, and significant negative skew in Nonbinary-No PTSD. As the study was preliminary, and the number of outliers and associated risk of bias low, all data including outliers were analysed, and the large sample size meant a normal distribution was not necessary (Field, 2013). A two-way ANOVA, therefore, measured main and interactive effects of perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and gender identity (female, male or nonbinary) on IPV ratings. An ANCOVA measured effects of demographic and relevant experience variables on IPV ratings. Parameter estimates were based on 1000 bootstrapped samples to increase robustness (Field, 2013). Finally, whole sample victim gender check frequencies were calculated. As the study explored effects of perpetrator characteristics, the victim gender check was not an outcome measure but intended to capture broad narratives about who experiences IPV.

Qualitative Data

Approximately half the participants in each condition were randomly assigned to the story completion task (n = 130). Data were uploaded to NVivo and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2019) to explore themes in public sense-making of IPV. Like story completion, RTA was used within a contextualist framework, and ‘reflexive’ acknowledges researcher subjectivity in theme identification.

The author familiarised themselves with the data then generated codes to capture meaning in the data. Codes were semantic and captured explicit meaning in the data (where codes were latent this is clearly noted). Inter-rater reliability checks of codes were not used as inter-rater reliability is grounded in a positivist framework that presupposes a reality in the data. Codes were collated into themes and both codes and themes were reflected upon and refined with the primary supervisor. Code frequency was explored to identify theme similarities and differences across conditions.

Results

Victim Gender Check

Participant perceptions of victim gender are shown in Figure 1. Nearly half the participants (n = 119; 44.9%) responded ‘female’. Remaining responses were ‘did not think about it’ (62; 23.4%), ‘not sure’ (45; 17%), ‘male’ (26; 9.8%), ‘nonbinary’ (six; 2.2%), ‘girl’ (three; 1.1%), ‘woman’ (two; 0.8%), ‘made no assumption’ (one; 0.4%) and ‘not important’ (one; 0.4%).

Figure 1.

Victim gender check responses (N = 265).

IPV Ratings

IPV rating statistics are shown in Table 4. The highest mean rating was found in Nonbinary-PTSD (M = 8.20; SD = 1.72). Mean ratings were similar across conditions, with the maximum rating given in every condition and significant negative skew in Nonbinary-No PTSD (z-score −3.565, p < .001). There were significant outliers in Male-PTSD and Nonbinary-No PTSD.

Table 4.

IPV Ratings (N = 265).

		Condition 1 Female-PTSD (n = 45)		Condition 2 Female-No PTSD (n = 46)		Condition 3 Male-PTSD (n = 43)		Condition 4 Male-No PTSD (n = 43)		Condition 5 Nonbinary-PTSD (n = 44)		Condition 6 Nonbinary-No PTSD (n = 44)
		Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
Mean		7.733	.299	7.804	.319	7.534	.346	8.116	.279	8.204	.268	7.954	.360
95% confidence interval for mean	Upper Bound	8.304		8.414		8.219		8.666		8.704		8.639
95% confidence interval for mean	Lower Bound	7.127		7.125		6.866		7.525		7.674		7.189
Std. deviation		2.082		2.156		2.281		1.734		1.719		2.322

A two-way ANOVA found no significant interaction between diagnostic status and gender identity on IPV ratings (F [2, 259] = .896, p = .410, partial η² = .007). There was no significant main effect of diagnostic status (F [1, 259] = .279, p = .598, partial η² = .001) or gender identity (F [2, 259] = .569, p = .567, partial η² = .004) on IPV ratings. The model fit was weak (r² = .012), meaning most of the variance in IPV ratings is best explained by other factors.

Covariates

An ANCOVA found no significant effect of participant demographic or relevant experience variables on IPV ratings. Professional experience of experienced IPV (working in a professional capacity with someone who had experienced IPV) approached but did not reach significance (F [1, 258] = 3.621, p = .058, partial η² = .014).

IPV Discourses

RTA led to the identification of five themes: (i) characterise the behavior; (ii) trajectory of IPV; (iii) show compassion towards victim of IPV; (iv) hold victim of IPV responsible; and (v) context influences decision-making (Tables 5 –9). Most themes had subthemes. Themes and subthemes were identified in all conditions, but theme frequency varied.

Table 5.

Data Extracts for ‘Characterise the Behavior’ (n = 130).

Theme	Sub-Theme	Example Data Extract
Characterise the behavior	‘What’	“Nicky tells Frances that Alex’s behavior is unacceptable” (PP109; female-No PTSD)“Nicky suggests that Alex is being abusive” (PP169; female-PTSD)“She points out that hiding someone’s phone is controlling and not normal or okay.” (PP45; male-No PTSD)“God Frances, he’s so controlling! why would he try to hide your phone from you? It’s scary. It’s not right.” (PP139; male-PTSD)“…She considers this to be unacceptably violent…” (PP12; nonbinary-No PTSD)“Nicky says it’s aggressive and controlling” (PP20; nonbinary-PTSD)
Characterise the behavior	‘Where, when, why and how’	“Nicky would ask how often this happened before to try and understand if this a common occurrence in their relationship.” (PP53; Female-No PTSD)“Nicky is aware of Alex’s mental health history and understands that some of her behaviours might be linked to this.” (PP154; Female-PTSD)“Nicky asks Frances if this has been going on for the entire five years of their relationship” (PP190; male-No PTSD)“How long has this been going on for?” (PP190; Male-PTSD)“But what was that argument about/what triggered it” (PP38; nonbinary-No PTSD)“What does Frances think could be the reason for this behavior. She also asks her if Frances has noticed any pattern or specific time or event which triggers this kind of behavior.” (PP198; nonbinary-PTSD)

Characterise the Behavior

Participants consistently characterised Alex’s behavior. Responses included descriptors and language that considered its frequency, duration and cause. Two subthemes were identified: (i) ‘what’; and (ii) ‘where, when, why and how’ (Table 5). The behaviour was repeatedly described as aggressive, controlling, violent, abusive and unacceptable. ‘Abusive’ and ‘domestic violence’ were used more frequently in no PTSD than PTSD conditions regardless of gender identity, and most frequently in Nonbinary-PTSD. Responses across conditions linked the PTSD diagnosis to the behaviour but there was no theme regarding PTSD diagnosis as an excuse.

Trajectory of IPV

Language consistently referenced a trajectory of IPV, which organised immediate reactions and assumptions about the future. Three subthemes were identified: (i) once is a mistake; act if it happens twice; (ii) it will escalate; and (iii) it will become physical (Table 6). Participants gave conditional advice organised by a premise that one-off IPV could be reconciled, but repetition warrants action (such as contacting the police, leaving the relationship, talking to Alex, seeking therapy). Predictions that things would inevitably escalate were more frequent in no PTSD than PTSD conditions, regardless of gender identity. ‘Escalate’ tended to equate to physical harm (typically inflicted on the victim).

Table 6.

Data Extracts for ‘Trajectory of IPV’ (n = 130).

Theme	Sub-Theme	Example Data Extract
Trajectory of IPV	Once is a mistake; act if it happens twice	“…As this has happened before, it is now time to calmly discuss this with Alex and to possibly seek some help.” (PP124; female-no PTSD)“Nicky suggested that Frances sees how the conversation goes before making any rash decisions such as ending the relationship but also makes it clear to Alex that this will be a consequence if her behavior continues.” (PP146; female-PTSD)“Nicky would hopefully say to Frances to leave the relationship with Alex, particularly as it is a repetitive behavior.” (PP247; male-No PTSD)“However, they have talked about this behavior before and Nicky can see it is not a one-off mistake.” (PP224; male-PTSD)“If this was the first occurrence of them getting abusive during an argument then there could be some chance of reconciliation.” (PP221; nonbinary-No PTSD)“Frances should consider reporting Alex’s behavior to the police, especially since this was not a one off that could be explained away.” (PP240; nonbinary-PTSD)
	It will escalate	“It is likely to escalate and she is likely to physically abuse Frances eventually if they stay together.” (PP244; female-No PTSD)“She feels things might continue this way, or even get worse which she tells Frances.” (PP132; Female-PTSD)“Nicky advises Frances to leave the relationship as she predicts things will only get worse and more violent in the future.” (PP89; Male-No PTSD)“Further, Nicky may warn Frances to be careful and use precautions (like staying with a friend) as abusive relationships like this often escalate even more after a breakup.” (PP257; male-PTSD)“Nicky tells Frances that she does not deserve to be treated like that, and that it has happened before and will happen again, but perhaps worse” (PP64; nonbinary-no PTSD)“Nicky suggests that Frances move out temporarily as they are worried about Alex’s behavior escalating” (PP136; nonbinary-PTSD)
	It will become physical	“Frances should leave that relationship before physical harm has been inflicted.” (PP232; female-no PTSD)“The relationship also sounds like it could potentially put Frances and Alex in physical danger which should immediately raise red flags.” (PP229; Female-PTSD)“…That behavior is unacceptable and can easily escalate to physically hurt Frances.” (PP207; male-no PTSD)“’ this time it was a phone that grazed your face, what happens next time when he doesn’t miss and hurts you badly. What then?‘.” (PP246; male-PTSD)“Frances is in danger of getting physically hurt as next time the object may hit her.” (PP22; nonbinary-no PTSD)“Nicky worries that Frances is being emotionally abused and at risk of physical abuse.” (PP61; nonbinary-PTSD)

Show Compassion Towards Victim of IPV

Language conveyed compassion towards the victim. Two sub-themes were identified: (i) sensitivity to suffering; and (ii) attempts to alleviate or prevent suffering (Table 7). Language expressed worry and concern for the safety of the undeserving victim (Frances). Anger on behalf of Frances was expressed in Female conditions only. Worry was expressed more frequently in Male and Nonbinary-No PTSD conditions. Attempts to alleviate or prevent suffering were conveyed across conditions via advice and recommendations.

Table 7.

Data Extracts for ‘Show Compassion Towards Victim of IPV’ (n = 130).

Theme	Sub-Theme	Example Data Extract
Show compassion towards victim of IPV	Sensitivity to suffering	“Nicky listens to Frances with a concerned look on her face.” (PP137; female-no PTSD)“Nicky is sad for Frances and angry that Alex treats Frances this way.” (PP71; female-PTSD)“…She would check in with Frances regularly to make sure things are okay.” (PP207; male-no PTSD)“Nicky tells Frances that they will be there for them regardless but that they have their best interests at heart and want them to be safe.” (PP107; male-PTSD)“Nicky tells Frances that she does not deserve to be treated like that” (PP64; nonbinary-no PTSD)“Nicky expresses concern for her friend” (PP6; nonbinary-PTSD)
Show compassion towards victim of IPV	Attempts to alleviate or prevent suffering	“I believe Nicky would have told Frances that it's not right that she has to live in fear of Alex behaving in this way again. Nicky probably would have advised Frances that if she in genuine fear of her safety, then she has to leave the house/flat or Alex does. (PP182; female-no PTSD)“Nicky offers advice to Frances around her and Alex being open, honest and upfront about their feelings to best ensure negative feelings don’t get bottled up and result in an outburst.” (PP71: female-PTSD)“On Nicky’s advice, Frances tells Alex to look into counselling to help deal with the medical issues and other stressful events that are resulting in this behavior.” (PP102; male-no PTSD)“They spend some time talking about how Frances might be able to have a conversation with Alex when things have calmed down. They both feel that it is really important for Alex to get some extra support to manage their emotional experiences, as things have been slowly getting more difficult.” (PP204; male-PTSD)“If Frances & Alex want to continue the relationship, recommend they get some relationship counselling and Alex gets some support for anger management issues.” (PP22; nonbinary-no PTSD)“Nicky tells Frances that the best way to help their relationship is to go to a couple therapist and see what they can do about it.” (PP158; nonbinary-PTSD)

Hold Victim of IPV Responsible

Language consistently held the victim responsible. Victim responsibility had two sub-themes: (i) responsible for the IPV; and (ii) responsible for fixing and/or supporting the perpetrator (Table 8). Victim responsibility for the IPV was expressed from all perspectives in the story: perpetrator (Alex), victim (Frances) and outsider (Nicky). Bar Nonbinary-PTSD, language directly held the victim responsible. Latent codes in Nonbinary-PTSD suggested a limiting of Alex’s responsibility (e.g., “She assures Nicky that Alex didn’t mean to try and hit Frances”; PP219). Victim responsibility to support the perpetrator was consistent but more frequent in PTSD than no PTSD conditions regardless of gender identity, and most frequent in Male-PTSD.

Table 8.

Data Extracts for ‘Hold Victim of IPV Responsible’ (n = 130).

Theme	Sub-Theme	Example Data Extract
Hold victim of IPV responsible	Responsible for IPV	“Nicky asks, ‘I mean, did you do anything to make her act that way?’ Frances says ‘I don’t know, I was kind of being annoying.’” (PP134; female-no PTSD)“He recognises Frances may be minimising Alex’s behavior and blaming them self for what’s happening. This is all too familiar to Nicky” (PP34; female-PTSD)“Frances talks to Alex and he agrees that they need to work on their relationship, so agrees to therapy sessions - but he still blames Frances for not supporting him enough through his diabetes.” (PP153; male-no PTSD)“Frances – “our fight was ugly, but I just kept poking him about this PTSD of his. And him hiding my phone only made me more irritated and made me say some hurtful stuff. He’s going through a rough time.”” (PP246; male-PTSD)“Frances needs to look at why she tolerates Alex’s behavior.” (PP248; nonbinary-no PTSD)
Hold victim of IPV responsible	Responsible for fixing and/or supporting perpetrator of IPV	“Nicky asks Frances how much she knows about diabetes. Very little. Nicky advises Frances to find out more so she can possibly support Alex with the diagnosis & evaluate how it maybe affecting her & her behavior.” (PP124; female-no PTSD)“Frances believes they should be able to help Alex, but they find it hard when Alex is so volatile. Could we do more?” (PP34: female-PTSD)“Frances agrees that she needs to discuss the events and possible triggers of these events and actions with Alex. Frances seeks the advice and guidance of a counselor in order to help her initiate these conversations with Alex.” (PP190; male-no PTSD)“They decide to go home and read up more on PTSD to think more about how they can support Alex and perhaps prevent this from happening again in the future.” (PP107; male-PTSD)“Frances broaches the subject by sharing how they feel whilst reminding Alex that they’re there to support. Not judge or condemn.” (PP76; Nonbinary-No PTSD)“Nicky does, however, change from suggesting Frances leave Alex to suggesting Frances help them receive support (i.e. therapy) in order to manage their emotions more calmly.” (PP20; nonbinary-PTSD)

Context Influences Decision-Making

Language repeatedly told a story that context influences decision-making (Table 9). Context influences decision-making was a theme in both victim (Frances) and outsider (Nicky) positions. Nicky required more contextual information to enable decision-making, whereas the decision-making of Frances was influenced by the context already known.

Table 9.

Data Extracts for ‘Context Influences Decision-Making’ (n = 130).

Theme	Example Data Extract
Context influences decision-making	“I think it is hard to complete the story based on the information provided … the obvious response is that Frances should leave but this very much depends on when their relationship started to deteriorate and the degree to which Alex has become aggressive and controlling. Has it been for most of their time together or a recent development? Was there a specific event that triggered the deterioration of the relationship? Being controlling and aggressive is never acceptable of course but it may be that Alex is not entirely the one at fault.” (PP24; female-no PTSD)“From the limited introduction give here it’s not possible to assess the depth of the differences between these two people, to obtain a balanced view of the relationship, or suggest the most constructive way ahead for either or both of them.” (PP17; female-PTSD)“Frances is torn and does not know what to do. She loves Alex and wants to believe that it will not happen again.” (PP89; male-no PTSD)“Nicky would also ask about how Frances feels about the whole incident. … Nicky would also ask about how Alex responded after the argument. Did Alex apologise to Frances? Did they talk about what happened? Did they discuss how it made the other feel? Did they also think about how to stop the escalation of arguments before it gets to that point? Does it feel like it’s something that can change or that they as a couple want to change? Do arguments feel one-sided or equal? Do they both become reactive and regret things. Nicky might give differing advice depending on the answers to these questions.” (PP201; male-PTSD)“I would ask for more context assess the existing dynamic and history leading up to it.” (PP184; nonbinary-No PTSD)“Frances was not sure about this as they have known Alex for over 5 years and feel conflicted about reporting them especially since they know that Alex does not need any more stress on their life. … in the end Frances decides to stay at Nicky’s house and consider the options further.” (PP240; nonbinary-PTSD)

Theme

Example Data Extract

Context influences decision-making

“I think it is hard to complete the story based on the information provided … the obvious response is that Frances should leave but this very much depends on when their relationship started to deteriorate and the degree to which Alex has become aggressive and controlling. Has it been for most of their time together or a recent development? Was there a specific event that triggered the deterioration of the relationship? Being controlling and aggressive is never acceptable of course but it may be that Alex is not entirely the one at fault.” (PP24; female-no PTSD)“From the limited introduction give here it’s not possible to assess the depth of the differences between these two people, to obtain a balanced view of the relationship, or suggest the most constructive way ahead for either or both of them.” (PP17; female-PTSD)“Frances is torn and does not know what to do. She loves Alex and wants to believe that it will not happen again.” (PP89; male-no PTSD)“Nicky would also ask about how Frances feels about the whole incident. … Nicky would also ask about how Alex responded after the argument. Did Alex apologise to Frances? Did they talk about what happened? Did they discuss how it made the other feel? Did they also think about how to stop the escalation of arguments before it gets to that point? Does it feel like it’s something that can change or that they as a couple want to change? Do arguments feel one-sided or equal? Do they both become reactive and regret things. Nicky might give differing advice depending on the answers to these questions.” (PP201; male-PTSD)“I would ask for more context assess the existing dynamic and history leading up to it.” (PP184; nonbinary-No PTSD)“Frances was not sure about this as they have known Alex for over 5 years and feel conflicted about reporting them especially since they know that Alex does not need any more stress on their life. … in the end Frances decides to stay at Nicky’s house and consider the options further.” (PP240; nonbinary-PTSD)

Discussion

The study explored how people make sense of IPV in the context of perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and gender identity (female, male or nonbinary) by exploring IPV ratings and IPV discourses. Hypotheses were that IPV ratings and IPV discourses would vary with perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity. IPV discourses were consistent across conditions, but discourse frequency varied by condition. IPV ratings did not vary between conditions.

Victim Gender Check

Approximately half the participants thought the victim was female versus 10% male and 2.2% nonbinary. This may suggest a narrative that IPV is more commonly experienced by women. Dominant discourses tend to position IPV victimisation as a woman’s experience (Morgan & Wells, 2016), which may influence public sense-making of IPV, and, therefore, participant responses. Some participants said the spelling of ‘Frances’ is specific to women, which may have influenced responses. There may also be a relationship between perpetrator gender and victim gender, where victim gender was assumed based on perpetrator gender and narratives regarding sexuality. As the current study only broadly investigated victim gender, future research could investigate this further.

IPV Ratings

IPV ratings did not vary with perpetrator diagnostic status or gender identity. Participants tended to appraise Alex’s behavior as abuse: responses were consistently negatively skewed, and all mean responses corresponded to ‘probably is abuse’. This is interesting when considered alongside the more nuanced responses in the story completion task, which may suggest different appraisal processes.

That neither perpetrator PTSD diagnostic status nor gender identity altered IPV ratings is interesting in the context of research suggesting that the public may use these contextual details as legitimising or excusing factors (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Lelaurain et al., 2018; Mackinnon et al., 2023). This may reflect growing public knowledge around IPV. Indeed, Women’s Aid and the National Domestic Violence Hotline have published resources regarding mental health diagnoses and IPV: both portray a clear message that the former does not excuse the latter. That such myth-challenging resources exist, however, suggests the appraisal process may be more ambiguous than the current findings imply. One may wonder what effect victim gender had on ratings, and whether specification of the gender would have affected these. Of course, it is also possible that participants appraised the behavior as abuse but still employed PTSD diagnostic status and/or gender identity as legitimising factors.

Neither personal nor professional participant IPV experience significantly affected ratings. This is inconsistent with previous findings that professional experience positively correlated with ratings (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Mackinnon et al., 2023). This may be due to the nature of the data overall as ratings were consistently weighted towards abuse.

IPV Discourses

It should first be noted that the author and supervisors’ positions are that the behavior in the story was IPV, which corroborates current definitions and perspectives in this field. This inherently influences theme identification and interpretation, and it is not possible to analyse the data without also acknowledging this influence.

Characterise the Behavior

Making sense of the behavior’s nature, details and course seemed necessary for participants to proceed. This aligns with theories that individuals name and categorise experiences according to previous knowledges and experiences (‘schemas’) to make sense of the world (McVee et al., 2005). Participants told a story about the behaviour and drew on this for clues to other related stories (e.g., what happens next, what to think or feel, how to respond).

Interestingly, participants more frequently described Alex’s behavior as ‘abusive’ or ‘domestic violence’ in no PTSD than PTSD diagnosis conditions. This suggests a specific discourse regarding PTSD and IPV: a PTSD diagnosis somehow alters what the behavior is and how it is described. It is a subtle difference as IPV ratings were consistent and there was no theme that a PTSD diagnosis excuses IPV, but language suggests that ‘abuse’ and ‘domestic violence’ feature less in public sense-making when there is a known PTSD diagnosis. This may be because the PTSD diagnosis, rather than the nature of the behavior, became the focus in these conditions. Nonetheless, this finding supports previous findings that the public may use a PTSD diagnosis as a mitigating factor for IPV (Mackinnon et al., 2023), which may or may not be conscious.

Trajectory of IPV

The discourse about how IPV unfolds over time organised advice for the immediate future and predictions about what might happen longer term. IPV escalation predictions were more frequent in no PTSD than PTSD diagnosis conditions. This may relate to the finding above: described less frequently as ‘abuse’ and ‘domestic violence’ in PTSD conditions, it would figure that IPV trajectory discourses are referenced less in this context. Other themes may also be relevant here: a greater focus on support in PTSD diagnosis conditions may have overpowered the escalation narrative. Perhaps participants assumed that, with professional support, both the PTSD and IPV would improve. Such an assumption might suggest an inextricable PTSD-IPV link in public sense-making, where IPV is perhaps thought to be symptomatic of a PTSD diagnosis.

There was concern that physical harm was likely (especially for the victim). The narratives that once is a mistake and ‘escalate’ means becomes physical may presuppose that, currently, it is not so bad. Indeed, participants gave conditional advice, offering remedies or solutions if the behavior persists. That physical abuse is necessarily ‘worse’ in public consciousness is a concern and supports previous findings that non-physical abuse is considered less abusive (Carlson & Worden, 2005; Cravens et al., 2015; Minto et al., 2020).

Show Compassion Towards Victim of IPV

Participants paradoxically showed compassion towards the victim and held the victim responsible. Sensitivity to suffering was expressed via worry and anger for the undeserving victim. Worry was greater in Male and Nonbinary-No PTSD conditions, and anger (towards Alex, on behalf of Frances and/or about the situation) was expressed only in Female conditions. Such variation suggests IPV sense-making depends on who perpetrated the IPV: by men and nonbinary individuals is seemingly anxiety-inducing, but by women is angering and unjust. Perhaps IPV perpetrated by women violates dominant discourses that victimisation, not perpetration, is a woman’s experience (Morgan & Wells, 2016). Violation of such strong narratives may also feel angering and unjust.

Attempts to alleviate or prevent suffering were expressed via recommendations and advice (e.g., leave the relationship, talk about it, seek therapy). This finding may pertain specifically to narratives about IPV disclosures and their responses (i.e., do something about abusive behavior) but may also be indicative of problem-solution narratives in general. For example, discourses may dictate that the ‘correct’ response to an identified problem is to offer a solution. This urge to solve others’ problems has been named the righting reflex and is thought to involve listener intolerance of uncertainty (Easton, 2021). This finding may also reflect growing awareness of IPV and its risks. Either way, it is reassuring given the IPV ratings: the underlying message is that it cannot or should not continue without intervention.

Hold Victim of IPV Responsible

Victim responsibility had two subthemes: responsible for the IPV itself and responsible for fixing or supporting the perpetrator. Victim responsibility for the IPV was indirectly suggested in Nonbinary-PTSD and expressed directly and consistently in all other conditions from all perspectives in the story: perpetrator, victim and outsider. As participant-generated stories reflect wider discourses and narratives regarding IPV, this finding suggests that victim-blaming IPV discourses (Lloyd & Ramon, 2016; Sprague et al., 2012; Waltermaurer, 2012) remain pervasive in public narratives.

Theorised to underpin victim-blaming, the just-world bias (JWB) refers to beliefs that people get what they deserve, so individuals blame victims to defend their worldview (Strömwall et al., 2012). Victim-blaming reportedly increases with JWB, particularly in women who are thought to defend against the idea of their own victimisation (Kristiansen & Giulietti, 1990; Strömwall et al., 2012). Gender norms may also intersect with victim responsibility: for example, being ‘a man’ by taking responsibility for a partner’s IPV (Entilli & Cipolletta, 2017), or being ‘submissive’ and meeting expectations of pervasive roles for women (Street & Dardis, 2018).

Responsibility for supporting the perpetrator was expressed more frequently in PTSD than no PTSD diagnosis conditions, and most frequently in Male-PTSD. This suggests that PTSD diagnoses, and especially men with PTSD diagnoses, alter discourses about helping responsibilities. Coupled with the victim gender check, these data may pertain to gender norms regarding help in general. Indeed, literature highlights pervasive gender roles regarding helping behavior as women are expected to provide caregiving or emotional support (Atkinson et al., 2023).

These data may also suggest that the burden of victim-blaming, and of helping responsibilities specifically when IPV is perpetrated by men with PTSD diagnoses, falls on women. Thought to be one of many social identities (e.g., gender identity, sexual orientation, race, class) that intersect to either marginalise and oppress or privilege individuals within social structures fraught with hierarchy and systemic oppression (e.g., sexism, cisgenderism) (McLeod et al., 2020), these data may reflect such subordination discourses regarding women. Caution must be exercised, however, given the earlier mentioned spelling of the name Frances, which may also have influenced these data.

Together with the compassion theme, this suggests a bind for IPV victims: they are suffering but are also both responsible for the IPV happening and, therefore, their suffering, and for providing a solution and support to the perpetrator.

Context Influences Decision-Making

Context influences decision-making was identified in both victim and outsider perspectives. In the outsider perspective, more contextual information was required before proceeding. Participants had many questions regarding the length of the relationship, the extent and duration of the behavior, how both partners feel, respond and cope with conflict and what each partner wants from the relationship. The opposite was true in the victim perspective, where they were unsure what to do and whether to take advice because of all they knew about the relationship and the perpetrator. This might make sense given the expressed worry, an emotion strongly associated with uncertainty (Freeston et al., 2020). Individuals may cope with uncertainty via over-engagement to obtain certainty (e.g., repeated questioning), under-engagement to disengage (e.g., procrastination) or ‘dither’ behaviours (e.g., inaction) that lead to uncertainty paralysis (Freeston et al., 2020). This may help explain the influence of context on decision-making in both perspectives.

Interestingly, this theme accompanied behavior characterisation, the IPV trajectory, victim responsibility and compassion towards the victim. Naming the IPV and referring to IPV discourses did not seem to enable satisfactory sense-making: despite these narratives, participants were unsure how, or reluctant, to proceed. Information seemed to strongly influence, even cloud, decision-making. Research reports similar findings. Thought to have implications for decision-making, individuals were repeatedly more likely to engage in ‘additive’ problem-solving (adding more components to a problem situation) than the advantageous subtraction of components (Adams et al., 2021).

Findings told a story about how people make sense of IPV. They tended to appraise it as abuse regardless of perpetrator diagnostic status or gender identity. They communicated narratives about behavior characterisation, an IPV trajectory, compassion towards the victim, victim responsibility and the influence of context on decision-making.

Limitations

Online data collection may have simultaneously facilitated and hindered accessibility. Although UK-wide participants were recruited, online collection privileges IT-literacy and internet accessibility. Second, women were overrepresented in the sample. Findings may not generalise to other gender identities. Third, story completion (SC) may privilege individuals with certain life experiences or education that enables experiences of storytelling and story-writing. SC may not have made sense without these experiences. SC also requires imagination and the ability to think creatively with minimal information and prompts, which may not be accessible for all. Fourth, participant perceptions of perpetrator gender were not checked. Inclusion of a manipulation check would improve finding robustness. Finally, asking participants whether the behavior was IPV may have produced framing effects and influenced ratings. One may wonder why a question is asked at all if it were not relevant in the first place.

Future Research

Further exploration that physical IPV is necessarily more damaging than other forms should be prioritised. As this suggests non-physical IPV is less serious or warrants less immediate action, research should explore the pervasiveness of this narrative and whether it also exists among helping services (e.g., healthcare, police and criminal justice systems).

Future research should also explore IPV discourses about victim gender. Figures suggest IPV disproportionately affects women and gender minority individuals (WHO, 2012). Indeed, victimisation has been positioned as a woman’s experience in public discourses (Morgan & Wells, 2016), which may influence public sense-making of IPV. Is it still IPV if the victim is not a woman? Exploration of victim gender identity effects may provide further insight into discourses about who experiences IPV. Research should also explore victim and perpetrator gender identities together. Research highlights the roles of heterosexism and gender role socialisation in IPV sense-making in both same-gender couples and couples in which the perpetrator is a woman and the victim a man (Brown, 2008). This would be helpful for policy makers and the justice system to understand as narratives may influence IPV disclosures and responses.

Discourses regarding IPV and PTSD diagnoses should also be explored. IPV was described less as abuse or domestic violence in the context of a PTSD diagnosis, suggesting a possible unconscious mitigating of IPV. Finally, it would be helpful to further explore experiences and discourses among men and gender nonbinary individuals.

Implications and Recommendations for Practice

Findings suggest further public information is needed regarding IPV and its different forms. Although ratings skewed towards abuse, escalation and physical harm narratives suggest public discourses may prioritise physical abuse. Given the UK Government definition was recently republished to include coercive control and financial abuse (Home Office, 2020a), it would be helpful to further publicise this to update public discourses.

Attention should also be paid to the narrative that context influences decision-making. In clinical practice this may look like awareness of risk or safeguarding issues, but uncertainty about how to proceed without first establishing further details, or because of the degree of detail already known. One would hope there are clear protocols to follow to protect safety that are less influenced by contextual factors. Further exploration, education and/or training may be useful in clinical practice. It may also be helpful to provide clinicians with training and/or resources to facilitate identification of IPV with clients and patients.

Finally, public information and professionals’ training is needed regarding help-seeking responsibilities in IPV. Findings suggest IPV victims are suffering but responsible for the IPV and the solution, and the burden of this responsibility may fall on women when IPV is perpetrated by men with PTSD diagnoses. Training for professionals may be helpful regarding the potential gender bias in helping responsibilities and the importance of supporting victims to help themselves rather than feel responsible for supporting perpetrators. Public information on accountability and help-seeking in IPV is also needed to update public discourses and free victims from the bind in which such discourses place them.

Conclusions

The study explored how people make sense of IPV by looking at IPV ratings and IPV discourses in the context of perpetrator PTSD diagnostic status and gender identity. IPV ratings did not vary with PTSD diagnostic status or gender identity. Frequency of IPV discourses identified in all conditions did vary. Discourses suggest that context influences decision-making even when IPV is named; a PTSD diagnosis reduces the likelihood that IPV is described as abuse or domestic violence; and escalation equates to physical harm and help is needed, but the responsibility falls on the victim. Public information campaigns are recommended to clarify the nature of IPV, who is responsible and who should seek help and how.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - How Do People Make Sense of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the Context of Perpetrator PTSD Diagnostic Status and Gender Identity?

Supplemental Material for How Do People Make Sense of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the Context of Perpetrator PTSD Diagnostic Status and Gender Identity? by Ella Lonnen, Jessica Mackinnon, and Rachel Paskell in Psychological Reports

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ella Lonnen

Jessica Mackinnon

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

Author Biographies

Ella Lonnen is a clinical psychologist working in child and adolescent mental health. She is interested in trauma, attachment and developmental trauma.

Jessica Mackinnon is a clinical psychologist working in adult inpatient mental health and is interested in trauma and violence and the ways in which systemic thinking can be brought to acute care for patients and staff teams alike.

Dr. Rachel Paskell is a Chartered Clinical Psychologist and accredited psychological therapist working at the University of Bath as Academic Director and Director of Studies on the Clinical Psychology training programme, as well as practicing clinically at the Royal United Hospitals, Bath Intensive Care Unit (ICU). She has recently co-authored the book ‘An Illustrated Guide to Clinical Psychology’ and her specialist areas of interest academically and clinically are trauma, PTSD, and major trauma.

References

Adams

G. S.

Converse

B. A.

Hales

A. H.

Klotz

L. E.

(2021). People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature, 592(7853), 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y

Atkinson

Sandstrom

Croft

(2023). People overestimate backlash against helpers who violate gender stereotypes: Experimental examination of a prosociality paradox. Sex Roles, 88(5-6), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01354-0

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806

Brown

(2008). Gender-role implications on same-sex intimate partner abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 457–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9172-9

Campbell

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359(9314), 1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

Carlson

B. E.

Worden

A. P.

(2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: I. Definitions of domestic violence, criminal domestic violence, and prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278530

Clarke

Hayfield

Moller

Tischner

(2017). Once upon a time…: Story completion methods. In Braun

Clarke

Gray

(Eds.), Collecting qualitative data: A practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques (pp. 45–70). Cambridge University Press. https://oro.open.ac.uk/48404

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155

Cravens

J. D.

Whiting

J. B.

Aamar

R. O.

(2015). Why I stayed/left: An analysis of voices of intimate partner violence on social media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37(4), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-015-9360-8

10.

Easton

(2021). Resisting the “righting reflex” in conversations about covid vaccine hesitancy. The British Medical Journal, 373(8297), n1566. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1566

11.

Entilli

Cipolletta

(2017). When the woman gets violent: The construction of domestic abuse experience from heterosexual men’s perspective. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15–16), 2328–2341. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13500

12.

Fagerlund

(2021). Gender and police response to domestic violence. Police Practice and Research, 22(1), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2020.1749622

13.

Field

A. P.

(2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. Sage.

14.

Freeston

Tiplady

Mawn

Bottesi

Thwaites

(2020). Towards a model of uncertainty distress in the context of Coronavirus (COVID-19). Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 13(31), Article e31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1754470X2000029X

15.

Hayes

B. E.

Boyd

K. A.

(2017). Influence of individual- and national-level factors on attitudes toward intimate partner violence. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416662028

16.

Home Office . (2019). The economic and social costs of domestic abuse. Home Office. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f637b8f8fa8f5106d15642a/horr107.pdf

17.

Home Office . (2020a). Domestic abuse bill 2019–21. Home Office. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8959/CBP-8959.pdf

18.

Javaid

(2015). The role of alcohol in intimate partner violence: Causal behavior or excusing behavior? British Journal of Community Justice, 13(1), 75–92. https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/1638/1/BJCJ-13-1-Javaid.pdf

19.

Kristiansen

C. M.

Giulietti

(1990). Perceptions of wife abuse: Effects of gender, attitudes toward women, and just-world beliefs among college students. Psychology of Women, 14(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00013.x

20.

Lelaurain

Fonte

Aim

Khatmi

Decarsin

Lo Monaco

Apostolidis

(2018). “One doesn’t slap a girl but…” Social representations and conditional logics in legitimization of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 78(9-10), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0821-4

21.

Lloyd

Ramon

(2016). Smoke and mirrors: U.K. Newspaper representations of intimate partner domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 23(1), 114–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216634468

22.

Mackinnon

Paskell

Hamilton-Giachritsis

(2023). What do the public understand about intimate partner violence in the context of military veteran status and PTSD? Psychological Reports, 332941231180104. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231180104

23.

McLeod

D. A.

Havig

Natale

Pharris

(2020). Intimate partner violence: Innovations in theory to inform clinical practice, policy and research. Social Sciences, 9(5), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9050071

24.

McVee

M. B.

Dunsmore

Gavelek

J. R.

(2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004531

25.

Minto

Masser

B. M.

Louis

W. R.

(2020). Identifying nonphysical intimate partner violence in relationships: The role of beliefs and schemas. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5-6), 2416–2442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520938505

26.

Montalvo-Liendo

(2008). Cross-cultural factors in disclosure of intimate partner violence: An integrated review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04850.x

27.

Morgan

Wells

(2016). ‘It’s deemed unmanly’: Men’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV). Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 27(3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1127986

28.

Myhill

(2017). Renegotiating domestic violence: Police attitudes and decisions concerning arrest. Policing and Society, 29(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1356299

29.

Office for National Statistics . (2021). Sex and gender identity question development for census 2021. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/censustransformationprogramme/questiondevelopment/sexandgenderidentityquestiondevelopmentforcensus2021

30.

Office for National Statistics . (2022a). Domestic abuse prevalence and trends, England and Wales: Year ending March 2022. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022

31.

Office for National Statistics . (2022b). Ethnic group, England and Wales: Census 2021. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021

32.

Office for National Statistics . (2023a). Gender identity, England and Wales: Census 2021. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021

33.

Office for National Statistics . (2023b). Sexual orientation, England and Wales: Census 2021. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualorientationenglandandwales/census2021

34.

Peitzmeier

S. M.

Malik

Kattari

S. K.

Marrow

Stephenson

Agénor

Reisner

S. L.

(2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774

35.

Pynn

(2016). Contextualism in epistemology. In Oxford handbooks. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-12?print=pdf

36.

Scarduzio

J. A.

Carlyle

K. E.

Harris

K. L.

Savage

M. W.

(2016). “Maybe she was provoked”: Exploring gender stereotypes about male and female perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 23(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216636240

37.

Shorey

R. C.

Fite

P. J.

Menon

S. V.

Cohen

J. R.

Stuart

G. L.

Temple

J. R.

(2021). The association between PTSD symptoms and IPV perpetration across 6 years. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), 5340–5361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518800310

38.

Sprague

Madden

Simunovic

Godin

Pham

N. K.

Bhandari

Goslings

J. C.

(2012). Barriers to screening for intimate partner violence. Women & Health, 52(6), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2012.690840

39.

Stonewall . (2023). List of LGBTQ+ terms. Stonewall. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/list-lgbtq-terms

40.

Street

A. E.

Dardis

C. M.

(2018). Using a social construction of gender lens to understand gender differences in posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 66, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.03.001

41.

Strömwall

L. A.

Alfredsson

Landström

(2012). Blame attributions and rape: Effects of belief in a just world and relationship level. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02044.x

42.

Tran

T. D.

Nguyen

Fisher

(2016). Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women among women and men in 39 low- and middle-income countries. PLoS One, 11(11), Article e0167438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167438

43.

Varshney

Mahapatra

Krishnan

Gupta

Deb

K. S.

(2016). Violence and mental illness: What is the true story? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 70(3), 223–225. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205546

44.

Waltermaurer

(2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447699

45.

World Health Organization . (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence. WHO. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB