Domestic violence is a global issue with devastating consequences, which can be mitigated through disclosure in supportive communications. Proxy disclosure, a special form of disclosure, involves individuals disclosing experiences of victims who are supportively connected with them. This study explores proxy disclosure within the context of domestic violence in Chinese online support groups. Using data from three support groups, the study employs content analysis, structural topic modeling, and propensity score matching to examine the disclosers, content, and supportive effects. Findings reveal proxy disclosers in China are predominantly male and often advocate for mothers and siblings. Six themes emerged, with childhood trauma memories and judicial intervention significantly affecting supportive communication. In addition, self-disclosure generally receives more replies than proxy disclosure. This study introduces and conceptualizes proxy disclosure, providing insights into disclosure for silent victims, and extending the understanding of online antidomestic-violence support systems in non-Western settings. It enhances the theoretical framework of online disclosure and offers practical implications for social work and domestic violence interventions.
AltmanI.TaylorD. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships (pp. viii, 212). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2.
AshuriT.HalperinR. (2024). Online self-disclosure: An interdisciplinary literature review of 10 years of research. New Media & Society, 14614448241247313. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241247313
BatenburgA.DasE. (2015). Virtual support communities and psychological well-being: The role of optimistic and pessimistic social comparison strategies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12131
5.
Beijing Weiping Women's Rights Organization. (2024). Eighth Anniversary of the Implementation of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People's Republic of China-Series of Monitoring Reports: Overview, available at: http://equality-beijing.org/editor/attached/file/20240229/20240229174205_8871.pdf (accessed 24 October 2024).
6.
ButlerB. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.4.346.9703
7.
CannasM.ArpinoB. (2019). A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting. Biometrical Journal, 61(4), 1049–1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201800132
8.
CaoZ.HuiK.-L.XuH. (2018). An economic analysis of peer disclosure in online social communities. Information Systems Research, 29(3), 546–566. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0744
9.
ChanY.-K. (2000). Privacy in the family: Its hierarchical and asymmetric nature. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31(1), 1–17. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.31.1.1
10.
ChenL.HuN.ShuC.ChenX. (2019). Adult attachment and self-disclosure on social networking site: A content analysis of Sina Weibo. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.028
ChiuC.-M.HsuM.-H.WangE. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001
14.
ChoiB. C. F.JiangZ.XiaoB.KimS. S. (2015). Embarrassing exposures in online social networks: An integrated perspective of privacy invasion and relationship bonding. Information Systems Research, 26(4), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0602
15.
ChristiaF.LarreguyH.Parker-MagyarE.QuinteroM. (2023). Empowering women facing gender-based violence amid COVID-19 through media campaigns. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(10), 1740–1752. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01665-y
16.
ChuT. H.SuY.KongH.ShiJ.WangX. (2021). Online social support for intimate partner violence victims in China: Quantitative and automatic content analysis. Violence Against Women, 27(3–4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220911452
17.
CokerA. L.SandersonM.DongB. (2004). Partner violence during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 18(4), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2004.00569.x
DworkinE. R.NewtonE.AllenN. E. (2018). Seeing roses in the thorn bush: Sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of social reactions. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000082
22.
FangS.GongH. (2020). What happens after young adults’ ‘friending’ of parents? A qualitative study about mediated family communication and privacy management in China. Mobile Media & Communication, 8(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157919879730
23.
FoxB. (1980). Hidden in the household: Women’s domestic labour under capitalism. Women’s Educational Press.
24.
GoldsmithD. J. (1999). Content-based resources for giving face sensitive advice in troubles talk episodes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973rls3204_1
25.
GuetaK.EytanS.YakimovP. (2020). Between healing and revictimization: The experience of public self-disclosure of sexual assault and its perceived effect on recovery. Psychology of Violence, 10(6), 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000309
26.
GuetaK.Klar-ChalamishC.UllmanS. E. (2023). The process of online disclosures of interpersonal victimization: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15248380231204886. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231204886
27.
GundersenK. K.ZaleskiK. L. (2021). Posting the story of your sexual assault online: A phenomenological study of the aftermath. Feminist Media Studies, 21(5), 840–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2019.1706605
HegartyK.HindmarshE. D.GillesM. T. (2000). Domestic violence in Australia: Definition, prevalence and nature of presentation in clinical practice. Medical Journal of Australia, 173(7), 363–367. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb125688.x
30.
HimelboimI. (2008). Reply distribution in online discussions: A comparative network analysis of political and health newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01435.x
31.
ImbensG. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023651
32.
KahnJ. H.HesslingR. M. (2001). Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclose psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.20.1.41.22254
33.
KoohikamaliM.PeakD. A.PrybutokV. R. (2017). Beyond self-disclosure: Disclosure of information about others in social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.012
34.
KornfieldR.TomaC. L. (2020). When do online audiences amplify benefits of self-disclosure? The role of shared experience and anticipated interactivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(2), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1757366
35.
LeiX.WuH.DengZ.YeQ. (2023). Self-disclosure, social support and postpartum depressive mood in online social networks: A social penetration theory perspective. Information Technology & People, 36(1), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2020-0825
36.
LiuQ. (2003). Filiality versus sociality and individuality: On confucianism as ‘consanguinitism’. Philosophy East and West, 53(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2003.0015
37.
LiuL. (2008). Filial Piety, Guanxi, loyalty, and money. In MarkovaIvanaGillespieAlex (Eds.), Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives (pp. 51–78). Information Age Publishing.
38.
LouK.FloridiL. (2023). Online altruism: What it is and how it differs from other kinds of altruism. Minds and Machines, 33, 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-023-09648-8
39.
LuY.PanJ. (2021). Capturing clicks: How the Chinese government uses clickbait to compete for visibility. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 23–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1765914
40.
Lusky-WeisroseE.FleishmanT.TenerD. (2022). ‘A little bit of light dispels a lot of darkness’: Online disclosure of child sexual abuse by authority figures in the ultraorthodox Jewish Community in Israel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), NP17758–NP17783. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211028370
41.
MaierD.WaldherrA.MiltnerP.WiedemannG.NieklerA.KeinertA.PfetschB., et al. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
42.
MannS. (2000). The male bond in Chinese history and culture. The American Historical Review, 105(5), 1600–1614. https://doi.org/10.2307/2652032
43.
MasciantonioA.SchumannS.BourguignonD. (2021). Sexual and gender-based violence: To tweet or not to tweet?Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 15(3), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2021-3-4
44.
McCauleyH. L.BonomiA. E.MaasM. K.BogenK. W.O’MalleyT. L. (2018). #Maybehedoesnthityou: Social media underscore the realities of intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health (2002), 27(7), 885–891. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2017.6560
MurvartianL.Matías-GarcíaJ. A.Saavedra-MacíasF. J.CroweA. (2024). A systematic review of public stigmatization toward women victims of intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(2), 1349–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231178756
47.
Nasseh Lotf AbadiM.GhazinourM.NojomiM.RichterJ. (2012). The buffering effect of social support between domestic violence and self-esteem in pregnant women in Tehran, Iran. Journal of Family Violence, 27(3), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9420-x
48.
NeumannP. J.ArakiS. S.GuttermanE. M. (2000). The use of proxy respondents in studies of older adults: Lessons, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(12), 1646–1654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03877.x
49.
NussO.RossH.RamirezF. (2023). #Narcissisticabuse: Sharing personal and educational narratives during domestic violence awareness month. Information, Communication & Society, 27(7), 1405–1421. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2275005
50.
OverstreetN. M.QuinnD. M. (2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help-seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746599
51.
PaasonenS. (2019). Resonant networks: On affect and social media. In FleigA.von ScheveC. (Eds.), Public Spheres of Resonance (pp. 49–62). Routledge.
52.
PanW.FengB.Skye WingateV. (2018). What you say is what you get: How self-disclosure in support seeking affects language use in support provision in online support forums. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17706983
53.
PanW.FengB.WingateV. S.LiS. (2020). What to say when seeking support online: A comparison among different levels of self-disclosure. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00978
54.
PanW.LiuD. (2021). How to gain social support in online mutual support forums: The influence of structured social capital and politeness principles. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication, 43(04), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.13495/j.cnki.cjjc.2021.04.003
55.
PanW.ShenC.FengB. (2017). You get what you give: Understanding reply reciprocity and social capital in online health support forums. Journal of Health Communication, 22(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1250845
56.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD. (2019). Stm: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v091.i02
57.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
58.
SimonC. T.WallaceT. W. (2018). Disclosure of victimization experiences of Chinese male survivors of intimate partner abuse. Qualitative Social Work, 17(6), 744–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017694080
59.
SongG.LiangC. T. (2019). Masculine gender role expectations in China: A consensual qualitative research-modified study. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 553. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000196
60.
SuZ.McDonnellD.CheshmehzangiA.AhmadJ.ChenH.ŠegaloS.CaiY. (2022). What “family affair?” Domestic violence awareness in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 795841. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.795841
61.
TauchenH. V.WitteA. D.LongS. K. (1991). Domestic violence: A nonrandom affair. International Economic Review, 32(2), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2526888
62.
TaylorD. A.WheelerL.AltmanI. (1973). Self-disclosure in isolated groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034233
63.
TonsingK. N.TonsingJ. C.OrbuchT. (2021). Domestic violence, social support, coping and depressive symptomatology among South Asian women in Hong Kong. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 26(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2020.1738056
64.
UllmanS. E. (2023). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. American Psychological Association.
65.
United States Department of Justice. (2023). “What is domestic violence?”, Domestic violence, 6 December, available at: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence (accessed 15 March 2023).
66.
VrankenS.KurtenS.BeullensK. (2024). Time to ‘wine’: A content analysis investigating how social media influencers refer to alcohol use in Instagram’s feed posts and stories. Mass Communication and Society, 27(6), 1468–1494. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2309337
67.
WhykeT. W.López-MúgicaJ. (2020). Content and discourse analysis of cruelty towards stray dogs as presented in Chinese social media. Society & Animals, 31(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-BJA10015
68.
WoodS. L.SommersM. S. (2011). Consequences of intimate partner violence on child witnesses: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24(4), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00302.x
69.
WorthyM.GaryA. L.KahnG. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027990
70.
XieL.EyreS. L.BarkerJ. (2018). Domestic violence counseling in rural northern China: Gender, social harmony, and human rights. Violence Against Women, 24(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217697207
71.
XueH.LiaoW.ZhangJ. (2024). Interaction dynamics of social support expressions predict future support-seeking behaviors in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 156, 108224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108224
72.
YangJ.DuP. (2021). Gender, capital endowment and digital exclusion of older people in China. Ageing & Society, 41(11), 2502–2526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000434
73.
ZhangZ. (2024). Fight against hair loss together: Exploring self-disclosure and social support in an online hair loss support community. Online Information Review, 48(5), 841–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2023-0346
74.
ZhangZ.MuH.HuangS. (2023). Playing to save sisters: How female gaming communities foster social support within different cultural contexts. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 67(5), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2023.2254432
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.
