Exploring Psychological Impact of Legal Procedure and Victim Blaming on Women Domestic Violence Victims

Abstract

Background

Domestic violence includes pattern of abusive or coercive behaviours that occur over time and typically escalate in severity. These patterns of behaviour are directed to assert power, dominance, control and/or coercion over women in line with patriarchal notions of marriage. Prior literature had profoundly addressed the multi-factor implications of encounters with domestic violence, but the gap persists in the areas of societal victim-blaming and re-victimisation that occur during legal procedures.

Purpose

This research aimed at exploring the psychological impact of societal victim blaming and re-victimisation through legal procedures among domestic violence victims.

Methods

The current study adopted quantitative approach to address the research question. Ex-Post Facto research design was used. A representative sample of 100 women victims was selected through a purposive sampling technique. The dataset was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics to arrive at a meaningful conclusion.

Result

Findings of the study reported that significant differences were observed in the victim-blaming attitudes, psychological distress and legal re-victimisation assessed across the age groups and type of abuse endured. Findings also suggested that victim-blaming attitudes legal re-victimisation significantly predicted psychological distress among participants with R² = 0.117, suggesting a 11.7% variability.

Conclusion

Findings of the study highlighted the catastrophic impact of victim-blaming attitudes and re-victimisation through legal procedures on various mental and psychological outcomes. Hence, this study presses on the importance of addressing the hurdles and psychological repercussions of legal procedures that victim had to encounter.

Keywords

Domestic violence women victims victim-blaming attitudes legal re-victimisation psychological distress legal procedures

Introduction

A systematic pattern of abusive behaviours that takes place over time and tends to get worse and more progressive with time is indicated as domestic violence. Additionally, it is thought that this conduct is carried out in order to exert dominance, control, and/or coercion.¹ Numerous individuals and families across India are drastically impacted by the repercussions of instances of domestic violence. Many victims of domestic violence suffer in silence. Behind closed doors, they endure ongoing abuse and humiliation, yet in public, they often try to present a composed and confident front. Sometimes they succeed—but often, they do not. We notice the signs. Whether emotional or physical, the red flags are there!

In the recent reports of World Health Organization, an approximation of 30% women population endures physical, legal, emotional and psychological burden of domestic violence instances.² The consequences for victims are often severe, encompassing both immediate physical harm and long-term psychological effects, such as chronic health conditions and post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression among other major concerns. Alarmingly, recent research shows that global disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic have intensified patterns of violence against women.³ According to WHO data, during the pandemic, one in three women reported feeling unsafe in their own homes, often due to conflicts with their partners.⁴ The urgent crisis of intimate partner violence calls for a deep and honest examination through a social lens. Too often, it hides in plain sight, masked by cultural norms and the unsettling acceptance of abusive behaviours like physical aggression and verbal attacks—across all socioeconomic levels. Yet no form of violence is harmless; each leaves lasting physical and emotional scars, shattering victims’ well-being and straining their relationships with others.² Even more troubling, homes where domestic violence takes root are far more likely to become environments where children, too, suffer abuse.⁵ Both women survivors and male perpetrators of domestic violence often turn to denial and repression as ways to cope with the trauma they experience.⁶ Scientific literature further emphasises that victims suppress memories of violence for several painful reasons: recalling the abuse forces them to relive the fear, pain, and anxiety tied to the experience, and many fear that others will doubt the severity of what they endure.⁷ Feelings of shame and fear of judgment often weigh heavily, leading victims to hide their suffering rather than seeking help. These deep emotional wounds show why healing from domestic violence must go beyond treating physical injuries—it must also address the mental, emotional, and social scars left behind.

A persistent obstacle in effectively addressing domestic abuse is the delayed recognition of victimisation, particularly among women, when the abuse is non-physical in nature. Research indicates that medium to high-risk victims typically endure abuse for an average of two to three years before seeking formal assistance, often engaging with law enforcement on multiple occasions prior to obtaining meaningful intervention.⁸ Furthermore, the repercussions of domestic abuse extend beyond the immediate victims, generating profound and widespread social consequences that are not always readily apparent to the general public. A substantial body of research has examined the reasons why many women remain in abusive relationships or delay seeking assistance. Multiple barriers including denial, shame, self-blame, hopelessness, and feelings of powerlessness, often contribute to victims concealing their experiences from others.⁹ In some cases, women may not fully recognise the abuse or understand its impact on themselves and their children^{8, 10} thereby increasing the risk of the cycle of abuse being transmitted across generations. It is generally easier for individuals to recognise abuse in others’ lives than in their own, leading to oversimplified assumptions about how they might respond in similar situations. Victims often undergo deep internal conflicts regarding their identity as they attempt to interpret and survive their experiences.¹¹ Importantly, the most dangerous period for women experiencing domestic abuse is when they attempt to leave, as this significantly escalates the risk of post-separation violence.

The centuries-long oppression and brutal mistreatment of women gave rise to the powerful feminist movements of the 1970s and 1980s, igniting a global demand for justice and shedding light on the widespread violence that women faced in silence. In India, this awakening prompted urgent legislative action during the 1980s, as policymakers finally began confronting the deeply entrenched patterns of abuse.¹² A Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament was formed to conduct an in-depth review of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.¹¹ The Committee’s findings exposed a grim reality: an alarming rise in dowry-related deaths, with countless women driven to suicide under unbearable abuse and social pressure.¹²

Until 1983, Indian law failed to specifically recognise marital violence as a distinct crime. Instead, acts of brutality by husbands were prosecuted under general sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as murder, abetment of suicide, causing bodily harm, and unlawful confinement—offenses that inadequately captured the unique horrors of domestic cruelty. In response to these gaps, a series of landmark legal reforms were introduced to better protect women from violence and exploitation:

Sections 304B, 406, and 498A of the IPC: Addressing crimes such as dowry death (304B), criminal breach of trust (406), and cruelty inflicted by the husband or his family members (498A).

Section 198A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973: Facilitating the prosecution of offenses against marriage.

Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act: Establishing legal presumptions concerning abetment of suicide and dowry-related deaths.

A major breakthrough came with the 1983 amendment to the IPC, introducing Section 498A, a provision that, for the first time, directly criminalised matrimonial cruelty against women—acknowledging their suffering and offering a legal tool to fight back against centuries of systemic abuse.¹²

While many women who endure domestic violence muster the courage to seek justice through legal avenues, far too often, they are forced into silence, suppressing their pain and suffering. Deep-rooted victim-blaming attitudes in society, combined with the traumatisation they face during legal proceedings known as revictimization or secondary victimization, leave them feeling isolated, mistrusted, and further harmed. Countless women are driven into painful silence, forced to carry their trauma alone, unheard and unseen. Victim-blaming attitudes occur in society ‘when people assume that the victim is somehow responsible for causing or deserving the harm they endured, they shift the focus away from the perpetrator and instead scrutinize the victim’s actions, decisions, or appearance’.¹³ These attitudes often progress the further psychological distress variables a victim of domestic violence encounter during legal proceedings. Hence, these potent variables could be explored to determine their cumulative psychological impact on women domestic violence victims when they enter the legal system.

Purpose of the Current Study

This study explores the gap in literature pertinent to impact of societal victim blaming and revictimisation through legal procedures among domestic violence victims. It addresses the major predictors of psychological and emotional distress encountered by women victims of abuse during their journey to seek help and justice for the maltreatment they underwent. This study fills the gap in literature pool relative to problem of psychological variable evident among women victims of abuse during legal proceedings. The following objectives were laid out:

To explore victim blaming attitudes, legal re-victimisation and psychological distress of women domestic violence victims based on age-group and abuse-types experienced.

To investigate the impact of victim blaming attitudes, legal re-victimisation on psychological distress among women domestic violence victims.

Hypotheses

To address the objectives of the current research, the following hypotheses were framed:

There will be significant difference in victim blaming attitudes, legal re-victimisation and psychological distress of women domestic violence victims based on age-group and abuse-types experienced.

Victim blaming attitudes and legal re-victimisation will significantly predict the psychological distress of women domestic violence victims.

Methods

The current research utilised a quantitative approach to explore the research objectives. Hundred women victims of domestic violence were selected for the present study. The participants were selected through NGOs and support groups working with domestic violence survivors. Non-probability purposive sampling technique was used for selecting participants for the study through organisations. Appropriate questionnaires were used to collect the data.

Sample Size and Strategy

The research included a total of 100 women victims of domestic violence. They were purposively selected through organisations working for the welfare of victims. The study employed a non-probability purposive sampling method for participant selection. To foster trust and encourage participation, multiple personal sessions were conducted where researchers explained the study’s purpose and procedures in detail. Participants were informed about the purpose of research and structure of the dataset, which included questionnaires addressing the primary study variables. Informed written consent was taken from the participants for their voluntary involvement in the study. Once data collection was complete, the responses were analysed using a causal-comparative framework, applying both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques to draw meaningful comparisons across the sample groups.

Research Design

Ex-post Facto Research Design was used for the current study to investigate the cause-and-effect relationship between victim blaming attitudes, re-victimisation and psychological distress among women domestic violence victims.

Tools used in the research:

Victim-blaming Attitudes in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence against Women Scale (VB-IPVAW)

Victim-Blaming Attitudes in cases of IPVAW (VB-IPVAW) constructed by Fernandez et al. (2018) is a 12-item scale to assess the victim-blaming attitudes in cases of Intimate partner violence against women.¹⁴ Items are scored along the continuum as 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Scores of individual items are added to arrive at total scores ranging from a minimum of 12 and maximum of 60. It is a reliable measure with a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.89). Higher scores indicate higher victim-blaming attitudes.

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), constructed by Kessler et al. (2002), is a widely used screening instrument developed to detect significant levels of psychological distress in adults.¹⁵ It consists of 10 questions related to emotional states of an individual rated on a five-level scale. It not only measures overall psychological distress but also helps in identifying more specific symptom patterns, particularly distinguishing between depression and anxiety. Structurally, the K10 is organised into four first-order factors- negative affect, nervousness, fatigue and agitation and two second-order factors—depression and anxiety. Items are scored along the continuum as 1 = None of the time to 5 = All of the time. Scores of individual items are added to arrive at total scores ranging from a minimum of 10 and maximum of 50. Low scores indicate low levels of psychological distress, and high scores indicate high levels of psychological distress. The reliability of the measure is Cronbach’s α = 0.84.

Survey Questionnaire for Secondary Victimisation during legal proceedings:

A survey questionnaire developed by Orth, 2002 is a 16-item measure, used to assess secondary victimisation during legal proceedings. It assessed the domains of—’subjective effects, outcome satisfaction, procedural justice, punishment severity and interactional justice’.¹⁶ The findings impinged on the prevalence of negative impact legal procedures have on victims. The internal consistency of the measure is Cronbach’s α = 0.79.

Scoring is done as:

Subjective Effect is assessed by 5 items scored on 7-point scale ranging from −3 = very negative to 3 = very positive,

Outcome Satisfaction is assessed by a single item scored on 7-point scale ranging from −3 = very dissatisfied to 3 = very satisfied,

Procedural Justice is assessed by 6 items scored on 6-point scale ranging from 0 = not at all right to 5 = completely right,

Punishment Severity is assessed by a single item scored on 7-point scale ranging from −3 = very lenient to 3 = very severe and

Interactional Justice is assessed by 3 items scored on 6-point scale ranging from 0 = not at all right to 5 = completely right.

The reliability of the measure is Cronbach’s α = 0.84.

Data Analysis

The dataset was analysed for descriptive and preliminary analysis through IBM SPSS 20 software for deriving meaningful interpretations.

Results and Discussions

Table 1 presents the socio-demographic profile of the study participants. A significant proportion comprised young adults aged 26–35 years (40%), followed by 22% aged 18–25 years. A majority of the women victims were married (68%), although a notable proportion (24%) were separated or divorced survivors of domestic abuse. In terms of educational attainment, most participants had completed higher secondary education, with only a small fraction pursuing higher studies. Regarding employment status, the majority were either homemakers (40%) or unemployed (30%), while only 25% reported being employed. Additionally, 55% of participants hailed from urban areas. Experiences of abuse were predominantly multifaceted, with 35% of victims reporting multiple forms of domestic violence, followed by physical abuse (30%), emotional abuse (20%), and sexual coercion (10%). The duration of abuse varied, with 42% of participants experiencing violence for 1–3 years, and 28% enduring abuse for 3–6 years, intensifying the depth of their distress.

Table 1.

Details of Socio-demographic Details of the Participants (N = 100).

Variable	Categories	n (%)
Age group	18–25 years 26–35 years 36–45 years 46+ years	22% 40% 28% 10%
Marital status	Married Separated/Divorced Widowed Single	68% 24% 6% 2%
Education level	No Formal Education Primary Secondary Higher Education	18% 30% 35% 17%
Employment status	Employed Unemployed Homemaker Student	25% 30% 40% 5%
Residence type	Urban Rural Semi-Urban	55% 35% 10%
Number of children	None 1–2 3–4 5 or more	15% 60% 20% 5%
Type of abuse experienced	Physical Emotional Sexual Financial Multiple types	30% 20% 10% 5% 35%
Duration of abuse	<1 year 1–3 years 4–6 years 7+ years	12% 42% 28% 18%
Legal action taken	Yes No	48% 52%
Support systems available	Family Friends NGOs/Community Support None	28% 12% 18% 42%

When addressing victimisation experiences, only 42% of participants reported the abuse and sought legal intervention, while a larger proportion (52%) remained silent, refraining from pursuing legal action. This reflects the grim reality of underreporting, underscored by systemic flaws and the profound psychological and emotional burdens associated with legal processes. Overall, these findings offer critical insights into the socio-demographic characteristics of the study sample, providing a contextual foundation for understanding the associated study variables.

Table 2 indicates the descriptive statistics of variables of research—victim blaming, psychological distress and secondary victimisation. To explore age-related variations in attitudes and experiences, mean scores and standard deviations were analysed across three age groups (18–25, 26–35, and 36–45) for the variables of victim blaming, psychological distress, and secondary victimisation.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Victim Blaming Attitudes, Revictimisation and Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence (N = 100).

Variables	Age Groups	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Skewness	Kurtosis
Victim blaming	18–25	31.00	3.57	0.406	−0.273
	26–35	29.31	3.41	0.054	−0.638
	36–45	30.90	3.27	−0.107	−0.734
Psychological distress	18–25	31.50	8.95	0.250	−1.365
	26–35	32.02	10.1	0.243	−1.463
	36–45	33.83	9.65	0.232	−1.229
Secondary victimisation	18–25	25.80	4.50	0.646	−0.666
	26–35	27.22	4.20	0.064	−0.962
	36–45	27.86	3.37	−0.513	−0.407

Victim blaming scores were highest among the youngest participants (18–25; M = 31.00, SD = 3.57), indicating a slightly stronger tendency to attribute blame to victims compared to the other groups. Interestingly, the 26–35 age group reported the lowest levels (M = 29.31, SD = 3.41), while those aged 36–45 fell in between (M = 30.90, SD = 3.27). This pattern suggests that perspectives on victim responsibility may shift with age, potentially reflecting developmental or sociocultural influences. This is in line with the research conducted by Culda et al. (2018), which highlighted the preponderance of ‘Just world Hypothesis’ to be the major attribute in defining the shift of crime responsibility on victim rather than the perpetrator.¹⁷

When it comes to psychological distress, the data revealed a gradual increase with age. Participants aged 18–25 reported the lowest distress levels (M = 31.50, SD = 8.95), while those in the 36–45 age group exhibited the highest (M = 33.83, SD = 9.65). This upward trend may point to accumulating stressors or life challenges that intensify over time.

A similar age-related pattern emerged for secondary victimisation. The youngest group again reported the lowest levels (M = 25.80, SD = 4.50), with higher scores seen in the 26–35 (M = 27.22, SD = 4.20) and 36–45 (M = 27.86, SD = 3.37) groups. While differences were modest, the findings may reflect increased exposure to or awareness of secondary victimisation as individuals age. Taken together, these results highlight meaningful age-related differences in victim-related attitudes and psychological experiences. Such patterns underscore the importance of considering age as a relevant factor in both research and interventions targeting victim support and trauma recovery.¹⁸

Table 3 depicts the findings of One-Way ANOVA computed to explore the influence of age on victims blaming, psychological distress, and secondary victimisation. Participants were categorised into three age groups: 18–25, 26–35, and 36–45. Table 4 reports Scheffe’s post-hoc analysis to highlight the actual age-related differences in variables across the sample groups.

Table 3.

Measure of Significant Difference in Victim Blaming Attitudes, Revictimisation and Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence Based on Age Range (N = 100).

Variables	Age Groups	N	F-value	Sig. (p Value)
Victim blaming	18–25 26–35 36–45	100	2.608	.079
Psychological distress	18–25 26–35 36–45		0.628	.536
Secondary victimisation	18–2526–3536–45		3.346	.039

Table 4.

Post-hoc Analysis Multiple Comparison (Homogeneous Subset Table) for Victim Blaming Attitudes, Revictimisation and Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence Based on Age Range (N = 100).

Variables	Age-range	N	Subset for Alpha = 0.05
Variables	Age-range	N	1
Victim blaming	18–25	35	29.31
	26–35	35	30.90
	36–45	30	31.000.140
	Sig.
Psychological distress	18–25	35	31.20
	26–35	35	32.03
	36–45	30	33.830.537
	Sig.
Secondary victimisation	18–25	35	25.37
	26–35	35	27.23
	36–45	30	27.870.050
	Sig.

The analysis for victim blaming revealed a marginally non-significant effect of age, F(2, 98) = 2.61, p = .079. While the result did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance, the near-threshold p value suggests the presence of a potential age-related trend that warrants further investigation. These findings are partially consistent with prior literature indicating that younger individuals may exhibit stronger victim-blaming attitudes, possibly influenced by cognitive, social, or cultural factors (Grubb & Turner, 2012).¹⁸

Scheffe’s Post Hoc analysis was done to report the actual differences between the sample group. As depicted in Table 4, findings of post-hoc analysis reported that mean scores of victim-blaming attitudes showed no significant age-related differences across the groups.

For psychological distress, the ANOVA indicated no statistically significant differences across age groups, F(2, 98) = 0.63, p = .536. This suggests that psychological distress following victimisation remains relatively constant across early to mid-adulthood. These findings align with previous studies suggesting that psychological distress may be more strongly associated with individual-level variables such ‘as trauma exposure, coping efficacy, and access to social support’ than with demographic factors like age (Bonanno et al., 2007).¹⁹ Further, as depicted in Table 4, Post-hoc analysis findings for psychological distress reported no significant differences across the groups based on age.

In contrast, a statistically significant age effect was observed for secondary victimisation, F(2, 98) = 3.35, p = .039. This result indicates that experiences of secondary victimisation which are defined as negative responses from others following the disclosure of victimisation, differ significantly across age groups. This finding corroborates existing research that has identified age as a relevant factor in shaping how individuals perceive and respond to secondary victimisation (Laing, 2017).²⁰

It was further indicated through the Scheffe’s post hoc analysis that women victims in the age range 26–35 reported higher instances of secondary victimisation during legal process.²¹ It is plausible that older individuals possess greater awareness or expectations of formal support systems, thereby perceiving and reporting such experiences differently than younger counterparts.^{20, 21} In summary, the results suggest that while psychological distress does not significantly vary across age groups, age-related differences may exist in victim-blaming attitudes and are evident in experiences of secondary victimisation. These findings underscore the importance of considering developmental and demographic variables in the design of trauma-informed interventions and policies aimed at minimising secondary harm.

Table 5 presents the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess whether the type of abuse experienced, that is, physical, emotional, sexual, or multiple forms was associated with differences in victim blaming, psychological distress, and secondary victimisation.

Table 5.

Measure of Significant Difference in Victim Blaming Attitudes, Revictimisation and Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence Based on Types of Abuse (N = 100).

Variables	Abuse Types	N	F-value	Sig. (p Value)
Victim blaming	Multiple typesPhysicalEmotionalSexual	100	1.228	.304
Psychological distress	Multiple typesPhysicalEmotionalSexual		31.079	.000
Secondary victimisation	Multiple typesPhysicalEmotionalSexual		3.103	.030

For victim blaming, one-way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences across abuse types, F(3, 97) = 1.23, p = .304. This suggests that the tendency to attribute blame to victims does not significantly vary based on whether individuals experienced a single type of abuse or multiple forms. This finding aligns with prior literature indicating that victim-blaming attitudes are often influenced more by observer characteristics (e.g., gender, cultural background, belief systems) than by the nature of the abuse itself (Grubb & Turner, 2012; Yamawaki et al., 2009).^{18, 21}

Scheffe’s Post Hoc analysis was done to report the actual differences between the sample group. As depicted in Table 6, findings of post-hoc analysis reported that mean scores of victim-blaming attitudes showed no significant differences across the groups based on type of abuse endured over the years.

Table 6.

Post-hoc Analysis Multiple Comparison (Homogeneous Subset Table) for Victim Blaming Attitudes, Revictimisation and Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence Based on Abuse Types (N = 100).

Variables	Abuse Types	N	Subset for Alpha = 0.05
Variables	Abuse Types	N	1	2
Victim blaming	Multiple Types	20	31.2030.4530.6629.26
	Physical	33
	Emotional	24
	Sexual	23
	Sig.		0.294
Psychological distress	Multiple Types	20	24.7026.85
	Physical	33
	Emotional	24		39.21
	Sexual	23		39.44
	Sig.		0.761	1.000
Secondary victimisation	Multiple Types	20	24.8526.3026.75
	Physical	33		26.30
	Emotional	24		26.75
	Sexual	23		28.27
	Sig.		0.453	0.421

In contrast, a significant main effect of abuse type was observed for psychological distress, F(3, 97) = 31.08, p < .001. This indicates that the severity of psychological distress varies significantly according to the type of abuse experienced. Furthermore, Scheffe’s post hoc analysis for psychological distress among the victims was computed to address mean difference in scores among the group based on type of abuse endured. Findings depicted in Table 6 reported that both emotional and sexual forms of abuse were responsible for higher psychological distress among the victims. Previous research has consistently shown that individuals subjected to multiple forms of abuse tend to report more severe psychological outcomes compared to those who have experienced a single form of victimisation (e.g., Cloitre et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2010).^{22, 23} The cumulative burden of poly-victimisation likely contributes to more profound emotional and psychological disruption, supporting a dose-response model of trauma impact.

Similarly, the analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in secondary victimisation based on abuse type, F(3, 97) = 3.10, p = .030. Individuals who experienced multiple forms of abuse reported higher levels of secondary victimisation compared to those who experienced a single type. Scheffe’s post hoc analysis for secondary victimisation among the victims was computed to address mean difference in scores among the group based on type of abuse endured. Findings depicted in Table 6 reported that sexual and multiple forms of abuse were responsible for higher victimisation instances among the victims. This finding is consistent with previous work suggesting that survivors of complex or repeated trauma may face greater institutional and social barriers, including disbelief, minimisation, or blame from support providers and authorities (Laing, 2017).²⁰ The compounding effects of multiple abuse experiences may heighten sensitivity to negative responses or increase the likelihood of encountering them. Collectively, these findings underscore the importance of abuse type in shaping post-victimisation outcomes. While victim-blaming perceptions may not differ based on the nature of the abuse, both psychological distress and secondary victimisation appear to be significantly influenced by whether victims experienced single or multiple forms of abuse. These results highlight the necessity for trauma-informed care models that account for the complexity and cumulative nature of victimisation experiences. These findings conclude that H₁ ‘there will be significant difference in victim blaming attitudes, legal re-victimisation and psychological distress among distress among women victims of domestic abuse’ is proved.

Table 7 presents model summary of multiple linear regression analysis to examine whether victim blaming attitudes and re-victimisation significantly predicted the outcome variable- psychological distress.¹⁷ Moreover, Table 8 presents the regression coefficient for predictors of psychological distress among women victims of domestic abuse. The overall regression model was statistically significant, F(2, 97) = 6.73, p = .033, indicating that the model accounted for a meaningful proportion of variance in the psychological distress. The model explained approximately 11.7% of the variance in the outcome, R² = 0.117, with an adjusted R² = 0.100, suggesting that after controlling for model complexity, about 10% of the variance remained explained by the predictors. For victim-blaming attitudes, the standardised coefficient (β) = 0.31 suggested a positive relationship with the criterion variable. The statistically significant t-value for the victim-blaming attitudes is (t = 02.74, p < .05). For re-victimisation, the standardised coefficient (β) = 0.16 also suggested a positive relationship with the criterion variable. The statistically significant t-value for the victim-blaming attitudes is (t = 02.11, p < .05). In line with the findings of Model, the tolerance value of 0.80 and VIF value of 01.24 suggested no evidence of multicollinearity in the dataset.

Table 7.

Regression Analysis of Victim Blaming Attitudes and Revictimisation Predicting Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence.

Predictors in the Model	R ²	Adjusted R²	Std. Error	Change Statistics				Sig. (p Value)
				R² Change	F Change	df1	df2
Victim blaming & re-victimisation	0.117	0.100	13.94	0.117	06.73*	2	97	.033

Note: *p < .05.

Table 8.

Regression Analysis of Victim Blaming Attitudes and Revictimisation Predicting Psychological Distress Among Women Victims of Domestic Violence.

Model	Predictors	Standardised Coefficients (β)	t-value	F-value	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)		9.20	06.73
1	Victim-blaming	0.31	02.74*		0.42	02.39
	Re-victimisation	0.16	02.11*		0.80	01.24

Note: *p < .05.

These findings suggest that victim blaming attitudes and re-victimisation experiences collectively contribute significantly to the variability in the psychological distress experienced by women victims of domestic violence. This aligns with prior research underscoring the detrimental effects of victim-blaming ideologies on survivors’ psychological outcomes. For instance, studies have shown that internalised blame can exacerbate trauma symptoms and diminish self-efficacy (Deitz et al., 2015).²⁴ Similarly, re-victimisation has been repeatedly identified as a risk factor for heightened psychological distress and maladaptive coping, often reinforcing feelings of helplessness and guilt (Deans et al., 2018).²⁵ This supports the theoretical proposition that cognitive beliefs (e.g., blaming attitudes) and behavioural experiences (e.g., repeated victimisation) jointly shape post-victimisation adjustment. Hence, H₂ ‘victim blaming attitudes and legal re-victimization would significantly predict psychological distress among women victims of domestic abuse’ is proved.

Conclusion

Incidents of domestic violence have been systemically progressed by various notions that revolve around the institution of marriage as recognised by society and legal institutions. These systemic notions often lay the foundation of patriarchal paradigms of power dominance and authority of men over women. In relation to power dominance, women are often the epicentre of abuse-whether physical, emotional or sexual. Victim-blaming attitudes among the social structures also catalyse the entire occurrence of domestic violence. These attitudes are reflected primarily when women choose to seek justice for the abuse through legal procedures, thereby leading to secondary victimisation or re-victimisation of victims. Findings of the study highlighted the catastrophic impact of victim-blaming attitudes and re-victimisation through legal procedures on various mental and psychological outcomes. These often results into psychological distress hampering multiple areas of their functioning, that is, social, emotional and occupational. Hence, this study presses on the importance of addressing the hurdles and psychological repercussions of legal procedures that victim had to encounter. Reforms could be made in alignment with the vulnerabilities of victims when they enter the legal institutions for help.

Limitations & Future Implications

While this research sheds light on the unexplored area of domestic—violence among women victims, certain limitations persist and warrant due considerations. The sample-size for the study is although representative and substantial, but it limits generalisability as sampling technique of choice was non-probability purposive in nature. Further, future studies could be expanded along the horizons of other demographic factors such as years of legal dispute, socio-economic status and no. of dependents. Future explorations could also incorporate qualitative findings alongside quantitative ones to enhance the generalisability.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

IPC: Indian Penal Code

Cr.P.C.: Code of Criminal Procedure

Authors’ Contribution

All authors contributed to the study’s conceptualization, data sorting, supervision, analysis, and review. Initial draft was written by P. Duplication checks were done by JY, AVS, SSK and AS. Statistical analysis was done by AS and SSK. All authors read and finalized the final draft of manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Ethical Statement

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Study received ethical clearance from Institutional Review Committee, Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Campus.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Patient Consent

Written informed consent was taken from participants of the study.

ORCID iDs

Pranjali

Syed Sajid Husain Kazmi

References

Schornstein

SL.

Domestic violence and health care: What every professional needs to know . Sage Publications, 1997.

World Health Organization. Violence against Women [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

Lanchimba

, Díaz-Sánchez

and Velasco

Exploring factors influencing domestic violence: A comprehensive study on intrafamily dynamics. Front Psychiatry 2023; 14: 1243558.

Sepehrdoust

Health care analysis and regional disparities in different provinces of Iran. Iran Econ Rev 2009; 14(24): 113–134.

Taft

, Resick

, Panuzio

, . Coping among victims of relationship abuse: A longitudinal examination. Violence Vict 2007; 22(4): 408.

McCauley

, Kern

, Kolodner

, . The “battering syndrome”: Prevalence and clinical characteristics of domestic violence in primary care internal medicine practices. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123(10): 737–746.

Willmer

Healing from Domestic Abuse: The Impact of Positive Psychology .

Beaulaurier

, Seff

, Newman

, . Internal barriers to help seeking for middle-aged and older women who experience intimate partner violence. J Elder Abuse Negl 2005; 17(3): 53–74.

Prosman

, Lo Fo Wong

and Lagro‐Janssen

AL.

Why abused women do not seek professional help: A qualitative study. Scand J Caring Sci 2014; 28(1): 3–11.

10.

Berns

and Schweingruber

“When you’re involved, it’s just different” making sense of domestic violence. Violence Against Women 2007; 13(3): 240–261.

11.

Khatri

and Rawat

LS.

A Critical Analysis of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and its Efficacy .

12.

Agarwal

Domestic Violence in India: Analyzing Social Dynamics and Legal Responses .

13.

Legal Vidhiya. Victim Blaming: A New Guide to Victimology in India . 2025 [cited 2025 Apr 26]. Available from: https://legalvidhiya.com/victim-blaming-a-new-guide-to-victimology-in-india/

14.

Martín-Fernández

, Gracia

and Lila

Assessing victim-blaming attitudes in cases of intimate partner violence against women: Development and validation of the VB-IPVAW scale. Psychosoc Interv 2018; 27(3): 133–143.

15.

Kessler

, Andrews

, Colpe

, . Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med 2002; 32(6): 959–976.

16.

Orth

Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Soc Justice Res 2002; 15: 313–325.

17.

Witte

and Flechsenhar

“It’s your own fault”: Factors influencing victim blaming. J Interpers Violence 2025; 40(9–10): 2356–2380.

18.

Grubb

and Turner

Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggress Violent Behav 2012; 17(5): 443–452.

19.

Bonanno

, Galea

, Bucciarelli

, . What predicts psychological resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress. J Consult Clin Psychol 2007; 75(5): 671.

20.

Laing

Secondary victimization: domestic violence survivors navigating the family law system. Violence Against Women 2017; 23(11): 1314–1335.

21.

Yamawaki

, Ostenson

and Brown

CR.

The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students. Violence Against Women 2009; 15(9): 1126–1142.

22.

Cloitre

, Stolbach

, Herman

, . A developmental approach to complex PTSD: Childhood and adult cumulative trauma as predictors of symptom complexity. J Trauma Stress 2009; 22(5): 399–408.

23.

Turner

, Finkelhor

and Ormrod

Poly-victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38(3): 323–330.

24.

Deitz

, Williams

, Rife

, . Examining cultural, social, and self-related aspects of stigma in relation to sexual assault and trauma symptoms. Violence Against Women 2015; 21(5): 598–615.

25.

Deans

, Mancini

, Shearer

, . Victims of domestic violence: Improving law enforcement response to domestic violence to prevent revictimization. J Mark Manag 2018; 9(1): 1–2.