Abstract
This study investigated how Ultraorthodox Jewish Women (UJW) survivors attribute blame in intimate partner violence (IPV) experiences, addressing a significant research gap in understanding IPV within specific cultural contexts. The research employed a phenomenological approach through 15 semistructured face-to-face interviews with UJW IPV survivors. The findings revealed diverse patterns of blame attribution, including exclusive perpetrator blame, self-blame, and shared responsibility. The study suggests the need for a broader scientific framework to understand their experiences, emphasizing how IPV must be understood within both wider social and specific cultural contexts. This understanding is crucial for developing culturally sensitive interventions and support services for IPV survivors.
Violence against women in intimate relationships is widely recognized as a major public health concern and a violation of women's human rights and is recognized as a complex problem that needs to be understood both within the wider social context and within specific cultural contexts. Intimate partner violence (IPV) has profound and far-reaching consequences for both women and children. The effects of IPV exposure can persist into adulthood, contributing to an intergenerational cycle of violence, with women and children more likely to experience or perpetrate violence in their future relationships (Vass & Haj-Yahia, 2020, 2023; World Health Organization, 2020). Most often, it occurs within intimate relationships and is defined as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life” (World Health Organization, 2020). According to the WHO, the most widely used model for understanding IPV is the ecological model, which proposes that violence is a result of factors operating at four levels: individual, relationship, community, and society. Dynamics of IPV that maintain the cycle of violence reflect repetitive patterns in relationships (Crann & Barata, 2016). Usually, the beginning of the cycle starts without physical aggression and later progresses to behaviors with humiliation, physical attacks, as well as coercive control, and stalking behavior.
A recent review of data from more than 24,000 women in a multicountry study found that between 13–61% of women reported ever having experienced physical violence by a partner, and between 20–75% reported experiencing one emotionally abusive act, or more in their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2020). The specific data on IPV in Israel are limited, only reports of extreme cases, such as police reports are available, while other important forms of IPV are underrepresented (Daoud et al., 2020). To date, there is no current evidence about the rates of IPV in the Ultraorthodox communities in Israel, North America, and Europe. This lack of evidence might be connected to the difficulties in accessing this population and maintaining cooperation for research purposes (Band-Winterstein & Freund, 2018). This study addresses a unique aspect of IPV within a specific minority—Ultraorthodox Jewish women, a specific highly religious sector within the Jewish population. The current study aims to describe, analyze, and present attributions of blame regarding IPV among these minority women. More specifically, the overall objective of this study is to better understand how Ultraorthodox women perceive the concept of blame, and how their perceptions shape their IPV experiences. Exploring women's perceptions of blame regarding IPV in the Ultraorthodox community is crucial due to the unique cultural and religious context that significantly influences how IPV is perceived and addressed. We assume that women's perceptions of blame can significantly affect their willingness to seek help and report abuse, as they may struggle with feelings of guilt or shame related to their religious beliefs and fear community stigma or ostracism. Understanding these perceptions is essential for improving outreach and support strategies, developing more effective interventions, and addressing misconceptions about IPV within the community (Ringel & Bina, 2007). This study is part of a larger qualitative study that aims to explore the experiences of IPV among women from the Israeli Ultraorthodox community. The purpose of the larger study was to give voice to survivors as they speak about their experiences.
In general, the Ultraorthodox community is defined as a minority group, due to its distinct lifestyle, unique cultural patterns, loyalty to the community leaders, and strict religious practices and norms. Most of the community members live in separate areas and maintain private education systems. The belief system and cultural patterns set the community apart even from other sectors of the Jewish population (Coleman-Brueckheimer et al., 2009). The Ultraorthodox community is composed of three main sectors: Hasidic, Lithuanian, and Sephardic (oriental), however, most of the religious values and practices are common to the whole community.
How IPV Is Manifested in the Ultraorthodox Community
For decades, IPV was known as a hidden problem in the Orthodox communities (Bilek, 2015; Ringel & Bina, 2007); however, recently it has been acknowledged to occur in Orthodox families and is recognized as a challenge for professionals and rabbinic leaders to deal with (Coleman-Brueckheimer et al., 2009). Ultraortodox women are relatively understudied in IPV research, despite the multiple challenges they might face. Research indicates how stigmatic matters associated with IPV elicit shame and fear, sometimes leading women to avoid reporting IPV. However, evidence of a growing number of referrals of women to external sources, such as the Israeli police and social services, disturbs the assumption that most women within this community silently continue violent relationships (Dehan & Levy, 2011; Vass & Krane, 2024). Accessing IPV survivors from the Ultraorthodox Jewish community presents several challenges that may impact research outcomes. Cultural sensitivity is crucial, as this insular community may be wary of outside interference, leading to difficulties in gaining trust and access. Underreporting due to cultural stigma further complicates identifying and reaching survivors, while privacy concerns and fear of repercussions within the community may deter participation. Language and cultural barriers can hinder effective communication, and a lack of comprehensive data creates knowledge gaps. Additionally, the complex interplay of religious beliefs and cultural norms makes it challenging for researchers to fully understand and navigate these dynamics. These barriers can limit sample size, introduce selection bias, and reduce the quality of data collected, ultimately affecting the representativeness and depth of research findings (Vass, 2023).
In addition to the common types of IPV (physical, emotional, sexual, and economic), IPV survivors from the Ultraorthodox community may suffer from spiritual abuse. Dehan and Levi (2009) define spiritual abuse as any attempt to impair a woman's spiritual life, spiritual self, or spiritual well-being. This definition includes three levels of intensity: (a) belittling her spiritual worth, beliefs, or deeds; (b) preventing her from performing spiritual acts; and (c) causing her to transgress spiritual obligations or prohibitions. Their research highlights that spiritual abuse is distinct from other forms of abuse, such as psychological or emotional abuse, as it specifically targets the spiritual dimension, resulting in damage at the transcendental level. The definition emphasizes the purposeful and repetitive nature of the abuse, which can lead to a lowered spiritual self-image, guilt feelings, and disruption of transcendental connectedness. An example of spiritual abuse might be when a husband forces his wife to pray against her will (Dehan & Levi, 2009).
Women's Attitudes and Perspectives of IPV
The area of IPV perspectives has increased in the past two decades. Women's perceptions of experiencing IPV are complex and shaped by various sociocultural factors, healthcare practices, and personal experiences. Research highlights that many women recognize IPV as a significant issue, with a high prevalence of IPV experiences reported, such as in Nigeria where 71.2% of respondents acknowledged IPV and 85% supported routine screening in healthcare settings (Akinyugha et al., 2022). However, women often face barriers in disclosing their experiences due to feelings of guilt, embarrassment, and societal norms that may minimize their situations (Badenes-Sastre et al., 2023). In Spain, young women reported significant obstacles to accessing IPV-related services, including the time it takes to recognize IPV and the difficulties of leaving abusive relationships (Otero-García et al., 2024). Healthcare providers emphasize the need for tailored services to address these barriers and improve support for women experiencing IPV (Otero-García et al., 2024). Women view routine IPV inquiry in healthcare as empowering, believing it is their right and helps them seek holistic care (Kirwan et al., 2024). While many women acknowledge the importance of addressing IPV, their perceptions are often clouded by societal pressures and personal fears, underscoring the need for comprehensive support systems that empower them to seek help.
The question of how women perceive the cycle of violence and what should be done to break it stands at the core of studies (Sommerfeld & Shechory Bitton, 2016). In their recent study, Both et al., (2019) examined perspectives of women regarding their reactions to violence. Women reported they were defending themselves against aggression, isolating themselves, and at times grieving about the relationship they never had. Most of the time they felt intimidated to break the abuse cycle. In another study, women attributed IPV to the abusers’ actions, such as denying their wishes, limiting their freedom, projecting blame onto them, and treating them as objects. Other women described that abusive partners tend to lose control and feel incompetent in front of them, leading to further attacks.
The area of perspectives about religion in the study of IPV addresses how spiritual support is instrumental to women's recovery, growth, and resilience. Women reported how depending upon a transcendent force, helped them to rise above their suffering. A connection to a higher power fostered a sense of meaning, purpose, and value in life, helping these women in the aftermath of IPV (Anderson et al., 2012). Researchers have addressed the importance of studying IPV and its manifestations in the Ultraorthodox community, to provide sensitive interventions (Shechory-Bitton & Ronel, 2015), and that effective strategies for working with women from this community have only recently begun to emerge (Horowitz & Milevsky, 2020; Itzhaki-Braun, 2021; Vass, 2023; Vass & Krane, 2024).
Against this call, the current study aims to explore the perspectives of blame regarding IPV among Ultraorthodox women, a highly religious minority within the Jewish population. Our primary objectives were as follows: (a) to describe and analyze these women's perceptions of blame concerning IPV and (b) to examine how these perceptions might shape their experiences. By focusing on this unique cultural and religious context, this study seeks to uncover how Ultraorthodox women conceptualize blame in IPV situations, providing insights into the complex interplay between religious beliefs, cultural norms, and experiences of abuse. The current research holds significant importance for several reasons. Firstly, it addresses a gap in understanding IPV dynamics within a specific minority group, contributing to the broader understanding of what factors influence perceptions of abuse. Secondly, by exploring perceived attributions of blame, the study can shed light on help-seeking behaviors and reporting tendencies among Ultraorthodox women experiencing IPV. This understanding is crucial for developing culturally sensitive interventions, improving support strategies, and addressing misconceptions about IPV within the community. Ultimately, this study's findings have the potential to inform policymakers and service providers, enabling them to tailor their approaches more effectively to the needs of Ultraorthodox Jewish women, thereby improving outreach efforts and support systems for this vulnerable population. This research seeks to answer the following questions:
What are the perspectives of Ultraorthodox Jewish women who are IPV survivors regarding responsibility and blame? How do such perspectives shape their IPV experience?
Method
The present study was inspired by the qualitative-phenomenological approach, used to understand phenomena through observation of everyday interactions (Frechette et al., 2020; Padgett, 2008) to better understand how Ultraorthodox Jewish women perceive the concept of blame in their intimate relationships. This approach is the most appropriate methodological framework for this study as it aligns with the research goals of exploring the lived experiences, to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ subjective experiences, perceptions, and the meanings they ascribe to blame. It allows for the capture of the multifaceted nature of experiencing IPV while prioritizing the voices and perspectives of the survivors themselves. Additionally, this approach has the potential to uncover hidden aspects of the experience that may not be apparent through other research methods, potentially revealing new insights.
Participants
Purposive sampling was used to recruit women with prior experience with IPV to participate in semistructured face-to-face interviews. The flexibility of the semistructured interview format used in this study allowed for the exploration of emerging themes and follow-up on important points raised by the participating women, resulting in rich, detailed data. An effort was made to select a small sample of participants based on the saturation concept (Hagaman & Wutich, 2017). Fifteen Ultraorthodox Jewish Women (UJW) from Israel, aged 26–55 (m = 40.5) participated in this study. Six of the women were divorced (for 1.5–10 years), six were married (for 4–35 years), and three were in the process of divorce at the time of the interviews. Four women were aged 26–30, seven women aged 30–40, and four women aged 40–55. All the women were mothers of children (between 1 and 11 children). Most of the women came from low to middle socioeconomic backgrounds, and their educational levels ranged between 12 and 15 years. The women were known to the social welfare services in Israel and were identified by social workers specialized in the field of IPV. All participants received an information letter explaining the aims and procedures of the study and signed a letter of informed consent. All of the study procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee board of the author's affiliated institution.
Data Analysis Procedures
A flexible semistructured interview guide followed all interviews. The interview was preceded by a short questionnaire to collect sociodemographic data. The interview guide was designed to elicit subjective perceptions and insights (e.g., “What does it mean to be an abused woman?”; “How IPV is developed?”; Who do you think is responsible for the conflicts in the relationship?). The interviews lasted between an hour and a half and two hours and were recorded and later transcribed verbatim. The first and the third authors reread the interviews several times. Next, open coding, sorting, and grouping the same codes into main themes were conducted (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) with attention to maintaining internal homogeneity (i.e., consolidating the findings for a specific theme) and external heterogeneity (i.e., maintaining distinctions between themes). To demonstrate well the women's experiences, we used exact quotations that are presented across the themes. More specifically, we engaged in six thematic iterative phases. First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by thoroughly reading and re-reading it to gain a deep understanding. Next, we generated initial codes by systematically identifying interesting features across the entire dataset (examples of codes: “self-blame,” “victim blame,” “dual blame,” “his blame,” “his responsibility,” “her responsibility,” etc.). In the third phase, we searched for themes by collating these codes into potential themes. We then framed the themes and reviewed them to ensure they aligned with both the coded extracts and the overall dataset, creating a thematic map in the process. In the fifth phase, we defined and named the themes, refining their specifics and clarifying the overarching narrative. Finally, we produced a report by selecting compelling examples, conducting a final analysis, and relating our findings back to the research question and existing literature. This process highlighted the iterative and reflexive nature of thematic analysis, allowing us to move between phases as needed.
The authors have been addressing positionality matters all along the study duration. The first author a licensed clinical social worker with expertise in IPV exposure and violence prevention, is affiliated with the Ultraorthodox community. The second author, an Israeli Jewish scholar, has teaching, and research expertise in phenomenological approaches to violence against women. The authors drew on their distinct experiences to understand the dearth of research and the complexities, evaluating the state of the art before forming the themes, and contributing to the findings’ conceptualization. The third author a Canadian Jewish scholar, with an outsider perspective, engaged in reflexive thinking and debriefings, through peer discussions in different stages of the analysis. The authors engaged in the “bracketing” process to avoid predetermined conceptions centering on the participants’ lived experiences.
Ethical Issues
Participation was based on voluntary, informed consent, and given a genuine appreciation of the challenges to accessing UJW, all women were invited to express their concerns before deciding to participate or not, and of course, could withdraw their participation at the stage. To this end, some women expressed fear that the results of the study would portray UJW as submissive, weak, or unable to cope. Others feared that as deeply religious women, the focus would be on their fault or responsibility for IPV, and others questioned how the researchers would analyze their responses. To address these concerns, the purpose of the study was unpacked, that learning from their experiences is intended to better understand religious communities dealing with IPV. Confidentiality and anonymity were discussed, explaining that accounts would be examined for themes across participants. The interviewer sought to recognize any inconvenience caused and referred the women to the preferred services (e.g., private/public) in their surroundings.
Findings
Women's experiences of who is responsible, or who is to blame for IPV in their relationships revolved around three themes. Through thematic analysis of the participant's experiences with IPV, three distinct patterns of blame attribution emerged: external attribution where blame is placed solely on the abusive spouse (first theme), self-blame where women assume complete responsibility (second theme), and shared attribution where both partners are viewed as contributing to the dynamic third theme.
“And he shall rule over you”—attributing blame for IPV to the abuser
This theme represents the experiences of women according to whom their spouse is alone responsible for IPV. The women believed that past events in the husband's life shaped his violent behavior, he did not know how to deal with conflicts and/or was not prepared to seek therapy. Additionally, they revealed their frustration due to the aggressiveness of the perpetrator and his need for power and control. Lastly, reconciliation was also attributed to the husband's responsibility. The following quotation from Zemira illustrates how IPV is attributed mainly to her husband's childhood. Zemira described her husband's family of origin, and that he was subjected to emotional abuse for years. The lack of warmth in his family made it necessary for him to seek therapy. The memories and emotional burden of the past made it almost impossible to free himself from non-adaptive patterns, therefore he kept repeating those patterns in their marriage: He was an abused child and grew up in boarding schools, he never really had a family. I always told him to go to speak with someone, but he said that only crazy people go to psychologists. To my understanding, his behavior comes from his parent's home. He suffered a lot, I understand him. His mother was hospitalized when he was so young, he had to make food for his siblings. In our marriege he is avoiding me most of the times. He doesn't know how to cope with our conflicts and yells at me, but the most horrible thing is his silent treatment. It is his big problem. I don’t know if I should name it abuse, but for sure something is wrong about us, I mean with him. You see, it is always about what he wants. Even if I offer something good or wise enough…he is the father, he is the man—this is what happens in Moroccan families, it goes like: I am the man of this house. What he wants is what matters, all I have to say is “Amen”. He thinks a woman must fulfill her husband's wishes. But a woman should fulfill her husband's wishes when he respects her more than his own body. They do not cite the end of this sentence from the bible. He tried to appease me only when he needed something from me. Look, you cannot judge any woman if she does not do anything at home and cannot cook and clean…. Her husband should know that he is the reason for that, he must appease her, I mean, always, not just when he wants something.
This theme represents a different experience described by the women, in which they were taking total responsibility for IPV. The women have adopted various justifications for IPV and connected them to their behavior. Reasons for self-blame were as follows: they did not devote enough time to their husbands, the perception of being a “victim of childhood abuse,” the decision to stay in marriage despite IPV, and the inability to pay enough attention to the husband.
Tiki revealed her regrets for not devoting enough time to her husband, compared to the time she spent with her children. Devoting time to maintaining the house duties and taking care of the children were more important to her, and therefore she blamed herself for IPV: He always asked me to take a walk together. But the children were young. I did not have the courage to tell him: “my dear husband, let's finish cleaning up together and go for a walk”. I learned it the hard way, to put the children to bed and go out together. In the long term it did upset him, so I guess I ruined it all. I cried because I was a victim. Today I know that I was a victim of my mother who emotionally abused me in childhood. And it transferred from her to him. I can’t free myself from it, I think our problems are because of me. I am responsible for the whole story between us. I am not the kind of woman who can find someone else. Even after all his attacks, I am trying to keep my family together. I'm the homemaker, I'm the main part of the house. Look, I don’t know how to give warmth and love. It doesn’t come easily for me at all. He said he would leave because of that. I didn’t encourage him enough, this is me who must learn how to show love, to express my feelings. He's a sick person—I want to show him kindness, he has no one in this world.
This theme represents the perspective of attributing blame to both sides. The women described several reasons for adopting such a perspective: trying to elicit violent reactions and earn the compensation that came afterward; a sense of superiority over the husband, adopting behavior patterns learned in the family of origin, and the inability to respect the husband's space and roles at home. The following quotations demonstrate in part the perspective that IPV is attributed to both partners. Hadassah could clearly describe how she used to provoke her husband to act violently toward her. She deliberately tried to promote his violent reaction and did it on purpose because such actions were followed by compensation. Since this marriage is her second, she could identify a pattern, and was able to see her part in their conflict: After the blow comes to the caress. I think sometimes I did that on purpose. Today I am trying to change, to learn what a relationship is, for the second time. I know it's not just up to him. I need to work on myself. I thought I understand things more than he did. You see, I thought he was not capable to do anything. I showed him what I was thinking about him. So, he tried to defend himself. I shouldn’t have let him feel that way. So, I guess maybe my part is also kind of abuse. All my life my mother was screaming at my father and me. I am used only to wars, most of the time it's like a war between us, with no nice and warm words. I know my husband gives me anything I need, but when we argue I tell him that I am leaving. I mean, why am I fighting with him, like an enemy. Well, maybe it's both of us that should make our marriage work. I guess I didn’t give him much space, so he tried to take it by force. Today, when we are not living together, I can see it. I took everything from him, the shopping, the children's education. When you leave him no place, he will force himself in.
Discussion
Our initial assumption before conducting this research was that the arsenal of Jewish traditions, values, perspectives, and beliefs, would shed light on the experience of being a survivor of IPV. However, the women's perceptions show other components that shed light on the experience. The women were using religious terminology to some extent (“the women as the homemaker,” “he shell role over you,” etc.), however, religious perspectives were not the center of their narratives. In considering why ultraorthodox Jewish women who are IPV survivors may not use religious interpretation in describing their experiences, we assume that several potential factors come into play. These women might avoid religious interpretations to maintain privacy or prevent stigma within their tight-knit communities. Some may choose to separate their religious beliefs from their abuse experiences as a personal coping mechanism. It is possible that the religious teachings they are familiar with do not provide a clear framework for understanding or discussing IPV, leading them to rely on other explanatory models. Additionally, using religious interpretations might create tension if their understanding conflicts with community norms or leadership views, potentially leading to avoidance of such frameworks. However, it is important to note that these are speculative reasons and may not accurately reflect the actual experiences of ultraorthodox Jewish women who are IPV survivors.
To clearly illustrate the findings, the three themes are presented on a spectrum: from clearly blaming the husband for IPV (first theme), to engaging in self-blame and taking all responsibility (second theme), along with a more symmetrical perspective of blaming (third theme). This discussion suggests an in-depth examination of each theme, in light of three classic conceptual frameworks that were previously used to explain IPV and how it is manifested and constructed.
The first theme demonstrates the perspective of solely blaming the husband for IPV. The experiences derived from this theme may correspond with the “Feministic Theory” regarding the social construction of IPV. Feminist empirical research consistently addresses a positive relationship between traditional gender-role attitudes toward women and tolerant perceptions of male violence against intimate female partners, (Herzog, 2007). The Feminist Theory explains IPV as a form of power and control used to reinforce a patriarchal society, which explains male dominance over women, and how it promotes the imbalance of power between intimate spouses (Herzog, 2007). Researchers that support this theory have formed the concept of Domestic Violence, to define the type of families encountering violence between their members. This theory claims that social structures usually support patriarchal attitudes and perpetuate inequality between the genders. In light of the ideas of the feminist theory, we can understand the findings of the first theme. The women view the husband as inflicting power and control, and his inability to deal with conflicts might be associated with constructed social norms of gender roles and patriarchy (Valutis et al., 2014).
An interesting finding derived from this theme is the absence of religious terms, ideas, or statements in the women's narrative. Only one of them talked about how her husband used religious interpretation to justify IPV. He used quotations from the bible and misinterpreted them due to his point of view to justify his behavior. The minority of religious terms and interpretations used by the women might demonstrate that the core of attributing blame to the husband is associated with norms of power and control rather than religious misconceptions. Previous studies examining the distinction between religious attitudes and patriarchal patterns argued that IPV may stem from patriarchal norms of male power and control, rather than from religious ideas. Men with stereotypical attitudes usually do not perceive the severity of IPV and its consequences (Anthias, 2014). Moreover, patriarchal attitudes shape men's perceptions about marriage and allow the legitimacy of using force (Krigel & Benjamin, 2021; Ozaki & Otis, 2017). Regarding our findings, we assume that some of the experiences described by the women are associated with the implementation of patriarchal ideas rather than religious issues.
The second theme addresses the concept of engaging in self-blame. This experience can be explained in light of the “Family Violence” theory, which argues that IPV is created by internal interactions within the family, the couple's personalities, and individual characteristics. The women presented in this theme described their behavioral patterns as reasonable factors for IPV. They explained they did not devote enough time to their husband, found it hard to free themselves from “playing the victim” because of past experiences, and/or decided to stay in the marriage despite the abuse. According to this point of view, they were responsible for the unsuccessful interactions with their spouses. Research in the field has largely shown that women may justify the abuse against them to survive and cope (Reich et al., 2015), maintain lower levels of social support, and experience higher levels of self-blame (Barnett et al., 1996). Furthermore, studies show that microsystem factors such as self-blame, and concern for family and children were the most common factors that reinforced the silencing of women and contributed to self-blame. Women lack the resources, strength, and support to confront the abuse and adopt self-blame, as well as other defensive mechanisms to settle the dissonance created by being abused by their intimate spouse (Pokharel et al., 2020).
According to the women's perceptions in the third theme, both partners share the blame. This experience can be explained in accordance with the “symmetric attitude” of IPV (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003; Johnson, 1999; Straus, 2011; Winstok, 2017). Johnson (1999), was the first to argue that IPV may develop by both partners, mostly because they have the same potential to be the perpetrator or the victim. He stated that there are two distinct subgroups of physical aggression within relationships: intimate terrorism and common couple violence (Johnson, 1999). The term “common couple violence” does not involve a pattern of power and coercive behavior (Ranasinghe, 2021; Straus, 2011; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020), it occurs as a response to conflict, and aggression is not enacted to control the partner. This type of violence is more gender symmetric and more frequently involves reciprocal abuse (Chan, 2012; Robertson & Murachver, 2007; Winstok, 2017).
Some of the women interviewed shared their subjective experience of provoking their husbands to react violently, for the subsequent benefit of physical or emotional compensation. According to their accounts, they were trying to demonstrate superiority over their husband, while some found it difficult to free themselves from behavior patterns observed in their family of origin. Either way, according to their perspectives, each partner contributed his or her part to the conflict, in a way that both sides had to share the blame. Regarding this symmetrical accusation, it is the place to highlight the option of traumatic stress symptoms that could lead the women to reflect mutual responsibility for IPV (Daneshvar et al., 2020). Women victims with PTSD symptoms might tend to minimize the severity of the violence against them (Galovski et al., 2021) and take responsibility from the perpetrator due to projection techniques (Daneshvar et al., 2020; Spencer et al., 2019). Concerning our findings, there is a possibility the woman denied responsibility from the perpetrator as an outcome of a defensive mechanism.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study aimed to examine how the concept of blame concerning IPV is perceived by Ultraorthodox IPV survivors, a population that is usually hard to access and remains relatively understudied in the field. One possible limitation of the current study framework is related to the limited data on IPV within the Ultraorthodox community in Israel. This limitation presents significant challenges in understanding the full scope and nature of the issue, particularly within ultraorthodox Jewish communities. This data scarcity results in an incomplete picture of IPV prevalence and patterns, relying heavily on extreme cases and outdated information. Cultural factors and potential underreporting, especially among minority populations like the ultraorthodox, further complicate the situation. The lack of comprehensive data hinders the identification of specific risk factors, impedes the development of effective intervention strategies, and creates gaps in protective policies. Moreover, it obscures the complex interplay of ethnicity, immigration status, socioeconomic position, and cultural factors concerning IPV. These issues collectively underscore the urgent need for more comprehensive, culturally sensitive research on IPV in Israel, with a particular focus on understanding the unique experiences and needs of ultraorthodox Jewish women (Vass, 2023). Such research would be crucial for developing targeted prevention programs, improving support services, and implementing more effective policies to address IPV within these communities.
The current study carries additional limitations related to the sample and data collection procedures. First, the findings were based on a small sample of women who approached the social welfare services, and came from a low socioeconomic background; therefore, women coming from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in this study. Second, most of the women who participated mentioned a complicated life history in their families of origin. In future research, it is highly recommended to examine in depth how past experiences from the family of origin might shape the experience of IPV, and specifically its intersection with blame.
Implications
Our findings suggest potential implications for practice and intervention in the field. In general, exploring these minority women's perceptions of blame in IPV situations can help identify cultural or religious beliefs that may perpetuate abuse, challenge patriarchal structures that contribute to IPV, and promote community-wide discussions on gender equality and healthy relationships. The current research may inform practitioners to validate the experiences of this unique survivor group. By examining these perceptions practitioners can gain valuable insights that will contribute to more effective prevention, intervention, and support strategies tailored to the unique cultural context of the ultra-Orthodox community (Ringel & Bina, 2007). Moreover, It is highly recommended for practitioners working with this population to take into consideration the diversity of experiences. Firstly, they should get familiar with the women's subjective views and then address appropriate interventions. For example, for women who solely blame their husbands, it is recommended to take into consideration attitudes of superiority and control that might stem from patriarchal values, rather than from religious viewpoints. For women who engage in self-blame, practitioners should address the source of the self-blame, the possibility of defensive mechanisms that might be used, as well as the possibility of adopting a victim role due to past experiences. We highly recommend encouraging the women to expand their interpretation regarding the matter of blame, and to get familiar with other factors promoting IPV. For women who demonstrate shared blame of both partners, this can be leveraged as a potential resource for couple intervention. In all, the ultimate goal of breaking the violence cycle should be standing at the core of all IPV interventions.
This study offers a unique glance into IPV blame attribution among Ultraorthodox Jewish women and reveals three distinct patterns—external blame, self-blame, and shared blame—that significantly expand our understanding of how religious and cultural contexts influence women's interpretations of intimate partner violence. This research addresses a critical gap in IPV literature by demonstrating how religious texts and traditions can be interpreted differently by survivors, with concepts like “shalom bait” (peace in the home) playing a crucial role in how women conceptualize responsibility and reconciliation. The findings challenge simplified victim-perpetrator narratives by revealing how women in closed religious communities can simultaneously hold multiple, sometimes contradictory, perspectives on blame and responsibility.
The significance of these findings extends beyond the specific context of Ultraorthodox Jewish communities, offering valuable insights for both theoretical understanding and practical intervention in IPV cases within religious settings. By examining how cultural and religious factors influence blame attribution, this research provides a framework for developing culturally sensitive intervention strategies and support systems. These insights are particularly crucial for mental health professionals and policymakers working with religious populations, as they highlight the need for approaches that respect religious beliefs while effectively addressing IPV. The study's contribution to the broader scientific conceptualization of IPV demonstrates that addressing domestic violence in religious communities requires a nuanced understanding of how cultural and religious factors shape survivors’ interpretations and responses to abuse.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Compliance With Ethical Standards
This study was performed in accordance with international ethical standards and in full compliance with the ethics committee of the author's institution.
Informed Consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all of the participants in this study and was approved before starting data collection.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie. Grant Agreement number: 899037 -IPUOIPV- H2020-MSCA-IF-2019 H2020 MGA MSCA-IF.
