Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 21–30 | Cite as

Reasons for Staying in Intimately Violent Relationships: Comparisons of Men and Women and Messages Communicated to Self and Others

  • Jessica J. Eckstein
Original Article


Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) often are blamed for remaining in abusive relationships. As a result, victims may communicate messages rationalizing why they stay. Systematic, comparative examinations of these messages directed toward self and others by males versus females have not been conducted. This study addresses a gap in the literature by exploring victims’ communication regarding staying. Self-reports of 345 heterosexual IPV victims (N = 239 women, 106 men) demonstrated that more justifications were communicated internally to self than externally to others. Men and women differed significantly in only three of 14 messages, with men choosing more stereotypically masculine reasons for staying. Findings are discussed in terms of applications to victims and their stay-leave decision-making in IPV relationships.


Intimate partner violence Gender identity Reasons for staying Stay-leave decision-making Stages of Change Model 


  1. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. C. (2000). Promise and perils of surveillance in addressing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 705–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavanagh, M. E. (1996). Why do people remain in abusive relationships? Pastoral Psychology, 44, 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, D. B. K. (1989). An abused spouse’s self-saving process: a theory of identity transformation. Sociological Perspectives, 32, 535–550.Google Scholar
  7. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  8. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, L., Ford-Gilboe, M., & Hammerton, J. (2009). Gender inequality and patterns of abuse post-leaving. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deaux, K. (1993). Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutton, M. A. (1992). Assessment and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder among battered women. In D. W. Foy (Ed.), Treating PTSD: Cognitive-behavioral strategies (pp. 69–98). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eckstein, J. J. (2009). Exploring the communication of men revealing abuse from female romantic partners. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Family violence: Communication processes (pp. 89–111). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eckstein, J. J. (2010). Masculinity of men communicating abuse victimization. Culture, Society, and Masculinities, 2(1), 62–74.Google Scholar
  15. Ferraro, K. J., & Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: the process of victimization. Social Problems, 30, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Revision in memories of relationship development: do biases persist over time? Personal Relationships, 11, 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. George, M. J. (2002). Skimmington revisited. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. George, M. J. (2003). Invisible touch. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. The American Psychologist, 40, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear-Smith, F. A., & Laidlaw, T. M. (1999). Aggressive acts and assaults in intimate relationships: towards an understanding of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Flaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., et al. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. (NCJ-167237). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  24. Hardesty, J. L., & Ganong, L. H. (2006). How women make custody decisions and manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartman, J. L., & Belknap, J. (2003). Beyond the gatekeepers: court professionals’ self-reported attitudes about and experiences with misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 349–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henry, B., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Langley, J., & Silva, P. A. (1994). On the “Remembrance of things past”: a longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective method. Psychological Assessment, 6, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 367–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Karney, B. R., & Coombs, R. H. (2000). Memory bias in long-term close relationships: consistency or improvement? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khaw, L. B. L., & Hardesty, J. L. (2009). Leaving an abusive partner: exploring boundary ambiguity using the Stages of Change Model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Kurz, D. (1996). Separation, divorce, and woman abuse. Violence Against Women, 2, 63–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lehmann, M., & Santilli, N. R. (1996). Sex differences in perceptions of spousal abuse. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(5), 229–238.Google Scholar
  35. Lloyd, S. A., & Emery, B. C. (2000). The context and dynamics of intimate aggression against women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McMahon, M., & Pence, E. (2003). Making social change: reflections on individual and institutional advocacy with women arrested for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 9, 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merritt-Gray, M., & Wuest, J. (1995). Counteracting abuse and breaking free: the process of leaving revealed through women’s voices. Health Care for Women International, 16, 399–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Migliaccio, T. A. (2002). Abused husbands: a narrative analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muller, H., Desmarais, S., & Hamel, J. (2009). Do judicial responses to restraining order requests discriminate against male victims of domestic violence? Journal of Family Violence, 24, 619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pape, K. T., & Arias, I. (2000). The role of perceptions and attributions in battered women’s intentions to permanently end their violent relationships. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pearson, J. C., & VanHorn, S. B. (2004). Communication and gender identity: a retrospective analysis. Communication Quarterly, 52, 284–290.Google Scholar
  42. Pennington-Zoellner, K. (2009). Expanding “community” in the community response to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 539–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of change. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rhodes, N. R., & McKenzie, E. B. (1998). Why do battered women stay?: Three decades of research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Romito, P., & Grassi, M. (2007). Does violence affect one gender more than the other?: The mental health impact of violence among male and female university students. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1222–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sokoloff, N. J., & DuPont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender: challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women, 11, 38–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Stamp, G. H., & Sabourin, T. C. (1995). Accounting for violence: an analysis of male spousal abuse narratives. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 284–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stone, A. A., Schwartz, J. E., Neale, J. M., Shiffman, S., Marco, C. A., Hickcox, M., et al. (1998). How accurate are current coping assessments?: A comparison of momentary versus end-of-day reports of coping efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1670–1680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin-Cummings.Google Scholar
  51. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. (NCJ-183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  52. Walker, L. E. A. (2000). The battered woman syndrome (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims, 8, 3–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wuest, J., & Merritt-Gray, M. (1999). Not going back: sustaining the separation in the process of leaving abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 5, 110–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communication DepartmentWestern Connecticut State UniversityDanburyUSA

Personalised recommendations