Could we have known? A qualitative analysis of data from women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner
OBJECTIVE: To examine in-depth the lives of women whose partners attempted to kill them, and to identify patterns that may aid in the clinician’s ability to predict, prevent, or counsel about femicide or attempted femicide.
DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of 30 in-depth interviews.
SETTING: Six U.S. cities.
PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women, aged 17–54 years, who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner.
RESULTS: All but 2 of the participants had previously experienced physical violence, controlling behavior, or both from the partner who attempted to kill them. The intensity of the violence, control, and threats varied greatly, as did the number of risk factors measured by the Danger Assessment, defining a wide spectrum of prior abuse. Approximately half (14/30) of the participants did not recognize that their lives were in danger. Women often focused more on relationship problems involving money, alcohol, drugs, possessiveness, or infidelity, than on the risk to themselves from the violence. The majority of the attempts (22/30) happened around the time of a relationship change, but the relationship was often ending because of problems other than violence.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should not be falsely reassured by a woman’s sense of safety, by the lack of a history of severe violence, or by the presence of few classic risk factors for homicide. Efforts to reduce femicide risk that are targeted only at those women seeking help for violence-related problems may miss potential victims.
Key wordsintimate partner violence mortality attempted femicide qualitative research
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Russel D. Introduction. In: Radford J, Russell DEH, eds. Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing. New York: Twayne; 1992:3–12.Google Scholar
- 3.Russell D. Introduction: the politics of femicide. In: Russell D, Harmes RA, eds. Femicide in Global Perspective. New York: Teachers College Press; 2001:3–11.Google Scholar
- 4.Hoyert DL, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL. Deaths: final data for 1997. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 1999;47:28–37.Google Scholar
- 8.Greenfeld LA, Rand MR, Craven D, et al. Violence by intimates: Bureau of Justice Statistics Fact-Book Washington, DC: US Department of Justice (Publication NCJ-167237); 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.Rennison M, Welchans S. (U.S. Department of Justice). Intimate partner violence. Bureau of Justice Statistics special report; May 2000.Google Scholar
- 15.Pataki S. State of New York Commission on Domestic Violence Fatalities; 1997.Google Scholar
- 16.Campbell JC. Assessing dangerousness: violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.Google Scholar
- 18.Ryan G, Bernard HR. Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000:769–802.Google Scholar
- 19.Koziol-McLain J, Campbell J, Webster D, Campbell D, Gary F. Femicide risk: reconciling attempted and actual models. Proceedings of the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Homicide Research Work Group, Orlando, FL; 2001.Google Scholar
- 20.Campbell JC. ‘If I can’t have you no one can’: power and control in homicide of female partners. In: Radford J, Russel DEH, eds. Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing. New York: Twayne; 1992:99–113.Google Scholar
- 22.Dutton DG, Browing JJ. Concern for power, fear of intimacy and aversive stimuli for wife abuse. In: Hotaling GT, Finkelhor D, Kirkpatrick JT, Straus MA, eds. Family Abuse and its Consequences: New Directions for Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage 1988;163–75.Google Scholar
- 26.Tjaden P, Thoennes N, on behalf of the US Department of Justice. Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey; 1998.Google Scholar
- 27.Campbell JC, Koziol-McLain J, Webster D, et al. Research results from a national study of intimate partner femicide: the danger assessment instrument. NIJ Briefs; 2002.Google Scholar