Article
Disclosure of Intimate Partner Violence to
Informal Social Support Network Members:
A Review of the Literature
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
2014, Vol 15(1) 3-21
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1524838013496335
tva.sagepub.com
Kateryna M. Sylaska1 and Katie M. Edwards1
Abstract
This article presents a review of the published literature to date on rates, experiences, and correlates of victims’ disclosure of or
help seeking for intimate partner violence to informal social support network members (e.g., friends, family, classmates, and
coworkers). Research indicates that the majority of individuals disclose to at least one informal support and that victims’ disclosure is associated with a number of demographic (e.g., victims’ sex, age, race), intrapersonal (e.g., victims’ feelings of shame/
embarrassment, perception of control over abuse), and situational (e.g., violence frequency and severity, if abuse is witnessed)
factors. Following disclosure, victims experience a wide range of positive (e.g., believing the victim’s reports, validating the victim’s
experiences) and negative (e.g. disbelieving, blaming the victim) social reactions, with positive reactions rated as the most common
and most helpful forms of support by victims. Finally, a review of psychological correlates associated with reactions to disclosure
indicates that positive social reactions are associated with more psychological health benefits and fewer negative health symptoms,
whereas negative social reactions were associated with increased negative psychological health symptoms. Future research methodologies and implications for violence prevention, intervention, and policy are discussed.
Keywords
disclosure, help seeking, informal support, social support, partner violence
Key Points of the Research Review
The majority of victims of IPV disclose to at least one
informal support (e.g., friend, family member, classmate, coworker, and neighbor).
Victims who are female, White, younger, of higher SES,
attach anger/jealousy motives to the violence, feel less
shame or fear regarding the violence, experience psychological or stalking-related IPV, experience greater
severity and frequency of IPV, or have someone witness
the violence are more likely to disclose.
Friends and female family members are the most
utilized informal support and generally considered the
most helpful/supportive.
Victims report that the most helpful reaction following
disclosure is emotional support; the least helpful reactions are expressing disbelief and blaming the victim.
Informal supports’ reactions to disclosure vary both
within each supporter and across the victim’s support
network.
Disclosure (and social support received following
disclosure) is associated with victims’ better mental health.
Intimate partner violence (IPV), often classified by type—
physical violence (i.e., the threat or the use of force on one’s
partner to cause harm or death), sexual violence (i.e, the threat
of or the use of force to engage a partner in sexual activity
without consent, attempted or completed sexual act without consent, or abusive sexual contact), and psychological violence (i.e.,
using threats, actions, or coercive tactics which cause trauma or
emotional harm to a partner; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2002)—is a serious problem for individuals across
the life span. Prevalence rates of physical IPV range from
12% to 60% (Fanslow & Robinson, 2011; Halpern, Oslak,
Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001; Miller, 2011; Perry & Fomuth,
2005; Tjaden & Theonnes, 2000), 5%–17% for sexual IPV
(Fanslow & Robinson, 2011; Tjaden & Theonnes, 2000), and
29%–75% for psychological IPV (Fanslow & Robinson, 2011;
Halpern et al., 2001; Straus & Sweet, 1992). Further, research
has documented consistently the devastating psychological,
physical, interpersonal, and occupational effects IPV has on the
victim, his or her friends and family, and the society in general
1
Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kateryna M. Sylaska, Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH 03824, USA.
Email: [email protected]
4
(Black, 2011; Swanberg & Macke, 2006; and for reviews, see
Klein, 2004; Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Plichta, 2004).
Amid the research suggesting the harmful effects of IPV,
research also points to the importance of social support for victims
in minimizing these negative consequences (Coker, Watkins,
Smith, & Brandt, 2003). Although literature has documented the
link between the general atmosphere of social support in a
victim’s environment for buffering some of the negative effects
of IPV, an additional area of inquiry has concerned the specific
effect of social support and reactions provided to a victim following the disclosure of IPV. An integrated understanding of the
experiences and the consequences of IPV disclosure could have
important implications for informing intervention and educational systems in reducing the negative effects of IPV.
The current review examines the rates and forms of IPV
disclosure, factors associated with the victims’ disclosure, the
characteristics and process of disclosure, social reactions associated with disclosure, and the psychological correlates of disclosure. For the purposes of this review, a victim’s disclosure
involves any conversation, where the victim provides information regarding the abuse occurring in the relationship to another
individual. Although the literature employs various terms to
describe the recipients of victims’ disclosure (e.g., helper,
informal sources, and social supporter), the current review
will use the term ‘‘informal supports’’ when referring to these
individuals.
Method
For the current review, we identified any and all published
articles pertaining to disclosure or help-seeking behavior by
IPV victims to informal supports (e.g., family members,
friends, coworkers, neighbors) through a comprehensive search
of relevant social science databases. Articles were included if
analyses included results reflecting only informal forms of
support or provided separate analyses for informal disclosure
(i.e., articles combining analyses of formal and informal
help-seeking findings were excluded). Articles that discussed
general informal social support (having persons in one’s life
that one feels comfortable talking to, spending time with, etc.)
were not included; only articles that discussed informal social
support following disclosure or articles directly related to the
victims’ IPV experiences were utilized for the current review.
Articles that included forms of violence other than IPV (e.g.,
sexual assault or another violent crime perpetrated by someone
other than a romantic partner) were included only if analyses
for IPV-specific disclosure were presented separately. Finally,
articles were included regardless of the participants’ gender,
age, race, or sexual orientation of the victim/discloser. From
the literature search, we identified 41 articles published
between 1983 and 2012 (see Table 1 for a list of all studies,
sample characteristics, and key findings).
Although a similar review of disclosure to formal sources
(e.g., counselors, law enforcement officers, legal representatives, medical care providers) would be beneficial to our
understanding of IPV outcomes, it is outside the domain of the
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(1)
current review given that formal disclosure is qualitatively and
quantitatively distinct from informal disclosure. For example,
although 75% or more of the IPV victims disclose their experiences of abuse to an informal support (Ansara & Hindin, 2010;
Coker et al., 2002; Dunham & Senn, 2000; Edwards, Dardis, &
Gidycz, 2012; Fanslow & Robinson, 2010; Levendosky et al.,
2004; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993; Merrill & Wolfe, 2000),40%–
84% of the IPV victims disclose their experiences of abuse to
formal supports (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Ashley & Foshee,
2005; Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). Furthermore, of those who
disclose IPV, 58% disclose exclusively to informal supports,
whereas only 6% disclose exclusively to formal supports (Fanslow & Robinson, 2010). Moreover, research has documented
that there are different psychosocial symptoms (e.g., better
mental health was associated with informal support but had
no relationship with formal support) and motivations to disclose (e.g., injury is associated with increased disclosure to formal supports but not informal supports; Belknap, Melton,
Denny, Fleury-Steiner, & Sullivan, 2009; Leone, Johnson, &
Cohan, 2007; Moe, 2007) associated with formal and informal
disclosure of IPV.
Theoretical Frameworks of IPV Disclosure
Prior to a discussion of correlates and outcomes associated with
disclosure to informal supports, a brief review of theories
applied to general disclosure of IPV (to formal and informal
supports) is beneficial. Although much of the published literature on disclosure of IPV has been atheoretical, some studies
have included guiding theoretical frameworks predicated in
social psychological theories. Based on similarities among
these frameworks, three overarching groups of theories emerged
from the literature review, an ecological model or the symbolic
interactionist role theory (i.e., an incorporation of the role of
individual, relational, and environmental factors in a complex
exchange influencing disclosure; Alaggia, Regehr, & Jenney,
2012; Mead, 1934; see also Bosch & Bergen 2006), feministinspired theories or survivor theory (i.e., in contrast to learned
helplessness theory, victims actively engage in help-seeking
efforts, and the gendered context of disclosure is considered;
Gondolf & Fisher, 1988), and process models or the transtheorectical model of change (i.e., victims seek to reduce violence or
end a relationship through behavior, such as help seeking and
disclosure, as awareness of violence increases; Prochaska &
DiClemente, 1984).
Even within these three overarching frameworks, there is
considerable overlap. For example, both the ecological/symbolic interactionist and feminist/survivor theoretical frameworks examine the roles of different levels of internal (e.g.,
individual factors, gender) and external (e.g., environmental,
sociopolitical) factors related to the disclosure process; both the
feminist/survivor and process/transtheorectical frameworks
focus on victims as survivors or active agents within the disclosure and help-seeking efforts; and both the ecological/symbolic
interactionist and process/transtheortical frameworks credit the
complexity of disclosure for victims (i.e., with regard to the
5
Sample Characteristics
1,231 Men and women, in
Canadian national survey
354 High school students
reporting IPV
922 Community women from a
Canadian national survey
6,010 Community men and
women from a national survey
who reported knowing a
victim of IPV
158 Victims recruited through
prosecutors’ offices
57 Men and women urban high
school students
56 Rural community women
survivors of IPV
302 Help-seeking community
male victims of IPV
Reference
Ansara & Hindin
(2010)
Ashley & Foshee
(2005)
Barrett & St. Pierre
(2011)
Beeble et al. (2008)
Belknap et al.
(2009)
Black et al. (2008)
Bosch & Bergen
(2006)
Douglas & Hines
(2011)
family and friends more likely to know about IPV than other ISs;
after controlling for demographic, relational, and violence factors,
higher levels of IS were associated with better mental health;
females more likely to disclose to ISs;
attaching an angry/jealous motive to IPV associated with
disclosure;
more likely to disclose when IPV is witnessed;
friends most common IS.
friends/neighbors and mothers rated as most supportive ISs.
most supportive responses were emotional support, tangible/
instrumental support;
providing emotional and instrumental support associated with
increased access of resources and less long-term abuse;
male friends/neighbors most likely sought IS, followed by female
relatives, male relatives, and female friends;
men found friends and family most helpful;
women more likely than men to disclose to ISs;
more severe forms of violence were associated with increased
disclosure;
disclosure more common to family and friends/neighbors than
coworkers;
victims more likely to seek help from informal than formal
supports;
friends are most common IS sought for help by victims;
visible minority women, younger women, and low SES women less
likely to seek help;
women reporting fearing for their life or sustaining physical injuries
were more likely to seek help;
as the number of violent incidents increased, help-seeking
likelihood increased;
half of respondents engaged in helping behavior;
emotional support most common form of support provided,
followed by formal and instrumental support;
women, younger participants, witnessing IPV as a child,
experiencing IPV, and having higher perceptions of IPV prevalence
were related to increased likelihood of helping;
Key Findings Regarding Disclosure
Table 1. Studies on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Disclosure to Informal Supports (ISs).
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Meaning Attached to Violence
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
(continued)
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Psychological Correlates Associated With
Disclosure
Victim Gender
Meaning Attached to Violence
IPV is Witnessed
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Victim Gender
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Characteristics of the Disclosure Process
Victim Race
Victim Age
Victim SES
Frequency of Violence
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
Characteristics of IS
Victim gender
Severity and Frequency of Violence
Characteristics of IS
Relevant Sections of Review
6
306 Undergraduate college
women
44 College women reporting at
least 1 incident of IPV
956 Community women from
New Zealand
1756 Community women
233 Young community couples
137 Community women
recruited upon exiting a DV
shelter
373 Men and women high school
seniors
334 Women from NVAWS
123 Women recruited from IPV
counseling agencies in Korea
Dunham & Senn
(2000)
Edwards et al.
(2012)
Fanslow &
Robinson (2010)
Flicker et al. (2011)
Fortin et al. (2012)
Goodkind et al.
(2003)
Jackson et al. (2000)
Kim & Lee (2011)
Kaukinen (2004)
Sample Characteristics
Reference
Table 1. (continued)
majority disclosed to family and/or friends;
over one third reported that no one tried to provide support
(included nondisclosers);
helpful responses reported following half to two thirds of
disclosures;
African American and Hispanic women less likely to seek help
from friends than White women (but no differences in seeking
help from family);
older women less likely to seek help from family, but not friends;
help most likely sought by stalking IPV victims and least likely for
sexual IPV victims;
greater severity of physical abuse associated with increased help
seeking;
increased frequency of IPV associated with utilization of more ISs;
satisfaction with support was unrelated or inversely related to the
number of ISs;
increased help seeking was associated with a reduction in
psychological distress for women, but not for men;
negative reactions to disclosure experienced less frequently than
positive reactions;
negative reactions more common when ISs are also threatened by
perpetrator;
more negative reactions related to lower quality of life;
more tangible support related to fewer depressive symptoms;
men were less likely to disclose than women;
friends are most commonly utilized IS;
white women more likely to seek help from ISs than minority
women;
low rates of disclosure to ISs (15%);
increased likelihood of disclosure to ISs associated with higher
income, being separated or divorced from the perpetrator, and
higher levels of child abuse by the perpetrator;
friends were the most frequently cited IS;
over one third indicated minimization of their IPV experiences
during first disclosure;
disclosure most likely to occur shortly following IPV incident;
not disclosing IPV associated with perception that their IPV
experiences were ‘‘no big deal’’ and concern for ISs’ reactions;
female friend most common IS reported;
friends rated most helpful IS;
most helpful reaction was providing emotional support;
Key Findings Regarding Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
(continued)
Psychological Correlates Associated With
Disclosure
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Severity and Frequency of Violence
Characteristics of ISs
Victim Race
Victim age
Type of Violence
Severity and Frequency of Violence
Severity and Frequency of Violence
Psychological Correlates Associated With
Disclosure
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Psychological Correlates Associated With
Disclosure
Victim Gender
Characteristics of IS
Victim Race
Victim Race
Victim SES
Characteristics of the Disclosure Process
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of the Disclosure Process
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Victim Age
victim SES
Type of Violence
Relevant Sections of Review
7
18 Community women and men
with a close relationship to an
IPV victim
32 Community women and men,
repeated victims of IPV
497 Community women
reporting at least 1 incident of
IPV in last 12 months
203 Community women in the
third trimester of pregnancy
130 Women victims of physical
IPV
63 Self-identifying gay men
Latta & Goodman
(2011)
Lempert (1997)
Leone et al. (2007)
Levendosky et al.
(2004)
Mahlstedt & Keeny
(1993)
McClennen et al.
(2002)
Merrill & Wolfe
(2000)
52 Self-identifying gay men who
had sought formal assistance
for IPV
Sample Characteristics
Reference
Table 1. (continued)
main theme of ISs ‘‘struggling to define their role’’;
ISs cycle through 3 phases: become aware of the IPV; developing a
narrative of the victims’ experiences and making meaning of it; and
taking action;
process of providing support is often characterized by difficulty
and frustration;
ISs try to balance their own views with what they believe the
victim is ready to hear;
victims sought help from ISs to provide for their personal safety
and a new perspective and problem-solving methods when their
own efforts to reduce violence did not work;
initially met with negative reactions following initial disclosures;
victims report feeling caught between the perpetrator’s
perceptions/expectations and their ISs’ perspectives/expectations;
emotional support (and allowing the victim to engage in her or his
own process) rated as most helpful;
younger participants were more likely to disclose to family (no
relationship for friends/neighbors);
access to money and perceived social support associated with
increased likelihood to disclose to family;
victims of intimate terrorism were less likely to disclose to friends/
neighbors than victims of situational couple violence;
IPV victims talked about their IPV more frequently with ISs when
levels of emotional and practical support were higher and IPV was
more severe;
victims were more likely to have ISs who were also victims of IPV
(less support was received from ISs who were also IPV victims);
all forms of support were associated with lower levels of
depression and higher levels of self-esteem;
embarrassment and feeling that IPV should be kept private were
motivations for nondisclosure;
friends more common IS, followed by sisters, mothers, and
brothers;
friends and mothers viewed as most helpful and directive;
least helpful responses reported from fathers and brothers;
most victims sought help from friends;
friends were perceived as the most helpful support;
victims’ friends (not those shared with the perpetrator) were
most commonly sought IS;
victims’ friends rated as most helpful IS (followed by their family);
partners’ friends, partners’ family, and neighbors were rated as the
most unhelpful ISs;
Key Findings Regarding Disclosure
(continued)
Psychological Correlates Associated With
Disclosure
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Relevant Sections of Review
8
60 Community women recruited
from DV shelters
19 Community women recruited
from a DV shelter
631 High school students
Mitchell & Hodson
(1983)
Moe (2007)
Molidor & Tolman
(1998)
Paquin (1994)
100 Self-identifying lesbian
women
100 Self-identifying lesbian
women
Renzetti (1988)
Renzetti (1989)
650 Community women and men
Sample Characteristics
Reference
Table 1. (continued)
greater contact with friends/family (unaccompanied by partner)
associated with more empathic and less avoidant responses from
friends;
increased IPV severity associated with more nonsupportive
responses from friends;
more avoidant responses from friends associated with greater
levels of depression and lower levels of mastery and self-esteem;
more empathic responses associated with higher levels of selfesteem;
informal disclosure to friends/family among the most common and
initial strategies utilized by victims;
conditional support (help given ‘‘with strings attached’’) was rated
very unhelpful by victims;
unconditional and empathic support associated with feeling
empowered to resist IPV; otherwise, victims more likely to
internalize and engage in self-blame;
no reported gender differences in likelihood of disclosing to IS;
victims most likely to disclose to a friend;
10% had strong suspicions or knowledge of a neighbor’s IPV in the
past 2 years; half provided victims with a place to stay during times
of violence
providing a place to stay was associated with the IS having children,
and providing a place for the child of the victim to stay (for child
abuse by IPV perpetrator);
gender, race, income, and other demographic factors unrelated to
providing help;
friends most commonly utilized IS; 65% rated them as helpful
about a third sought help from family members; 57% rated them as
helpful
the provision of practical (especially providing a place to stay) and
emotional support were cited as a particularly helpful responses;
negative reactions were common and inhibited victims from
leaving the relationship;
victims most commonly sought IS from friends, followed by family
members, and neighbors;
victims frequently encounter negative reactions from friends and
family;
avoidant responses from friends reported as a factor leading
victims to stay in the relationship;
Key Findings Regarding Disclosure
Victim Race
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Relevant Sections of Review
(continued)
9
Review of 7 qualitative and 20
quantitative studies on
Hispanic IPV victims’ help
seeking
31 Urban community women
victims of IPV
34 IPV victims recruited from a
large workplace
48 Community women that
experienced IPV in past year
and sought help from
community DV agency
11 Lesbian and bisexual
community women selfidentifying as victims of IPV
157 Norwegian community
women that sought formal
help for IPV
4 Self-identified lesbian women
victims of IPV
476 High school students
Rizo & Macy (2011)
Rose et al. (2000)
Swanberg & Macke
(2006)
Trotter & Allen
(2009)
Turrell &
Herrmann
(2008)
Vatnar & Bjorkly
(2008)
Watson et al.
(2001)
Walters (2011)
Sample Characteristics
Reference
Table 1. (continued)
victims cite denial of IPV occurrence, family rejection, shame, selfblame, and homophobia/heterosexism as factors inhibiting
disclosure;
negative reactions (e.g., blame) reported by victims from friends,
family, and the lesbian community;
women more likely than men to disclose to friends;
no racial differences in likelihood to disclose;
Hispanic women were less likely than White or Black victims to
seek help from ISs; immigrant Hispanic women were the least
likely;
factors contributing to nondisclosure among Hispanic women
were language barriers, strong ties to one’s family, religion, and
culture-defined gender role norms;
ISs commonly rated as unhelpful;
many victims reported receiving unsatisfactory levels of support or
barriers to seeking support when needed (e.g., abusive family,
controlling behavior by perpetrator, lack of trust in others, and
self-isolation);
female friends and mothers most common form of IS;
female friends generally cited as very helpful;
almost half of the sample disclosed to a coworker or supervisor;
reasons for disclosure included support seeking, advice seeking,
expressing feelings, seeking legal protection/safety, explaining
behavior; reasons for nondisclosure included feelings of
embarrassment or not trusting coworkers;
disclosers generally found disclosure helpful;
about one fourth of women reported fully positive reactions to
disclosure; remainder experienced mixed reactions both within
individual ISs and across their network of ISs;
four primary themes emerged regarding reactions to help seeking:
safety (e.g., encourage to leave, call police), emotional support,
input (e.g., advice), and aid (e.g., practical or tangible support);
most participants disclosed to a friend;
mix of positive and negative reactions to disclosure was common;
nondisclosure or negative reactions was associated with staying in
the relationship;
victims reported being told to leave their partner, without
providing any more concrete advice/support, as unhelpful;
least likely to disclose following sexual IPV;
most likely to disclose following psychological IPV;
Key Findings Regarding Disclosure
Victim Race
Victim Gender
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Type of Violence
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Victims’ Feelings or Fear
Characteristics of IS
Relevant Sections of Review
(continued)
10
197 High school students
15 Community women victims of
IPV
62 minority community victims
of IPV that had accessed
formal support services
Weisz et al. (2007)
Wuest & MerrittGray (1999)
Yoshioka et al.
(2003)
victims most likely to disclose to peers;
emotional support was the most commonly reported reaction;
as violence severity increased, ISs displayed more negative
reactions;
ISs’ provision of resource information was helpful in victims’
process of ‘‘claiming and maintaining territory’’ and not returning
to a violent partner;
victims cited that ISs were helpful in setting and enforcing limits for
interactions with perpetrator;
victims reported that it was important for ISs to respect the
victims’ boundaries and provide less advice over time (as the role
of ‘‘victim’’ is relinquished);
victims reported wanting to be helped by having ISs empower the
victims by reaffirming their judgment and abilities;
south Asian women more likely to seek help from family members
than African American or Hispanic women;
older women were more likely to disclose to family members than
younger women;
higher levels of physical violence severity associated with
disclosure to fewer ISs;
friends most common ISs, followed by family members, and
coworkers;
South Asian women were more likely to be told to stay in the
relationship than African American or Hispanic women
Key Findings Regarding Disclosure
Note. IS ¼ informal Support; IPV ¼ intimate partner violence; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
Sample Characteristics
Reference
Table 1. (continued)
Characteristics of IS;
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Victim Race
Victim Age
Severity and Frequency of Violence
Characteristics of IS
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Relevant Sections of Review
Sylaska and Edwards
interaction of different factors influencing help seeking and the
complex cycle of victims’ process of help seeking). Yet,
ecological/symbolic interactionist theories are unique in their
inclusion of multiple levels of factors that encompass victims’
disclosure experiences; feminist/survivor theories place a
crucial and particular emphasis on gender and have a strong
focus on combating victim blaming; and process/transtheoretical theories are unique in the focus on victims’ disclosure
processes and how this process is fluid and changes over time.
In the Discussion section of this article, we will return to these
theories and discuss the extent to which these frameworks
capture the rates and forms of IPV disclosure, factors associated
with victims’ disclosure, the characteristics and process of
disclosure, social reactions associated with disclosure, and
the psychological correlates of disclosure, all of which are
reviewed next.
Motivations and Factors Associated With Disclosure
Over the last three decades, researchers have explored factors
associated with a victim’s willingness and motivation to disclose IPV to informal supports. These factors may be organized
into demographic characteristics, intrapersonal attributes, and
situational variables.
Demographic Characteristics
Victim Gender. With regard to demographic characteristics,
research employing samples of high school students demonstrates that female victims are more likely to disclose than are
male victims (Black, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Weisz,
2008; Jackson, Cram, & Seymour, 2000; Watson, Cascardi,
Avery-Leaf, & O’Leary, 2001). One of the few studies to
examine IPV disclosure of adult men and women experiencing
physical or sexual IPV revealed that 81% of the female victims
disclosed to at least one informal support, whereas only 57% of
the male victims disclosed to at least one informal support
(Ansara & Hindin, 2010). Alternatively, Douglas and Hines’
(2011) reported that at least 77% of their community sample
of help-seeking adult men experiencing IPV had disclosed to
family, friends, or a neighbor. The higher percentage obtained
by Douglas and Hines (2011) is likely due to the sample’s
selection of help-seeking men.
Victim Race. Victims who are White, as opposed to minority residents of the United States (e.g., Black/African American, Hispanic, Latino), are more likely to disclose to informal supports
(Kaukinen, 2004); and when White victims disclose, they disclose to a greater number informal supports than non-White
victims who disclose (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). However,
two studies indicated that disclosure is not always lower among
racial minorities (Flicker et al., 2011; Watson, Cascardi,
Avery-Leaf, and O’Leary). Watson and colleagues’ (2001)
sample of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian high
school students found no racial differences related to disclosure, and Flicker and colleagues’ (2011) sample of African
11
American, Hispanic, and White adult women found no race differences in disclosure to family. However, the authors did find
that African American and Hispanic women were less likely to
disclose to friends than White women (Flicker et al., 2011).
With regard to disclosure rates of specific minority groups, a
recent review of the literature concluded that Hispanic women
victims of IPV were less likely to disclose to informal supports
than White women (Rizo & Macy, 2011). A low informal
disclosure rate has also been shown among Korean immigrant
women (Kim & Lee, 2011), although this study only assessed
disclosure to family or neighbors. One study compared disclosure rates among a community sample of women recruited
from domestic violence agencies representing several racial
minority groups (Yoshioka, Gilbert, El-Bassel, & Braig-Amin,
2003) and found that South Asian women had the highest rates
of informal disclosure, followed by Hispanic women; whereas
African American women generally had the lowest rates of
informal disclosure.
Victim Age. Although the majority of IPV research focuses on
community samples of adult women, with some research utilizing high school or college student samples, we identified two
large-scale studies that specifically examined help seeking by
participant age. This research indicates that victims who are
younger are more likely to disclose their experiences of IPV
than older victims (e.g., Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). Utilizing
data from the National Violence Against Women Survey
(NVAWS), Flicker and colleagues (2011) found that older
women were less likely to disclose to family but equally likely
to disclose to friends as younger women. The contradictory
findings of Yoshioka, Gilbert, El-Bassel, and Braig-Amin
(2003), that older minority women disclosed to more family
and friends, may indicate that racial/cultural identity of the victim moderates the relationship of age and disclosure. The ability to extrapolate themes surrounding the influence of age on
disclosure is limited, as the majority of the published literature
focuses on middle-aged adults.
Victim Socioeconomic Status. Socioeconomic status (SES) has
been associated with help seeking, such that persons of lower
SES utilize fewer informal supports than persons of middle
to higher SES (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). Further support for
this is found by Leone, Johnson, and Cohan’s (2007) study of
largely low-income minority women, which concluded that a
victim’s access to financial resources predicted help seeking
to family members but not to friends. However, the authors
found no relationship between education level and employment
status and informal help seeking.
Intrapersonal Attributes
Intrapersonal attributes are defined as factors germane to the
individual (e.g., attitudes, thoughts, feelings). Two key themes
emerge in the literature related to intrapersonal attributes
impacting the disclosure of intimate partner violence, meaning
12
attached to the violence and the victim’s feelings or fear
preventing disclosure.
Meaning Attached to the Violence. For Black, Tolman, Callahan,
Saunders, and Weisz’s (2008) high school students, ascribing
the violence to an anger or jealousy motive was associated with
an increase in the likelihood of talking with others about the
violent behavior. In contrast, those who ascribed the behavior
to controlling, protecting, or a loving motive were less likely
to disclose (Black et al., 2008). Similarly, Edwards and colleagues (2012) found that, among college women, participants
who disclosed endorsed more partner blame for the violence
than victims who did not disclose.
Victim’s Feelings or Fear Preventing Disclosure. Similar themes
emerge among the responses of victims from across studies
assessing women’s reasons for nondisclosure—a desire to keep
personal matters private, feelings of shame and embarrassment,
and fear of the informal support’s reaction (Edwards et al.,
2012; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993; Swanberg & Macke, 2006;
Walters, 2011). In one of the original studies on IPV disclosure,
Mahlstedt and Keeny (1993) found that college women experiencing physical IPV who chose not to disclose described a
belief in keeping private matters to themselves, feelings of
embarrassment, and a concern that others would try to take
control of the situation (e.g., take over and handle the situation,
pressure to end the relationship) as barriers to disclosure.
Subsequent studies have identified additional reasons for nondisclosure of IPV, including minimization and normalization of
the violence (i.e., interpreting the violence as ‘‘no big deal’’),
concern for the reactions of potential social supports, the desire
not to bring their personal issues into a public sphere, feelings
of shame, and not trusting people in their social network
(Edwards et al., 2012; Swanberg & Macke, 2006).
The themes for nondisclosure of IPV identified previously
came from studies that largely utilized samples of White
heterosexual women. However, studies with ethnic/racial and
sexual minorities have identified similar themes for nondisclosure of IPV. A recent literature review on the help-seeking
experiences of ethnic minority women (with a focus on Hispanic
women) demonstrated that several of the same core themes mentioned previously (e.g., fear, shame, embarrassment, concern for
safety of themselves or their children, dependence on their partner) influence minority women as well as additional themes
related to cultural barriers to disclosure (e.g., religious beliefs,
family values, and language barriers; Rizo & Macy, 2011). Sexual minority victims are also inhibited from disclosure for reasons such as not being ‘‘out’’ to members of their informal
network, not wanting to elicit disapproval of same-sex relationships, and the perception, fear, or experience of homophobia and
heterosexism from members of their social network (Walters,
2011). Thus, although ethnic and sexual minority victims report
feelings and fears related to IPV disclosure similar to White, heterosexual victims, individuals with minority status, often report
additional barriers to disclosure.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(1)
Situational Variables
Characteristics of the violence (i.e., type, severity, and frequency) and if others witnessed the violence are additional factors
explored by research that influences victims’ informal disclosure.
Type of Violence. We found two studies that examined disclosure
rates by type of victimization. First, Vatnar and Bjorkly (2008)
found that Norwegian community women who had recently
experienced sexual IPV were less likely to disclose to informal
supports than physical or psychological IPV victims, whereas
women who had recently experienced psychological IPV were
the most likely to disclose to their informal supports. Second,
among the NVAWS sample of women, Flicker and colleagues
(2011) found that victims of stalking reported the highest frequency of help seeking to informal supports (more than psychological, physical or sexual IPV victims). Further, for
women experiencing physical abuse, the cooccurrence of sexual abuse was associated with a decreased likelihood of disclosure to family but not for disclosure to friends (Flicker et al.,
2011). Considering an alternate classification of IPV types,
Leone et al. (2007) found that victims of situational couple violence were more likely to disclose to friends and neighbors (but
not family) than were victims of intimate terrorism.
Severity and Frequency of Violence. Research indicates that greater
severity and frequency of IPV are associated with an increased
likelihood of disclosure (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Barrett & St.
Pierre, 2011; Fanslow & Robinson, 2010; Flicker et al., 2011;
Levendosky et al., 2004). Increased likelihood of disclosure is
also evident when the number of physical injuries is considered
(Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). In contrast, Kim and Lee’s (2011)
study of Korean women found that violence severity was unrelated to victims’ likelihood of disclosing.
IPV is Witnessed. Research suggests that among high school students, about half of IPV instances happen in the presence of
others (Black et al., 2008; Molidor & Tollman, 1998). Further,
high school students from Black et al.’s (2008) study were
more likely to talk to a friend if the violence was witnessed.
Specifically, victims were more likely to disclose to someone
of the same sex as the person who witnessed the violence
(i.e., victims are more likely to talk to a woman if a woman witnessed the incident more than if a man witnessed the incident).
The Characteristics and Process of Disclosure
In addition to factors associated with victims’ disclosure of
IPV, research indicates that there are a number of features common to the informal supports to whom victims disclose and the
disclosure process.
Characteristics of the Informal Support
Victims are most likely to disclose to a friend, followed by
female relatives (Edwards et al., 2012; Mahlstedt & Keeny,
Sylaska and Edwards
1993; Rose, Campbell, & Kub, 2000). Neighbors, coworkers,
and classmates also frequently are informal supports (Ansara
& Hindin, 2010; Bosch & Bergen, 2006; Leone et al., 2007;
Renzetti, 1989; Swanberg & Macke, 2006; Yoshioka et al.,
2003). Male family members, and especially fathers, are much
less likely to serve as informal supports (Edwards et al., 2012;
Mahlstedt & Keeney, 1993; Rose et al., 2000). For example, of
college women currently or formerly in abusive relationships
(Edwards et al., 2012; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993), about 75%
disclosed to a friend, about 25% disclosed to mother, 25%–
47% disclosed to a sister, 2%–33% disclosed to a brother, and
about 5% disclosed to father. Research on adult Latina immigrants also suggests that a higher percentage of adult Hispanic
women disclosed to a friend than a family member (Yoshioka
et al., 2003), and sexual minority women and men also report
an increased likelihood of disclosing to friends than other informal supports (McClennen, Summers, & Vaughan, 2002; Merrill & Wolfe, 2000; Renzetti, 1988, 1989; Walters, 2011).
Further, Merrill and Wolfe (2000) make the distinction of
increased disclosure to the victims’ friends specifically, rather
than mutual friends shared with their abusive partner.
Characteristics of the Disclosure Process
Victims’ Perspective. Little published research has focused on
describing when and what the act of informal disclosure looks
like for victims of IPV. Research tends to focus on the rates of
and motives for disclosure, to whom victims disclose, and the
reactions and consequences of disclosure. The research in
addressing the details of disclosure, however, does indicate that
about half of the victims who choose to disclose do so immediately following the IPV experience (Dunham & Senn,
2000). In contrast, over a third of disclosers wait 3 months to
2 years after their IPV experiences before they disclose to anyone (Dunham & Senn, 2000). Dunham and Senn’s (2000)
research also indicates that at the time of disclosure, victims are
likely to minimize their experiences of IPV (i.e., omitted
important details when describing the abuse). Over a third of
victims who disclosed IPV to an informal support reported that
they had minimized their descriptions of abuse during their first
disclosure (Dunham & Senn, 2000).
Informal Supports’ Perspective. Latta and Goodman’s (2011)
qualitative interviews with informal social supports provide a
framework for understanding the perspective and process of
helping from the supporters’ perspective. From the interviews,
the authors identified a three-stage process that informal supports undergo as they engage in a course of ‘‘struggling to
define [their] role’’ in providing support to the victim. Informal
supports transition among stages of ‘‘becoming aware’’ (i.e.,
moving from a state of unawareness of the violence to having
confirmation of the victims’ IPV experiences), ‘‘developing a
narrative’’ (i.e., the informal support gathers information from
the victim and other sources related to the IPV integrates the
information into a coherent representation of the victims’ experiences), and ‘‘taking action’’ (i.e., deciding how to act or engage
13
with victim and perpetrator). Latta and Goodman (2011)
describe this process as fluid and nonlinear, such that informal
supports modify their narratives and responses as additional
information surfaced.
Social Reactions to Disclosure
Although little is known about the specifics of the situation,
process, and nature of IPV victims’ disclosure, a substantial
literature exists describing victims’ perceptions of informal
support members’ reactions to their disclosure of IPV. Social
reactions to disclosure are defined as the ways in which informal supports respond both verbally and nonverbally to victims’
disclosures (Ullman, 2010) and are generally studied in one of
two ways. The first examines social reactions to disclosure
within researcher-derived categories of positive (e.g., believing, validating the victims’ experiences) and negative reactions
(e.g. disbelieving, blaming the victim), which is largely based
on research from the sexual victimization literature (Ullman,
2010; for a review of findings within sexual assault literature,
see Ullman, 1999). The second method for studying social reactions to IPV disclosure does not use researcher-derived categorizations but rather asks participants to identify for themselves the
helpfulness or supportiveness of individual reactions. Given that
categorizations currently employed in studies utilizing the first
method described previously were largely derived from studies
utilizing the second method, findings from these differing methodologies (i.e., research-derived categorizations and victims’
reports of helpfulness) of studying victims’ social reactions to
IPV disclosure largely are consistent and thus reviewed together
subsequently. Following this, we summarize literature on the
informal supporters’ reports of their reactions to disclosure and
correlates of social reactions.
Positive and Helpful Social Reactions. Consistent with researcherderived forms of positive social reactions, across studies, helpful
reactions described by victims often include emotional support,
giving advice, allowing the victim to talk about the abuse, and
providing practical/tangible support (Edwards et al., 2012; Lempert, 1997; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993; Renzetti, 1988). Among
positive social reactions, emotional support is the most common
type of support provided (Bosch & Bergen, 2006; Goodkind,
Gillum, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2003; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993;
Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Rose et al., 2000; Trotter & Allen,
2009; Weisz, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Black, 2007),
which is consistent with qualitative reports of victims regarding
the most desired form of support (Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993).
Victims are also often provided with tangible (e.g., provided a
place to stay, providing child care, running errands) or advice/
instrumental (e.g., advised to seek counseling, encouraged to
contact law enforcement or legal supports) support following
disclosure of IPV (Bosch & Bergen, 2006; Goodkind et al.,
2003; Renzetti, 1988; Rose et al., 2000; Trotter & Allen,
2009; Wuest & Mettitt-Gray, 1999). Finally, the women in
Mahlstedt and Keeny’s (1993) study reported experiencing a
positive impact following informal supports’ expression of anger
14
or blame toward the perpetrator when the victim did not feel
pressured to end the relationship or behave in a particular way.
Negative and Unhelpful Social Reactions. Actions rated as most
unhelpful include the informal support telling or pressuring the
victim to act in a certain way (e.g., leave the perpetrator),
giving advice, and not understanding or not taking the violence
seriously (Bosch & Bergen, 2006; Edwards et al., 2012; Lempert, 1997; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993; Moe, 2007; Turell &
Herrmann, 2008). Among unhelpful social reactions reported
by victims, Lempert (1997) noted that the community women
she interviewed often experienced shock and disbelief by informal supports. Additional negative social reactions include
avoiding the victim or avoiding talking about IPV, blaming the
victim for the violence, expressing frustration when the victim
did not take informal support’s advice, and minimizing
the abuse (Goodkind et al., 2003; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983;
Moe, 2007; Renzetti, 1988; Trotter & Allen, 2009; Weisz
et al., 2007). Additionally, nearly half of Mahlstedt and
Keeny’s (1993) sample of young adult women reported that the
informal support had expressed anger toward the perpetrator
following the disclosure. Walters’ (2011) sample of lesbian
women also reported that in response to their disclosure, many
of the informal supports responded with disbelief that a woman
could perpetrate IPV. In addition to these negative reactions,
Moe (2007) described the unhelpful experience of victims
being given help with an ultimatum. Her participants described
instances in which women were offered help if they agreed not
to contact or return to the abusive partner again. A similar concept emerged from the descriptions provided by Bosch and
Bergen’s (2006) participants of being provided help with
‘‘strings attached,’’ wherein otherwise supportive reactions
were accompanied by the expectation to tolerate/endure the
IPV, or provide domestic-related support for the informal supports (e.g., cook meals, contribute to caretaking endeavors).
Advice. In general, many reactions can be divided clearly into
positive/helpful and negative/unhelpful, as discussed previously. However, social reactions to disclosure are not always
consistent across the research. Specifically, participants’
experiences of receiving advice varied greatly across studies.
In qualitative studies, victims often indicate that the most
helpful form of support was providing suggestions rather than
demanding that victims act or think in a certain way (Lempert,
1997; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993). While the women interviewed
by Wuest and Merritt-Gray (1999) described their experience of
receiving advice from informal supports as unhelpful in their
process of reestablishing their lives and breaking free from the
label of a victim. Further, providing excessive advice and
expressing anger with pressure toward the victim or informal
supports’ attempts to take over the situation may reinforce
victim-blaming scripts and contribute to a negative perception
of these reactions (Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993). Finally, Edwards,
Dardis, and Gidycz’s (2012) qualitative results demonstrate this
inconsistency within a single sample, which the researchers
hypothesized, could be related to where women were in their
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(1)
leaving processes. Taken together, it appears that giving advice
is helpful to the victim when advice is sought, but if provided
when unwanted serves to frustrate the victim and prove
disempowering.
Mixed Reactions. Although victims do report negative or unhelpful reactions to their initial disclosures of IPV, victims generally report that negative reactions to disclosure are less
frequent/common than positive or helpful reactions (Goodkind
et al., 2003; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983), with the exception of
one study (Moe, 2007). In a sample of women currently living
in a domestic violence shelter, Moe (2007) described victims’
reports of being abandoned by informal supports as more common than receiving assistance. It is possible that these findings
are due to the formal help-seeking sample such that negative
informal social reactions could have served as an impetus to
formal help seeking. In their qualitative study of community
women seeking help from a community agency for IPV experiences, Trotter and Allen (2009) found that 78% of women
reported that they had received mixed reactions to their disclosure to informal supports, whereas the remaining 22% reported
exclusively positive reactions (no participant reported exclusively negative reactions overall). Further, the women in Trotter and Allen’s (2009) study reported that an individual
informal support responded in both negative and positive ways
to their disclosures and also that an individual informal support
responded in more positive ways than another individual informal support within their network. Thus, overall, victims are
likely to encounter a mix of positive and negative reactions
to their disclosure of IPV (Turell & Herrmann, 2008).
Helpful and Unhelpful Informal Supporters. Victims generally
rated friends as the most helpful/supportive, followed by family
members (Belknap et al., 2009; Bosch & Bergen, 2006; Douglas, & Hines, 2011; Edwards et al., 2012; McClennen et al.,
2002). Similar to the findings of Trotter and Allen (2009)
described previously, other researchers (Edwards et al., 2012;
Moe, 2007; Renzetti, 1989) found that the victims in their studies reported that although friends and family members were
cited as the most helpful informal sources of support, friends
and family were also among the most often cited as the least
helpful sources of informal support. Other research indicates
that the victims’ friends and family members are perceived
as the most helpful informal supports, whereas the perpetrator’s
family and friends are perceived as the least helpful (Bosch &
Bergen, 2006; Merrill & Wolfe, 2000; Rizo & Macy, 2011).
Informal Supports’ Reports of Reactions to Disclosure
Although most of the research on social reactions to IPV
disclosure has been conducted with victims who disclose, two
studies (Beeble, Post, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2008; Latta & Goodman, 2011) have assessed comprehensively reactions from the
informal supports’ perspective. In a national sample of adults
who knew of a victim experiencing IPV in the past year, about
half engaged in helping behavior (i.e., providing emotional
Sylaska and Edwards
support, connections to formal resources, and tangible/instrumental support) on behalf of the victim (Beeble et al., 2008).
Of those who helped, the majority (88%) provided emotional
support, half (49%) provided connections to formal resources,
and about 15% provided tangible/instrumental aid to victims.
Women were more likely than men to provide all forms of
support, and informal supports that provided tangible/instrumental aid were more likely to have previous experience
with IPV victimization. Further, informal supports with
histories including more forms of IPV were more likely to
provide tangible/instrumental aid than informal supports
with fewer forms of IPV victimization experiences (Beeble
et al., 2008).
Additionally, Latta and Goodman’s (2011) qualitative interviews with informal social supports demonstrated that all but
one participant reported that they had decided to engage in a
variety of responses intended to be helpful to the victim (e.g.,
providing emotional support, giving advice, naming the abuse,
developing a plan, providing resources). However, participants
commonly reported that they had participated in periods of
disengagement from the victim (e.g., avoiding the victim or
ignoring the occurrence of IPV in the relationship) to safeguard
their own mental health during a frustrating process and remain
active in other areas of their lives. Largely, periods of disengagement occurred alongside periods of engagement; however,
some participants eventually disengaged entirely from the
victim.
Correlates of Social Reactions
Three studies have explored the factors associated with social
reactions to IPV disclosure. In a study of community women
who had visited a domestic violence shelter, Goodkind, Gillum,
Bybee, and Sullivan (2003) found that more threats to the
victim by the perpetrator and being married to the perpetrator
predicted emotionally supportive reactions to disclosure by
informal supports; type of violence (physical or psychological)
did not predict emotional support. However, negative reactions
(e.g., avoidance of the victim or talking about IPV, annoyance
when the victim does not take the informal support’s advice)
were unrelated to threats by the perpetrator to the victim and
relationship status, whereas psychological abuse, having fewer
minor children living with the victim, and more direct threats
from the perpetrator to the social support system predicted
negative reactions to disclosure (Goodkind et al., 2003).
Two studies have assessed correlates of social reactions
utilizing samples of informal supports rather than victims. In
a national study of adults in the United States, Beeble, Post,
Bybee, and Sullivan (2008) found that a number of characteristics related to an increased likelihood of providing help to a
victim—being female, being younger, witnessing IPV as a
child, personal history of IPV victimization, and a greater perception of prevalence of IPV. Additionally, in a random telephone survey of Kentucky residents, Paquin (1994) found
that half of the respondents who had knowledge or strong suspicions of physical IPV occurring in their neighbors’ homes
15
had allowed the victims to stay in their homes for any period
of time as an escape from the violence. Providing this form
of tangible support was associated with neighbors having children of their own or having taken in the victims’ abused child
on another occasion (Paquin, 1994).
Psychological Correlates Associated With Disclosure
The disclosure research has also explored the psychological
correlates associated with disclosure itself and the social reactions following disclosure (discussed separately below). Within
Levendosky and colleague’s (2004) sample of pregnant
women, the act of disclosure of IPV was associated with lower
levels of depression but was not associated with anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, or self-esteem.
Alternatively, few researchers have examined the number of
informal supports with psychological well-being. Belknap,
Melton, Denny, Fleury-Steiner, and Sullivan (2009) found that
after accounting for IPV severity and demographic and relationship factors, higher levels of social support were related
to better psychological well-being. Further, Fortin, Guay,
Lavoie, Boisvert, and Beaudry (2012) found that for male (but
not female) victims of psychological and physical violence, the
number of informal supports was associated with higher levels
of psychological distress. However, when examining the victims’ ratings of satisfaction with the support provided, higher
levels of satisfaction were related to lower levels of psychological distress (although not significant for male victims’ satisfaction for support for physical violence; Fortin, Guay, Lavoie,
Boisvert, & Beaudry, 2012).
Concerning psychological correlates of social reactions
following disclosure, the majority of research suggests a complicated relationship between psychological well-being and
both positive and negative social reactions. Researchers have
identified a positive relationship between empathic responses
from friends following disclosure and psychological wellbeing (e.g., self-esteem; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983) and feeling
empowered as active agents within their own lives (Moe,
2007). Additionally, researchers have found that more avoidant
or minimizing responses to disclosure were associated with
lower levels of mastery (i.e., victims’ feeling in control of their
lives) and self-esteem and more reports of depressive symptoms, self-injury or suicidal thoughts, and self-blame (Mitchell
& Hodson, 1983; Moe, 2007).
Further, Levendosky et al. (2004) found that higher levels of
emotional (listens to the victim), practical (provides advice or
guidance), and critical (provides negative support or criticism)
supports were related to fewer symptoms of depression and
higher levels of self-esteem; more emotional and critical support were related to fewer anxiety symptoms, and more
critical support was related to fewer PTSD symptoms. This
positive relationship between critical support and mental
well-being may indicate that any support or acknowledgment
is better than avoidance or other negative forms of support,
or it may be an artifact of the moderate positive correlation
between critical support and emotional support. That is, the
16
informal supporters may be providing both critical and emotional support to the victim, and the provision of emotional
support is the source of the effect.
Goodkind and colleagues (2003) documented similar relationships among negative social reactions and psychosocial
variables but somewhat different relationships among positive
social reactions and psychosocial variables. With regard to
positive social reactions, they found that, although emotional
support was unrelated to quality of life and depression, providing tangible support (i.e., a play to stay) was related to better
quality of life and fewer symptoms of depression. Alternatively, negative reactions were related to worse quality-of-life
ratings and higher levels of depression. Further, negative reactions to IPV disclosures predicted lower quality of life and
offering the victim a place to stay predicted more depression
symptoms.
Discussion of the Limitations of Existing
Literature and Future Directions for
Research and Practice
Cross-Sectional Methodologies
Research on victims’ disclosure of IPV is focused overwhelmingly on collecting data at one time point and asking the
victim to sum across all past experiences. Gathering information and drawing conclusions using this methodology is
helpful, albeit limited. Although current research provides a
general framework for disclosure of IPV and its effects, the
next step of research should be to provide more details regarding the motivations, circumstances, and outcomes of disclosure
to the various informal support system members utilized by the
victims over time. Not only may reactions vary within and
between members of the victims’ informal networks (Trotter
& Allen, 2009) but also reactions to disclosure may change
over time (i.e., when additional details are provided or when
the informal support has a better understanding of the nature
and extent of the IPV the victim is experiencing). Crosssectional methodologies do not allow for researchers to capture
this dynamic, fluid, and evolving process. Moreover, crosssectional methodologies do not allow researchers to determine
directionality regarding factors associated with victims’ disclosure or social reactions to disclosure. For example, although
research has demonstrated that negative social reactions to
disclosure are related to increases in psychological distress
(Goodkind et al., 2003; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Moe,
2007), we do not know the directionality of these relationships.
It could be that negative social reactions lead to psychological
distress, that high levels of psychological distress elicit
negative social reactions, or that these relationships are bidirectional. Taken together, future research should employ longitudinal methodologies with multiple assessment points.
Furthermore, longitudinal methodologies that incorporate both
qualitative and quantitative methods would allow for a more
sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the IPV disclosure
process.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(1)
Sample Characteristics
Research on IPV has concentrated on specific demographic
groups. The majority of the research involves White or Black,
female, heterosexual, lower income victims, with at least one
child, and a mean age in the 30–39 range. Although this
research is relevant and useful for many victims, the dearth
of research exploring the experiences of victims outside these
demographics limits the generalizability of research findings.
Especially pertinent are the issues in interpreting research with
regard to the age of the victim. Within the current review, we
have included research on both community samples of older
adults and high school/college-aged adolescents. It is important
to note that these two groups of victims differ with regard to the
backdrop of their romantic relationships (i.e., older adults are
likely to be cohabitating, financially dependent, have children,
etc.) and that these differences could affect various aspects of
the disclosure process. Thus, future research would benefit
from the inclusion of more diverse samples in terms of age,
race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other
relevant demographic and cultural factors as well as a better
understanding of how these diversity factors influence the
disclosure process.
Focus on Reports From the Victim and Unilateral Violence
Research focuses almost exclusively on the victim’s perspective of the disclosure and the informal supports’ responses. Few
studies (Beeble et al., 2008; Latta & Goodman, 2011; Paquin,
1994) have investigated the informal supports’ perceptions of
their responses to the knowledge or suspicion of IPV. These
studies have provided a foundation for a comparison of the perspectives of the victim and a member of his or her social support network. Overall, the findings of the three studies (Beeble
et al., 2008; Latta & Goodman, 2011; Paquin, 1994) examining
disclosure of IPV from the informal supports’ perspective
reviewed previously indicate an overlap between the reports
of victims and the reports of informal supports regarding
responses to disclosure. Victims and informal supports are consistent in reporting a high frequency of emotionally supportive
reactions and that informal supports are also unhelpful at times.
However, future research that focuses more on the informal
supports’ reactions to disclosure and their motivations for
action could be used to inform future efforts of educating informal supports on how to best help a victim.
Additionally, given that 55%–84% of violence in relationships is mutual (i.e., both partners perpetrate IPV and experience victimization; Kessler, Molnar, Feurer, & Appelbaum,
2001; Straus, 2008; Testa, Hoffman, & Leonard, 2011), it is
likely that at least in some instances of disclosure victims are
discussing their own use of aggression. However, given that
current methodologies focus exclusively on disclosure of victimization experiences, we know very little about the process by
which individuals disclose mutual aggression and how this is
similar or different to the rates and correlates of IPV victimization disclosure. Future research should employ methodologies
Sylaska and Edwards
that allow for the assessment of both IPV victimization and perpetration disclosure.
Theoretical and Conceptual Issues With Studying IPV
Disclosure
Despite the limited existence of theoretically driven research
on disclosure of IPV to informal supports, it is apparent that the
theories alluded to in some studies (e.g., ecological model,
survivor theory, process models, symbolic interactionist role
theory) are promising for future work. For example, survivor
theory, which focuses on victims’ active engagement in helpseeking, may account for the overall high rates of informal
disclosure and contribute to our understanding of situational
factors influencing disclosure. Second, process models (e.g.,
the transtheoretical model of change) and the ecological
model/symbolic interactionist role theory are especially helpful
in explaining the intrapersonal and situational factors leading to
disclosure of IPV and are especially promising in being
extended for work on how disclosure and social reactions are
integrated with the process of leaving an abusive relationship.
Although a few qualitative studies have shed light on the connectedness of these phenomena, there is surprisingly little systematic, methodologically rigorous work on how disclosure,
social reactions, and the leaving process relate to one another,
and process and ecological models allow for the opportunity to
explore these connections.
Given the literature reviewed here, a meta-theory combining
promising elements of these theories would be beneficial in
advancing informal disclosure research. One attempt at such
a framework was proposed by Liang, Goodman, TummalaNarra, and Weintrab (2005). Liang and colleagues (2005)
advocate a theoretical model of help seeking in which help
seeking is viewed as a process in itself, parallel to the process
of leaving, and includes a feedback loop in which victims
recognize and define the problem, decide to seek help, and
select supporters (and is influenced by individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors). This model appears especially
promising, given that it integrates components of several
theories supported by the extant body of research.
However, some elements are not explicitly included in
Liang et al.’s model (e.g., how this process functions for male
victims, the impact of other identities, such as sexual identity,
as a barrier to informal help seeking). Nevertheless, the framework and language of the model proposed by Liang et al.
(2005) model is open to the inclusion of additional elements
such as factors and processes particularly relevant for men and
sexual minorities. Additionally, Liang et al.’s model would
benefit from inclusion of an additional stage or two to incorporate victim’s experience with the disclosure (i.e., general
characteristics such as the use of minimization or graded disclosure), how the disclosure experience informs the victim’s
engagement with the chosen informal support (e.g., the
continued use of this support, engagement with additional or
alternative supports, or the detachment from any support), and
the broader psychosocial impacts of the disclosure process and
17
social reactions to the disclosure. Although Liang et al. (2005)
acknowledge that disclosure experiences shape future disclosure
behavior (‘‘the helper [that the victim] chooses will influence
how she defines the problem and whether she chooses to seek
help again’’, p. 73), the research reviewed here would suggest
that the influence of disclosure characteristics and reactions
following it should play a more important role in conceptualizing a complete model of victims’ process of disclosure.
Along these lines, Ullman (2010) presents an adapted model
of Liang and colleagues’ (2005) theory which combines Liang
et al.’s (2005) second (i.e., decision to seek help) and third (i.e.,
support selection) stages into a single, ‘‘disclosure/help seeking’’ stage along with other disclosure characteristics (e.g.,
timing of disclosure, coping, and social reactions) and adds a
third, ‘‘negative and/or positive outcomes’’ stage to understand
help-seeking experiences of sexual assault victims. Ullman’s
(2010) adapted model provides a new framework for the inclusion of other factors related to the disclosure and the outcomes
of disclosure (e.g., self-blame, psychological symptoms, substance abuse). Although Ullman (2010) used this revised model
to discuss the disclosure process among sexual assault survivors, it could be a useful theoretical framework for increasing
our understanding of the various stages of the IPV disclosure
process. Although the stage model connects the various elements of the disclosure process reviewed in this article, it is
critical to acknowledge the fluidity and nonlinearity both
between and within the stages (e.g., characteristics of the
disclosure are likely to influence social reactions or that psychological symptoms influence/are influenced by substance
abuse), which will be important for future theoretical and
empirical work to consider.
Another conceptual issue that needs to be the focus of future
work in this area is the assumption throughout the extant
literature that disclosure is motivated solely by the victim’s
decision to disclose. No identified research has focused on the
extent to which disclosure occurs as a result of an informal support’s suspicion or witnessing of IPV followed by a ‘‘forced’’
disclosure (i.e., an informal support confronted the victim
about the relationship violence). Indeed, there is an apparent
assumption within the IPV help-seeking literature of a benevolent sequence of events culminating in the victim’s disclosure
(even if initially motivated by an informal support); however,
this is not necessarily the case. It is likely that at least some
if not many disclosures are not the result of an empowered
victim’s decision or even an overt desire to seek help, especially considering findings that about half of the IPV situations
were witnessed (Jackson et al., 2008; Molidor & Tolman,
1998). Employing diverse methodology (as described above)
and explicitly exploring this issue within research would be
helpful in disentangling some of the questions concerning
motivations for disclosure.
Taken together, we encourage scholars to continue to work
toward developing a stronger and more integrated theoretical
presence in research on the disclosure process for IPV victims.
Along these lines, it is important that future research move
beyond identifying the correlates and predictors of various
18
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(1)
aspects of the disclosure process and rather focus on employing
theoretical frameworks (such as those previously discussed and
proposed) that explain the meaning behind relationships among
variables of interest and the motivation of disclosure, which
could aid in translating research findings to practice and
advocacy efforts.
the negative impact that inappropriate support behavior can
have on victims’ psychotherapeutic progress (see Ullman,
2010 for a review). Thus, we recommend that policies be in
place requiring formal support providers to have the
necessary knowledge, skills, and training to work effectively
with IPV victims and their informal support networks.
IPV Program Evaluation Research
Conclusion
Although IPV prevention and intervention programs often
provide suggestions on how to help a friend in an abusive relationship (see Black & Weisz, 2008 for review), there is little to
no research assessing the effects of this program component on
informal supports’ actual behavior toward victims who disclose
experiences of IPV. Indeed, most program evaluation research
focuses solely on changes in IPV attitudes and rates of IPV victimization and perpetration. Thus, an important area for future
research is to test the effects of existing IPV programming
efforts on both victim and informal supports’ roles in the disclosure process. For example, are victims who participate in
these types of programs more likely to disclose IPV experiences to informal supports compared to victims who do not
participate in these types of programs? Also, are informal supports who participate in these types of programs more likely to
provide victims with positive and helpful responses compared
to individuals who do not participate in these types of programs? Although current program evaluation research should
seek to answer these questions, as we develop a more complex
understanding of the disclosure process, it is likely that some
aspects of programming related to how to help a friend in an
abusive relationship will need to be modified. This is especially
true, given some of the conflicting evidence regarding what
victims find most helpful and how social reactions relate to
psychological distress.
Although our understandings of survivors’ disclosure processes
have increased over the past few decades, additional research is
necessary to address gaps and inconsistencies within the
existing framework. Given victims’ high rates of disclosure
to informal supports, psychological correlates associated with
disclosure, and the strong potential for the integration of
knowledge of IPV disclosure in treatment and programming
efforts, it is important to give considerable attention to the role
of disclosure in victims’ IPV experiences. The current article
reviewed the research to date on informal disclosure of IPV,
evaluated the theoretical underpinnings of this research, highlighted the critical issues and limitations present within these
studies, and provided suggestions for future theoretical and
empirical work as well as implications for programming and
treatment efforts. Overall, we found support for a number of
demographic, intrapersonal, and situational factors influencing
a victim’s likelihood of disclosing their IPV experiences in
addition to a number of characteristics and correlates associated with the disclosure. It is important to take an integrated
systems approach (such as proposed by Liang and colleagues,
2005, and elaborated on by Ullman, 2010) in the examination
of how these function for individual victims in order to inform
most effectively intervention and treatment efforts to support
IPV victims and their informal supports. Although it is critical
that researchers’ efforts also focus on primary prevention of
IPV, it is also important that we continue to understand the
most effective ways to promote victims’ recovery, which
requires an understanding of the disclosure and help-seeking
process.
Implications for Treatment
Although this article focused on the role of informal disclosure
of IPV, the findings from this research could inform the work
of formal support providers (e.g., counselors, doctors, law
enforcement) who work with IPV survivors. First, it is important that formal support providers be aware of the informal
resources available to victims of IPV seeking formal support,
the victims’ utilization of their informal supports, the social
reactions received, and the impact of these social reactions
on psychosocial well-being. Second, formal support providers
may have the opportunity to mitigate the psychological consequences associated with IPV victims’ lack of informal support
networks or the negative social reactions received from informal supports. Third, when possible, formal support providers
should include informal supports in the victims’ treatment and
provid informal supports with suggestions on how to be effective in supporting the IPV victim, similar to what is done in IPV
programming efforts discussed previously. This suggestion is
consistent with research documenting the benefits of including
informal supports in psychotherapy with trauma survivors, and
Implications for Practice, Policy, and
Research
A better understanding of the informal disclosure process related to IPV could inform programming efforts
to educate informal supports on how to respond most
effectively to victims’ disclosure of IPV. Albeit justified
and important, much of the research has focused on
reports from the victim in understanding the nature of
IPV disclosure; however, examining the experiences
and perspectives of the informal supports who provided
varying levels of support (or no support at all) to victims
is crucial to the development and successful implementation of IPV intervention programming.
Given that positive reactions to disclosure are associated
with better mental health markers (e.g., fewer symptoms
of depression, anxiety, and PTSD), and although there is
Sylaska and Edwards
sometimes an inverse relationship with negative reactions,
interventions should place a focus on increasing positive
reactions to victims of IPV.
Formal support services and policy makers should be
aware of the informal resources available to victims of
IPV seeking formal support, the victims’ utilization of
their informal supports, the social reactions received,
and the impact of these social reactions on psychosocial
well-being.
Future research should employ more diverse methodologies (e.g., longitudinal research) to the study of IPV
disclosure, broaden sample characteristics, and utilize
and advance existing theoretical frameworks in study
design.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Alaggia, R., Regehr, C., & Jenney, A. (2012). Risky business: An ecological analysis of intimate partner violence disclosure. Research on
Social Work Practice, 22, 301–312. doi:10.1177/1049731511425503
Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2010). Formal and informal helpseeking associated with women’s and men’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada. Social Science and Medicine,
70, 1011–1018. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.009
Ashley, O. S., & Foshee, V. A. (2005). Adolescent help-seeking for dating violence: Prevalence, sociodemographic correlates and sources
of help. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 25–31. doi:10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2003.12.014
Barrett, B. J., & St. Pierre, M. (2011). Variations in women’s helpseeking in response to intimate partner violence: Findings from a
Canadian population-based study. Violence Against Women, 17,
47–70.
Beeble, M. L., Post, L. A., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2008).
Factors related to willingness to help survivors of intimate partner
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1717–1729. doi:
10.1177/0886260508314333
Belknap, J., Melton, H. C., Denney, J. T., Fleury-Steiner, R. E., &
Sullivan, C. M. (2009). The levels and roles of social and institutional support reported by survivors of intimate partner abuse. Feminist Criminologist, 4, 377–402. doi:10.1177/1557085109344942
Black, M. C. (2011). Intimate partner violence and adverse health consequences: Implications for clinicians. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5, 428–439. doi:10.1177/1559827611410265
Black, B. M., Tolman, R. M., Callahan, M., Saunders, D. G., & Weisz,
A. N. (2008). When will adolescents tell someone about dating
violence victimization?. Violence Against Women, 14, 741–758.
doi:10.1177/1077801208320248
19
Black, B. M., & Weisz, A. M. (2008) Effective interventions with dating violence and domestic violence. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, &
P. Allen-Meares (Eds.) The school practitioner’s concise companion to preventing violence and conflict (pp. 127–139). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Bosch, K., & Bergen, M. B. (2006). The influence of supportive and nonsupportive persons in helping rural women in abusive partner relationships become free from abuse. Journal of Familly Violence, 21,
311–320. doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9027-1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. (2002). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/publications/index.html
Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Thompson, M. P., McKeown, R. E.,
Bethea, L., & Davis, K. E. (2002). Social support protects against
negative effects of partner violence on mental health. Journal of
Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 11, 465–476.
Coker, A. L., Watkins, K. W., Smith, P. H., & Brandt, H. M. (2003).
Social support reduces the impact of partner violence on health:
Application of structural equation models. Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 37, 259–267. doi:10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00122-1
Douglas, E. M., & Hines, D. A. (2011). The helpseeking experiences
of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice. Journal of Family Violence,
26, 473–485. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9382-4
Dunham, K., & Senn, C. Y. (2000). Minimizing negative experiences:
Women’s disclosure of partner abuse. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15, 251–261. doi:10.1177/088626000015003002
Edwards, K., Dardis, C., & Gidycz, C. A. (2012). Women’s disclosure
of dating violence: A mixed methodological study. Feminism &
Psychology, 22, 507–517. doi:10.1177/0959353511422280
Fanslow, J. L., & Robinson, E. M. (2010). Help-seeking behaviors
and reasons for help seeking reported by a representative sample
of women victims of intimate partner violence in New Zealand.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 929–951. doi:10.1177/
0886260509336963
Fanslow, J. L., & Robinson, E. M. (2011). Sticks, Stones, or Words?
Counting the prevalence of different types of intimate partner violence reported by New Zealand women. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 741–759. doi:10.1080/10926771.
2011.608221
Flicker, S. M., Cerulli, C., Zhao, X., Tang, W., Watts, A., Xia, Y., &
Talbot, N. L. (2011). Concomitant forms of abuse and help-seeking
behavior among White, African American, and Latina women who
experience intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 17,
1067–1085. doi:10.1177/1077801211414846
Fortin, I., Guay, S., Lavoie, V., Boisvert, J.-M., & Beaudry, M.
(2012). Intimate partner violence and psychological distress
among young couples: Analysis of the moderating effect of social
support. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 63–73. doi:10.1007/
s10896-011-9402-4
Gondolf, E. W., & Fisher, E. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors:
An alternative to treating learned helplessness. Toronto, Canada:
Lexington Books.
Goodkind, J. R., Gillum, T. L., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M. (2003).
The impact of family and friends’ reactions on the well-being of
20
women with abusive partners. Violence Against Women, 9,
347–373. doi:10.1177/1077801202250083
Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L.
L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex
romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health,
91, 1679–1685.
Jackson, S. M., Cram, F., & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and
sexual coercion in high school students’ dating relationships. Journal
of Family Violence, 15, 23–36. doi:10.1023/A:10075455302987
Kaukinen, C. (2004). The help-seeking strategies of female violentcrime victims: The direct conditional effects of race and the
victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
19, 967–990. doi:10.1177/0886260504268000
Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001).
Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the
United States: Results from the national comorbidity survey.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 487–508.
Kim, J. Y., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Factors influencing help-seeking
behavior among battered Korean women in intimate relationships.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2991–3012. doi:10.1177/
0886260510390946
Klein, R. (2004). Sickening relationships: Gender-based violence,
women’s health, and the role of informal third parties. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 149–165. doi:10.1177/
0265407504039842
Latta, R. E., & Goodman, L. A. (2011). Intervening in partner violence
against women: A grounded theory exploration of informal network members’ experiences. The Counseling Psychologist, 39,
973–1023. doi:10.1177/0011000011398504
Lempert, L. B. (1997). The other side of help: Negative effects in the
help-seeking processes of abused women. Qualitative Sociology,
20, 289–309. doi:10.1023/A:1024769920112
Leone, J. M., Johnson, M. P., & Cohan, C. L. (2007). Victim help seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple
violence. Family Relations, 56, 427–439. doi:10.1007/s10464-0056233-6
Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. S., von Eye, A.,
& Davidson, II W. S. (2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic violence. American Journal of Community Psychology,
34, 95–109. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040149.58847.10
Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical
review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21,
105–127. doi:0272-7358/01
Liang, B., Goodman, L., Tummala-Narra, P., & Weintraub, S. (2005).
A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes
among survivors of intimate partner violence. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 36, 71–84.
Mahlstedt, D., & Keeny, L. (1993). Female survivors of dating violence
and their social networks. Feminism & Psychology, 3, 319–333.
McClennen, J. C., Summers, A. B., & Vaughan, C. (2002). Gay men’s
domestic violence: Dynamics, help-seeking behaviors, and
correlates. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14, 23–49.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a
social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 15(1)
Merrill, G. S., & Wolfe, V. A. (2000). Battered gay men: An exploration of abuse, help-seeking, and why they stay. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 1–30.
Miller, L. M. (2011). Physical abuse in a college setting: A study of
perceptions and participation in abusive dating relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 26, 71–80. doi:10.1007/s10896010-9344-2
Mitchell, R. E., & Hodson, C. A. (1983). Coping with domestic violence: Social support and psychological health among battered
women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 629–654.
Moe, A. M. (2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered
women’s help seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676–699.
Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in
adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4, 180–194.
Paquin, G. W. (1994). A statewide survey of reactions to neighbors’
domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 493–502.
Perry, A. R., & Fromuth, M. E. (2005). Courtship violence using
couple data: Characteristics and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1078–1095. doi:10.1177/0886260505278106
Plichta, S. B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19, 1296–1323. doi:10.1177/0886260504269685
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical
approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, IL: Krieger Publishing Company
Renzetti, C. M. (1988). Violence in lesbian relationships: A preliminary
analysis of causal factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3,
381–399. doi:10.1177/088626088003004003
Renzetti, C. M. (1989). Building a second closet: Third party
responses to victims of lesbian partner abuse. Family Relations,
38, 157–163.
Rizo, C. F., & Macy, R. J. (2011). Help seeking and barriers of
Hispanic partner violence survivors: A systematic review of the
literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 250–264.
Rose, L. E., Campbell, J., & Kub, J. (2000). The role of social support
and family relationships in women’s responses to battering. Health
Care for Women International, 21, 27–39.
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by
male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and
Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275. Doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.
2007.10.004
Straus, M. A., & Sweet, S. (1992). Verbal/symbolic aggression in
coupls: Incidence rates and relationships to personal characteristics. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 346–357.
Swanberg, J. E., & Macke, C. (2006). Intimate partner violence and
the workplace: Consequences and disclosure. Affilia, 21,
391–406. doi:10.1177/0886109906292133
Testa, M., Hoffman, J. H., & Leonard, K. E. (2011). Female intimate
partner violence perpetration: Stability and predictors of mutual
and nonmutual aggression across the first year of college. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 362–373.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of
male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence
Against Women, 6, 142–161. doi:10.1177/10778010022181769
Sylaska and Edwards
Trotter, J. L., & Allen, N. E. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly:
Domestic violence survivors’ experiences with their informal
sources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43,
221–231. doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9232-1
Turell, S. C., & Herrmann, M. M. (2008). ‘‘Family’’ support for family
violence: Exploring community support systems for lesbian and
bisexual women who have experiences abuse. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 12, 211–224. doi:10.1080/10894160802161372
Ullman, S. E. (1999). Social support and recovery from sexual assault:
A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 343–358. doi:10.
1016/S1359-1789-98
Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to
survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Vatnar, S. K. B., & Bjorkly, S. (2008). An interactional perspective of
intimate partner violence: An in-depth semi-structured interview of
a representative sample of help-seeking women. Journal of Family
Violence, 23, 265–279. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9150-7
Walters, M. L. (2011). Straighten up and at like a lady: A qualitative
study of lesbian survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of
Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23, 250–270. doi:10.1080/
10538720.2011.559148
Watson, J. M., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leak, S., & O’Leary, K. D.
(2001). High school students’ responses to dating aggression.
Violence & Victims, 16, 339–348.
Weisz, A. N., Tolman, R. M., Callahan, M. R., Saunders, D. G., &
Black, B. M. (2007). Informal helpers’ responses when adolescents
tell them about dating violence or romantic relationship problems.
21
Journal of Adolescence, 30, 853–868. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.
2006.09.004
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.
Yoshioka, M. R., Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., & Baig-Amin, M. (2003).
Social support and disclosure of abuse: Comparing South Asian,
African American, and Hispanic battered women. Journal of
Family Violence, 18, 171–180. doi:0885-7482/03/0600-0171/0
Author Biographies
Kateryna M. Sylaska, MA, is a graduate student in social psychology
at the University of New Hampshire. Her primary research interests
include informal social supports’ responses to intimate partner violence, factors associated with disclosure of partner violence, and the
intersection of norms regarding gender and sexuality in the perception
of and responses to partner violence.
Katie M. Edwards, PhD, is an assistant professor of psychology and
women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire. She received her
doctorate in clinical psychology from Ohio University. Her major
research interests include the predictors and correlates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and perpetration, leaving processes in
relationships characterized by IPV, disclosure of IPV experiences and
social reactions to these disclosures, and ethics of IPV research. She
is committed to using research to inform legislative action and promote
social change.