It’s (Not) Over: Relationship Instability and Recovery Between Victims and Detained Domestic Abusers

Abstract

We used an innovative data set involving audio-recorded conversations between abusers and victims to explore the interactional patterns that occur within violent relationships, following severe violence and the abuser’s detainment. Using micro-level conversational data, our analysis sequenced the hopes/desires that victims and abusers expressed around their expectations for continuing or discontinuing a connection with each other. Conversations commonly included an expressed statement to end the relationship. Although it was common for both victims and abusers to express hope of ending the relationship, victims were most likely to initiate this desire. In response, abusers used multiple strategies to regain connection, including 1) challenging the victim, 2) declaring love or a desire to continue the relationship, 3) appealing for sympathy or help from the victim, and 4) mirroring or accepting the victim’s desire to end the relationship (when other strategies were unsuccessful). Abusers’ responses served to cultivate additional conflict in the relationship while at the same time maintained communication and facilitated relationship recovery following threats of dissolution. These findings contribute to an increased theoretical understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence in the sensitive period involving the couple’s physical separation.

Keywords

domestic violence intimate partner violence family violence couple and family processes

Background

Despite increased discussions and prevention efforts in the public sphere, domestic violence remains prevalent in U.S. society, affecting approximately one in three women according to a recent report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Breiding et al., 2014). For many victims of domestic violence, the experience of abuse lasts for years (Thompson et al., 2006) and bears severely negative physical and emotional health consequences (Bhargava et al., 2011; Bonomi et al., 2009; Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2007; Campbell et al., 2003; Cokkinides, Coker, Sanderson, Addy, & Bethea, 1999). One of the most pervasive questions is “What serves to maintain these relationships once violence occurs?”

Numerous studies have attempted to explain factors associated with the continuation of violent relationships. This includes examining socioecological variables that serve as obstacles for departing from violent relationships, such as financial dependence on an abusive partner (for a review see Anderson & Saunders, 2003; Kim & Gray, 2008), poor access to social support services (Anderson & Saunders, 2003; Koepsell, Kernic, & Holt, 2006), inadequate criminal justice responses to domestic abuse, and patriarchal societal structures that contribute to power differentials among partners (for a review see Barnett, 2000). Victims’ stay or leave decisions have also been examined in relation to their level of investment or commitment in the relationship, and their perceived cost and benefit to departing (Edwards, Gidycz, & Murphy, 2011; Rhatigan & Axsom, 2006; Rusbult & Martz, 1995).

In addition to examining socioecological factors, there is also significant scholarly discussion about how the interpersonal dynamics in violent relationships serve as an extension of the abuse experience, and contribute to the continuation of violent relationships. Pence, Paymar, Ritmeester, and Shepard (1993), for example, suggest that violence is used by abusers to maintain power or control over their partners; the chronic threat of violence in these relationships serves to keep the abuser in the position of having the “upper hand.” Even when physical violence is not used, other aspects of intimidation, isolation, minimizations, coercion, and economic or emotional abuse serve to maintain the power differential in favor of the abuser (Pence et al., 1993). Stark’s well-known theory further outlines a process where assault and coercive control work together to critically “undermine a victim’s physical and psychological integrity” and entrap victims within the abuse experience (Stark, 2007, p. 5). Dutton and Goodman (2005) additionally identify four pathways that abusers use to “set the stage” for this coercive control. These include “1) creating the expectancy for negative consequences, 2) creating or exploiting the partner’s vulnerabilities, 3) wearing down the partner’s resistance, and 4) facilitating dependency” (Dutton & Goodman, 2005, p. 748).

Walker’s early theory (1979) also contributes to existing literature by identifying the reconciliation phase of the abuse experience, in which the abuser’s violent behavior may be replaced with extreme acts of kindness, expressions of love, and promises of change. Abusers are also known to minimize the severity of their violent behavior and to resist full responsibility for their actions (Scott & Straus, 2007). In addition to the “hope” that may be experienced in the periods of affection, kindness, and promises of change, these intermittent positive and negative interactions can contribute to the formation of strong emotional bonds between victims and their abusers (Dutton & Painter, 1981). In abusive relationships, however, these relationship bonds often involve elevated levels of intimacy-related anxiety (Allison, Bartholomew, Mayseless, & Dutton, 2008; Bond & Bond, 2004; Henderson, Bartholomew, Trinke, & Kwong, 2005). This can stem from a lack of secure emotional connections with key adult figures during early childhood that, in turn, create anxiety about emotional connections in adult relationships (Bowlby, 1969). This intimacy-related anxiety can prompt abusers and victims to cling to each other after a violent event and threat of relationship dissolution—even when the level of abuse is severe (Allison et al., 2008).

Although much attention is given to how relationship dynamics contribute to the abuse experience and the continuation of violent relationships, few studies have explicated the specifics of the interactional processes that occur between abusers and victims using real-time conversational data (Bonomi, Gangamma, Locke, Katafiasz, & Martin, 2011; Nemeth, Bonomi, Lee, & Ludwin, 2012). Specific explication of what happens after a violent event is, however, useful to further advance an understanding of theoretical and intervention concepts in working with abusers and victims. Examining the interactions that occur during the abuser’s detainment for severe violence is particularly important, as chronic violence is especially common among victims and couples who interact with the criminal justice system. Prior empirical studies have documented repeat calls to the police over time for severe domestic violence following an initial violent event (Bonomi, Holt, Martin, & Thompson, 2006; Houry et al., 2004). Studies have also found that police intervention and separations from violent partners do not always prevent relationship continuation, result in convictions, or deter future domestic violence (Bonomi et al., 2011; Sloan, Platt, Chepke, & Blevins, 2013). While distance from abusers may help some victims feel safe (Dichter & Gelles, 2012), the physical separation during legal detainment can also be a time of great anxiety for both victims and abusers (Gangamma & Bonomi, 2010), and contact between partners during this time can not only contribute to a continuation of the relationship, but also involve a coercive process in which the abuser elicits the victim’s help to obtain release from detainment (Bonomi et al., 2011).

The present analysis seeks to advance an understanding of the interactional patterns that occur during this fragile relationship period by undertaking the field’s first study using audio-recorded conversations between victims and their detained abusers—conversations that were unimpeded by a study interviewer or experimental study conditions—to explicate how hopes of sustaining a connection or discontinuing the relationship are exchanged and cultivated in real time. Examining the hopes expressed between abusers and victims—that is, the expectations they have for continuing or discontinuing a connection with each other—is critical for exemplifying how violent relationships are maintained following the abuser’s detainment. These findings contribute to an increased theoretical understanding of the interpersonal dynamics within violent intimate relationships, and are useful for researchers and practitioners working directly with abusers, victims, and couples entrenched in abusive dynamics, especially those presently interacting with the legal system.

Method

Study procedures were approved by The Ohio State University’s institutional review board (IRB). Audio-recorded telephone conversations from 17 heterosexual couples, during the abuser’s detainment for felony-level domestic violence at a state detention facility, were used. Within this sample, the pending criminal charges included assault, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, strangulation, or threats to kill. All but one of the couples within our sample involved chronically violent relations, including repeat court and police incidents. Information about each subject’s age, relationship status/duration, and socioeconomic status was not available. For the 12 couples where race data were available, over half (58.3%) included diverse racial/ethnic members—two couples involved African American partners and five relationships involved partners of differing races. Although socioeconomic information was not formally available for each couple, it was common for couples to discuss financial struggles relating to their basic needs. The sample of 17 couples was sufficient to achieve data saturation, the goal of qualitative research, where no new themes were identified in the conversations (Giacomini & Cook, 2000).

The detention facility records all calls made by detainees; this practice was upheld in a state Supreme Court decision (State v. Modica, 2008). Tapes of conversations between abusers and victims were provided to our study team for analysis by the prosecuting attorney’s office, which has the authority to release the audio-tapes for research purposes (Bonomi et al., 2011). Prosecutors identified intimate partner violence (IPV) cases and audio-tapes that were able to be located were provided to the study team for analysis. Calls made from the detention facility are subject to public disclosure laws—All cases had undergone prosecution and sentencing, and the audio-tapes had already been used in the adjudication process; under this, our institution’s IRB deemed that the subjects were not required to give informed consent.

Our grounded theory analysis, which concentrated on exemplifying the interactional patterns surrounding threats of relationship dissolution, occurred as follows. We began with the lexical definition of hope —“a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen” or a “want (for) something to happen or be the case” (Hope, 2010) —to examine the hopes/desires victims and abusers expressed around their expectations of continuing or discontinuing a relationship with each other. Using the lexical definition of hope, the first author and study’s coinvestigator (ML) iteratively listened to audio-taped conversations, recorded hopes expressed by victims and abusers, and wrote narrative summaries for each couple. Bimonthly meetings occurred during this time and after in-depth examination of the narrative summaries, a coding scheme was devised, which comprised 15 categories of hope and supporting exemplars.

To ensure consistency in interpretation, the first author then led a team of four coders in double-coding and sequencing the hopes expressed in the first two conversations for each of the 17 couples (about 20-30 min of conversation per couple). After double-coding each couple’s first two conversations, each of the coders coded and sequenced the conversations of four to six couples independently; this amounted to 40 to 140 min of conversation for each couple. The data were then organized into spreadsheets in preparation for further analysis.

Early analysis began by examining the sequence of hopes for two or three couples, as organized by conversation, in an open manner, to identify potential interactional patterns surrounding threats of dissolution (Charmaz, 2006). This included incident-to-incident comparisons (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of specific hopes expressed between victims and abusers where each occurrence of a specific hope was compared with previous occurrences. For example, every time a victim or abuser expressed hope of ending the relationship, the incident was compared with previous expressions to begin to conceptualize the interactional patterns surrounding the hope of ending the relationship. Emergent interactional patterns were then examined in the conversations of additional couples, within the sample, to determine their congruence with the existing conceptualization of interactional patterns (Charmaz, 2006). Once consistent patterns were identified, attention was given to the contextual factors surrounding each interactional pattern of expressed hopes. This included identifying when specific hopes were expressed, examining victims’ and abusers’ reactions to specific interactional patterns, and exploring relational or conversational outcomes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

As a key tenant of grounded theory, constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was ongoing throughout this analysis: Conceptualizations of interactional patterns and theoretical abstractions were constantly compared across conversations and couples (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Regular memo writing was also completed, beginning with the initial open coding process and continuing for the duration of analysis, to document and facilitate the constant comparison process. Corbin and Strauss (2008) define memos as “a specialized type of written records—those that contain the products of our analyses” (p. 117). For this study, early memos served to capture initial conceptualizations of interactional patterns and to document how each incident of expressed hopes either deviated from or adhered to other incidences. Coherence solidified the identification of common patterns while deviations highlighted the need for further analysis. Memo writing during the expanded coding across couples facilitated the expansion, refinement, and theoretical integration of consistent interactional patterns.

To further aid in saturation and ensure credibility, a return to the couples’ audio-recorded conversations also occurred as interactional patterns emerged and theoretical integration took place. Particular attention was given to variations that arose with consideration offered for how these variations added greater depth and insight into emergent interactional patterns or served to generate additional lines of inquiry (Charmaz, 2006). The analysis continued with the constant comparative process guiding the direction of the analysis until theoretical saturation was reached, denoted by the in-depth development of each interactional pattern’s properties, dimensions, and relation to other patterns, along with the emergence of no additional relevant interactional patterns (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). A summative table was generated to denote the prevalence of each interactional pattern (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Interactional Patterns of Relationship Instability and Recovery Between Victims and Detained Domestic Abusers.

			Abuser’s Responses to Victim’s Desire to End the Relationship					Evolution of Hopes
Couple	Number of Conversations Analyzed	Total Duration of Conversations (Minutes)	Threats of Relationship Dissolution	Challenged the Victim	Declared Love or Desire to Continue the Relationship	Appealed for Sympathy or Help	Mirrored or Accepted Victim’s Desire	Mutual Expressions of Love or Hope of Continuing the Relationship After Threats of Dissolution	Additional Threats of Dissolution After Relationship Recovery	Unresolved Conflict Throughout the Couple’s Conversations
1	4	40	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	Yes
2	9	133	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
3	5	40	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
4	10	110	A initiated	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	No	Yes
5	10	65	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
6	11	135	V initiated	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
7	6	42	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No recovery	Yes
8	12	140	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
9	9	128	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	Yes
10	7	85	A initiated	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	Yes	No
11	11	137	A initiated	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	Yes	No	Yes
12	10	98	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
13	9	124	V initiated	No	Yes	No	No	No	No recovery	No
14	6	72	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	No
15	5	55	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
16	6	48	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
17	21	95	V initiated	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes

Note. NT = no expressed threat of dissolution; A = abuser; V = victim; N/A = not applicable.

Results

The aim of our study was to explore the interactional patterns that occur within violent relationships, immediately following the abuser’s detainment—including the hopes and expectations that victims and abusers express for continuing or discontinuing a connection with each other.

Hope of Ending the Relationship

Conversations commonly included an expressed statement to end the relationship. Although it was common for both victims and abusers to express hope of ending the relationship, victims were the ones most likely to initiate this desire. Victims’ hopes of ending the relationship typically occurred 1) shortly after the abuser’s detainment, when discussing the violent event or 2) later in the couple’s conversations, in conjunction with increased arguing and relational conflict. Victims’ hopes of ending the relationship that occurred within the first or second conversation were often paired with a hope of understanding the violent event, a desire for the abuser to know the extent of her injuries, or a hope of bettering her life for herself or for her children. For example, after recently sustaining severe facial injuries from her abuser’s violent behavior, the following victim stated that she would no longer endure the chronically abusive relationship:

Hello.

What do you want?

Can we straighten this out?

No! You should see my fuckin’ face . . . You broke my fuckin’ cheek man. You should see my face; I can’t even go to work . . . Wait till you see the fuckin’ pictures of what you did to me . . . They think my cheek is broken.

(Later conversation)

(Screaming) You fucked up, big time!

(Quiet tone of voice) Yeah, I guess.

Yeah, you did. ’Cause you lost me forever. Forever. And you lost your son, forever. You should see my fucking face.

Victims’ hopes of ending the relationship, that occurred several conversations into the couple’s dialogue, were alternatively accompanied by a desire for the abuser to change, a concern for the abuser’s honesty regarding past controversial behavior (e.g., infidelity and drug use), or a desire for the abuser to take responsibility for his actions. For example:

I don’t want to spend the whole time arguing!

But you couldn’t wait (to call) until I got home to take care of the dogs and some other things! No! You have to call as I’m walking down the street. Your timing is messed up! You don’t think. You never think. You don’t ever put yourself in my shoes. Ever! I’m tired of it. I’m tired of having to spell it out for you. I’m tired of you being a grown man and not thinking, “Shit, if I can fuck her and act like she is my wife around other guys, then I can do it when I’m around my fucking friends.”

(After more arguing)

Stop! Answer my question, please. What—what’s going to happen with us?

[abuser’s name], last [Holiday], I was alone.

(Abuser interrupts) Answer my question. I’m asking a simple question.

Alone! Did you call me?

You can’t answer my question, can you?

No, I know what’s going to happen with us. We’re done!

Huh?

I don’t want to be with you.

Do what?

We are done. I do not want to be with you. You treat me like shit.

In expressing hope of ending the relationship and setting boundaries regarding how the abuser needed to change, victims invoked agency. Victims were particularly resolute in their insistence that the abuser’s violent behaviors were unwarranted and that the abuser needed to make several life changes, including changes to potentially problematic behaviors (e.g., drug or alcohol use, hanging around corrupt people, questioning the victim’s faithfulness) and augmenting potentially positive behaviors (e.g., enhancing self-control, being more respectful, and taking responsibility for his actions).

Responses to Hope of Ending the Relationship

In response to the victim’s hope of ending the relationship, abusers used a range of strategies to regain connection. As depicted in Figure 1, this included 1) challenging the victim, 2) declaring love or a desire to continue the relationship, 3) appealing for sympathy or help from the victim, and 4) mirroring or accepting the victim’s desire to end the relationship (when other strategies were unsuccessful). Collectively, these strategies served to cultivate additional conflict within the relationship, while at the same time maintained communication with the victim, and eventually facilitated relationship recovery following threats of dissolution.

Figure 1.

Interactional patterns of relationship instability and recovery between victims and detained domestic abusers.

Challenging the victim

Consistent with what is known about abusers’ tendencies to avoid accountability and to blame the victim for the abuse (Pence et al., 1993; Scott & Straus, 2007), abusers’ immediate responses to the victim’s desire to end the relationship commonly entailed challenging the victim by resisting responsibility for the relationship’s turmoil or the violent events (Segment 1). This involved the abuser expressing hope of not being blamed or hope for the victim to change her behavior. For example, after endangering the victim and their infant son, one abuser insisted that he had done nothing wrong:

I just wished you’d took me home.

Why would I take you home if you were swerving the car? . . . I didn’t want you in the car with me.

No, but why did you have to drive me to the cops?

You could have left. (Abuser tries to interject). You don’t leave me alone. You don’t understand that.

B-b-b-but I didn’t do anything.

Yah, you did.

I was just sitting in the car waiting to go home.

No. It’s not my fault, [abuser’s name].

Abusers’ desires for the victim to behave differently included requests and demands for the victim to stop listening to the opinions of others, to speak to him (the abuser) more kindly, to refrain from arguing or raising her voice, and to generally behave differently as a girlfriend or wife.

Declaring love or a desire to continue the relationship

In addition to challenging the victim, abusers also responded to the victim’s desire to end the relationship by declaring their love or desire to continue the relationship (Segment 2). For example, after one abuser broke down the door, repeatedly punched the victim, and then choked her, the victim insisted, “I’m not with you no more!” She later screamed, “Look at my fuckin’ face! You don’t fuckin’ care. You only care about your fuckin’ self!” Her abuser responded by insulting her, calling her names, and resisting blame (e.g., “You fuckin’ brought this shit on yourself!”). On the very next call, however, the abuser cried and expressed his love for the victim: “Oh my God, are you there? I love you!”

In this particular instance, the victim reciprocated her abuser’s expression of love, but with other couples, the abuser’s complex response of challenging the victim and then hedging this resistance with affection cultivated more conflict within the relationship. Victims commonly resisted the abuser’s hope for her to change or the abuser’s hope of not being blamed, for example:

Right, you don’t want me.

Well, you’re right because we—we . . . there’s no love.

Yeah, there is none because you tried to kill me, and I guess I tried to kill you. You told me to get the fuck out the car, and snatched the keys, and locked the doors. I don’t understand that.

I’m just gonna move on with my life.

(Moments later)

You know I love you still. You know I love you, but there is too much craziness . . .

Because, you wouldn’t let me go home!

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit . . . Don’t start no shit. Don’t start lyin’ on the phone.

Appealing for sympathy or help from the victim

Abusers also responded to the victim’s desire to end the relationship by expressing hope for the victim’s sympathy or help (Segment 3). Abusers evidenced growing concern that the victim’s desire to end the relationship would negatively affect the victim’s willingness to make recantation efforts, which would subsequently lengthen the abuser’s detainment. In response, abusers’ appeals for sympathy included a desire for the victim to know how much they were suffering in jail or the seriousness of their pending legal charges. For example:

You don’t understand. I am facing real prison time, real prison time. I don’t even wanna talk about it, okay. It’s gonna make me puke. It’s gonna make me start puking, okay. Alright? You think life is rough? And you think you want to kill yourself. You don’t even know what it’s like to want to kill yourself . . . I think about inhaling all of it every night.

While abusers’ hopes for the victim to change and hopes of not being blamed were commonly met with the victim’s resistance, abusers’ pleas for help and sympathy tended to be met with more supportive responses from the victim—including a willingness to look after the abuser’s possessions, a willingness to obtain information regarding the abuser’s pending charges, and a willingness to aid in the abuser’s release from detainment. Victims were often specifically willing to offer help or sympathy independent of their desires to end the relationship. As a result, abusers’ appeals for sympathy and help served to maintain the lines of communication even after the victim had expressed hope of ending the relationship. For example, after a long-term relationship with her abuser, one victim agreed to help, but she insisted that the abuser leave her and her son alone upon his release from detainment:

They’re not gonna let me out. I’m gonna lose. Please stop it. Just tell them you don’t—ya know, it wasn’t deliberate and you wanna stop the thing. Please, start—do it today, before it gets anywhere. I’m gonna be fucked for life, man. I won’t ever—if I get fired, I won’t get the license back.

(Angry tone of voice) And so what? Then—then you’re gonna leave [son’s name] and I alone, and just go on your way?

No. No.

No, no. I’m serious.

(Later in the conversation)

(Angry tone of voice) Give—just release your shit to me and I’ll go to them and I’ll talk to them.

Alright.

But I’m telling you, [abuser’s name]. I want you to go on about your business.

Mirroring or accepting the victim’s hope of ending the relationship

In addition to challenging the victim, declaring their love, or appealing for sympathy/help, it was not uncommon for abusers to eventually mirror or accept the victim’s hope of ending the relationship, while implicating the victim and resisting blame (Segment 4). For example:

You don’t threaten me like that. I take it seriously when you threaten me like that.

I don’t care if you take it seriously. When I tell you to do something, you need to listen to me, and if you don’t want to listen to me you are going to pay the consequences.

Well, and that’s—and that’s why we can’t be together.

Okay then, we don’t need to be together. If you can’t listen to me then we don’t need to be together.

What?

If you can’t listen to me then we don’t need to be together.

This abuser hung up on the victim, which also mirrored the victim’s stated desire to end the relationship. Victims’ most immediate responses to the abuser’s mirroring or acceptance was to repeat the desire to end the relationship, hope for the abuser to change, or hope of not being blamed for relationship turmoil. Shortly after this initial resistance, however, victims commonly began to pursue the relationship once more, expressing love and the desire to stay together or hope for the abuser’s reciprocation of these feelings. The following example illustrates how abusers’ multiple strategies to regain connection, including mirroring the victim’s hope of ending the relationship, contributed to the victim once again pursuing the relationship:

I will give all your stuff to him. So you know you are completely out of my life and when the baby is born, I want a blood test.

Yeah ‘cause you’re crazy.

No, you are fuckin’ crazy!

No, I’m not going for it. I told you I wasn’t goin’ for it then and I’m not going for none of that bullshit. You can’t tell me that you love me ten minutes, then ten minutes later tell me you don’t love me. I’m not with that. So that’s why you got your ass whooped in the street. Bye! (Abuser abruptly hangs up)

(Next call)

Hello.

Hello, what’s up, baby? Hey look, I know you hate me right now. I know you hate me.

You still love me?

Huh?

You love me?

Yeah. How you know?

But you think I’m crazy. You want to be done with me and everything?

Man, you’re crazy. You know you’re crazy but you still love me too though.

And you’re crazy too!

Right but . . .

We both fuckin’ crazy.

Yeah, but now you know not to be tellin’ me “No. Get out the car, we’re done.” I’m not doing that. There’s no divorce. You already know that. You’re my wife and I told everybody who you is. You’re not doin’ that. We’re not doin’ that.

Once relationship recovery took place (denoted by victims and abusers expressing hope that love was known, hope of continuing the relationship, or hope for the reciprocation of these desires), hope of ending the relationship was not likely to be expressed again in the couple’s remaining conversations. Strong adherence to the relationship and the complexities of victims’ emotions during this period were evidenced by one victim whose abuser broke her finger and strangled her until she lost consciousness; she stated, “If you truly ever loved me, and if you still love me . . . when all of this is said and done, then you look for me, and I will be here.” She later expressed:

I’ve always had feelings for you. It’s just that I had to mentally tell my brain that it was through. And I’m unable to do that now, because I’ve been through all these things with you . . . You’re my friend. You’re my lover. You’re everything. And it’s like no matter what’s happened, I’ve tried to tell myself it’s over, but I just can’t do it. Every time I turn around . . . I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I feel like somebody cast a spell on me or something . . . I used to be able to just walk away, but I can’t.

Although victims’ and abusers’ hopes of ending the relationship declined as they continued to engage in conversation with one another, conflict stemming from the mutual hopes of not being blamed and hopes for partner change was never fully resolved. These hopes persisted for the duration of the couples’ conversations.

Discussion

The interactional patterns that emerged from conversations between victims and abusers not only support existing literature, but also substantially contribute to existing literature through the development of a substantive theory regarding how interactional processes unfold following partner detainment for felony-level violence. Our findings specifically identified the dynamic, interpersonal processes through which communication is maintained between victims and abusers, relationship recovery occurs following threats of dissolution, and relational conflict persists following a severe violent event. These findings provide critical insight into the complex experience of partners immediately following the abuser’s detainment for felony-level violence. Particularly noteworthy are the step-by-step strategies that detained abusers use to re-establish connection following threats of relationship dissolution. We found that abusers’ dynamic responses to the victim’s hope of ending the relationship included 1) challenging the victim, 2) declaring love or a desire to continue the relationship, 3) appealing for sympathy or help from the victim, and 4) mirroring or accepting the victim’s desire to end the relationship (when other strategies were unsuccessful).

As expected, abusers’ expressions of love are consistent with Walker’s (1979) conceptualization of the reconciliation phase following a violent event, in which the abuser’s violent behavior is replaced with acts of kindness and expressions of love. Abusers’ resistance to responsibility is also supported by existing literature (Pence et al., 1993; Scott & Straus, 2007), which suggests that minimizations are one of several tactics employed by abusers in an effort to regain power and control within the relationship. Our findings expand upon and offer nuances within these conceptualizations of the reconciliation period, however, by noting that abusers’ complex responses of challenging the victim and expressing love actually created additional conflict within the relationship. Victims evidenced resistance to the abuser’s efforts to evade responsibility and the abuser’s attempts to displace blame onto the victim.

Victims, however, were less resistant to the abuser’s requests for sympathy or help. In fact, victims tended to provide support even if they expressed a desire to end the relationship. This is consistent with existing literature, which has noted that abusers’ appeals for sympathy and use of minimizations serve as pivotal, interpersonal pathways to victim recantation (Bonomi et al., 2011). Our findings advance existing literature by noting that abusers’ appeals for sympathy and help also contribute to ongoing communication after threats of dissolution, and this sustained communication provides a critical window for relationship recovery to occur.

In addition to challenging the victim, expressing love or a desire to continue the relationship, and appealing for sympathy or help, abusers also mirrored or accepted the victim’s desire to end the relationship. Mirroring or accepting the victim’s hope of ending the relationship was particularly influential in prompting relationship recovery (i.e., victims and abusers returning to expressions of love) when other strategies were unsuccessful. Within an emotional attachment framework, Allison and colleagues (2008) suggest that victims and abusers use both pursuit and distancing strategies within their relationships to gain personally desired levels of intimacy or closeness and to subsequently regulate their own intimacy-related anxiety. In our sample, abusers’ mirroring or accepting the victim’s desire to end the relationship may have appeared as a distancing tactic, but it alternatively served as an additional pursuit strategy that was successful in regaining a connection with the victim—a “pursuit disguised as distancing” dynamic that has been documented (Gangamma & Bonomi, 2010). Within the coercive control framework (Stark, 2007), abusers’ facilitation of this emotional connection or reconnection with the victim is critical in perpetuating the relationship and the continuation of abuse (Dutton & Goodman, 2005).

We found that once relationship recovery occurred, it was unlikely for victims or abusers to express hope of ending the relationship again for the remainder of their conversations. This strong adherence and commitment to the violent relationship aligns with Dutton and Painter’s (1981) theory of traumatic bonding; Dutton’s theory postulates that strong interpersonal bonds are formed in violent relationships through intermittent periods of positive and negative interactions. Bartle and Rosen (1994) further suggest that interpersonal fusion in violent relationships—characterized by lack of separateness between victims and abusers—may contribute not only to the desire to remain together, but also to the recurring use of violence to manage intimacy within the relationship, when desired levels of closeness or distance are not achieved. Specifically, Bartle and Rosen (1994) describe that “when trapped within the cycle of violence, partners intermittently experience both intense closeness and distance, regulating the boundaries in the relationship so that neither partner is threatened by too much closeness or too much distance” (p. 229).

Although the hope of ending the relationship diminished as couples continued to engage in conversations together, the conflict stemming from victims’ and abusers’ mutual hopes of not being blamed and hopes for partner change was never fully resolved. This is consistent with the literature, which finds a high prevalence of unresolved conflict within violent relationships (Feldman & Ridley, 2000). Namely, Feldman and Ridley (2000) found a tendency for victims and abusers to feel dissatisfied, withdrawn, or hopeless following relationship turmoil.

While our findings are supported by existing literature, our study is not without limitations. First, although our unique data set afforded an in-depth, micro-level examination of abusers’ and victims’ interactions, we were unable to probe further through direct interviews about the nature of abusers’ and victims’ desires for their relationship—such as the meaning and intentions behind their statements and whether there were other factors driving the conversations, including structural factors (e.g., concerns about finances, children, lack of legal consequences) known to be important barriers in ending abusive relationships (for a review, see Anderson & Saunders, 2003; Barnett, 2000; Koepsell et al., 2006). Second, the fact that abusers and victims knew they were being recorded could have constrained their conversations, including influencing them to withhold certain types of statements (e.g., verbal threats) and emotions. At the same time, our analysis showed that couples engaged in in-depth, emotionally charged conversations despite knowledge of standard audio-recording practices. Third, while our study lends insight into the hopes expressed in abusive relationships during the abuser’s detainment for felony-level violence, it is unclear if these patterns would be similar or different in other types of violent relationships (e.g., same-sex relationships or relationships that involve female perpetrators) and within different contextual settings. We acknowledge, for example, that interactional patterns may differ within couples who are interacting face-to-face or for those that are not facing the abuser’s arraignment. More specifically, in our jail sample the emotional connection between abusers and victims may be more tenuous due to the couple’s physical separation, the couple’s ability to connect mainly by telephone (not face-to-face), and the abuser’s pending arraignment. It is therefore plausible that couples in our study used more nuanced strategies to preserve the tenuous connection with each other than couples who have the means to interact face-to-face. To fully answer this question, a comparative study would need to be undertaken where interactional patterns are studied across contextual settings (e.g., a study comparing violent couples interacting through jail calls versus those interacting face-to-face or without the pressure of criminal justice involvement); with this said, comparative studies of this type would be nearly impossible to carry out for safety reasons.

In summary, our in-depth examination of conversations between victims and abusers advances an understanding of the nuanced interactions that unfold following an abuser’s detainment, particularly those interactions aimed at facilitating an emotional reconnection and those that contribute to ongoing conflict within these relationships. Our findings can be used to support work with victims by providing clinicians and advocates additional insight into the complexity of abused women’s hopes, the desires expressed by their abuser, and the coercive dynamics that unfold and contribute to the continuation of the relationship. Our findings may specifically support formal processes to help victims and abusers locate themselves within, or become conscious of, the processes that contribute to ongoing conflict, communication, and relationship recovery following an abuser’s detainment for a severe violent event. These findings may also help law enforcement agents and those working within the legal system to gain a greater understanding of the interactional patterns that occur during the period of detainment—which perpetuate the violent relationship and contribute to the victim’s willingness to provide support for the abuser. Finally, the findings presented here help advance theory on the complex interpersonal dynamics that serve to maintain violent relationships by identifying the step-by-step strategies that abusers use during detainment to re-establish connection following threats of relationship dissolution.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Julia Sweeney, Stephanie Blatnik, and Sara Schiavone for their personal assistance. We also thank prosecuting attorney, David Martin, for his ongoing support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was supported, in part, by funding provided from the Criminal Justice Research Center of The Ohio State University (Columbus, OH, USA) and the Group Health Foundation (Seattle, WA, USA).

Author Biographies

Christin L. Carotta, PhD, MEd, is an assistant professor at the Department of Counseling and Human Development at South Dakota State University and a member of the Research Consortium on Gender-based Violence at Michigan State University

Amy E. Bonomi, PhD, MPH, is professor and chair of the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Michigan State University and core faculty member of the Research Consortium on Gender-based Violence at Michigan State University.

Meghan A. Lee, MC, MA, earned a master’s in human development from The Ohio State University and a master’s in counseling from Arizona State University, and currently does prevention work with children.

Lynsey A. Terrell, BS psychology, is an MPH graduate student at Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health.

References

Allison

C. J.

Bartholomew

Mayseless

Dutton

D. G.

(2008). Love as a battlefield: Attachment and relationship dynamics in couples identified for male partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 125-150.

Anderson

D. K.

Saunders

D. G.

(2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 163-191.

Barnett

O. W.

(2000). Why battered women do not leave, Part 1: External inhibiting factors within society. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 343-372.

Bartle

S. E.

Rosen

(1994). Individuation and relationship violence. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 222-236.

Bhargava

Temkin

T. L.

Fireman

B. H.

Eaton

McCaw

B. R.

Kotz

K. J.

Amaral

(2011). A predictive model to help identify intimate partner violence based on diagnoses and phone calls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41, 129-135.

Bond

S. B.

Bond

(2004). Attachment styles and violence within couples. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192, 857-863.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Reid

R. J.

Rivara

F. P.

Carrell

Thompson

R. S.

(2009). Medical and psychosocial diagnoses in women with a history of intimate partner violence. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169, 1692-1697.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Rivara

F. P.

Thompson

R. S.

(2007). Health outcomes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence exposure. Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 987-997.

Bonomi

A. E.

Gangamma

Locke

C. R.

Katafiasz

Martin

(2011). “Meet me at the hill where we used to park”: Interpersonal processes associated with victim recantation. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 1054-1061.

10.

Bonomi

A. E.

Holt

V. L.

Martin

D. P.

Thompson

R. S.

(2006). Severity of intimate partner violence and occurrence and frequency of police calls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1354-1364.

11.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London, England: Hogarth.

12.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization-National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries (Washington, DC: 2002), 63, 1-18.

13.

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

Koziol-McLain

Block

Campbell

Curry

M. A.

Laughon

(2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1097.

14.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: SAGE.

15.

Cokkinides

V. E.

Coker

A. L.

Sanderson

Addy

Bethea

(1999). Physical violence during pregnancy: Maternal complications and birth outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 93, 661-666.

16.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Dichter

M. E.

Gelles

R. J.

(2012). Women’s perceptions of safety and risk following police intervention for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 44-63.

18.

Dutton

D. G.

Painter

(1981). Traumatic bonding: The development of emotional attachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent abuse. Victimology, 6, 139-155.

19.

Dutton

M. A.

Goodman

L. A.

(2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-756.

20.

Edwards

K. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

Murphy

M. J.

(2011). College women’s stay/leave decisions in abusive dating relationships: A prospective analysis of an expanded investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1446-1462.

21.

Feldman

C. M.

Ridley

C. A.

(2000). The role of conflict-based communication responses and outcomes in male domestic violence toward female partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 552-573.

22.

Gangamma

Bonomi

(2010, October 7). Developing a systemic interpretation of couple-level data. Oral Presentation at Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

23.

Giacomini

M. K.

Cook

D. J.

(2000). Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 357-362.

24.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

25.

Henderson

A. J. Z.

Bartholomew

Trinke

S. J.

Kwong

M. J.

(2005). When loving means hurting: An exploration of attachment and intimate abuse in a community sample. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 219-230.

26.

Hope. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hope

27.

Houry

Parramore

Fayard

Thorn

Heron

Kellermann

(2004). Characteristics of household addresses that repeatedly contact 911 to report intimate partner violence. Academic Emergency Medicine, 11, 662-667.

28.

Kim

Gray

K. A.

(2008). Leave or stay? Battered women’s decision after intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1465-1482.

29.

Koepsell

J. K.

Kernic

M. A.

Holt

V. L.

(2006). Factors that influence battered women to leave their abusive relationships. Violence and Victims, 21, 131-147.

30.

Nemeth

J. M.

Bonomi

A. E.

Lee

M. A.

Ludwin

J. M.

(2012). Sexual infidelity as trigger for intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 21, 942-949.

31.

Pence

Paymar

Ritmeester

Shepard

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer.

32.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Axsom

D. K.

(2006). Using the investment model to understand battered women’s commitment to abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 153-162.

33.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

(1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of non-voluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558-571.

34.

Scott

Straus

(2007). Denial, minimization, partner blaming, and intimate aggression in dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 851-871.

35.

Sloan

Platt

Chepke

Blevins

(2013). Deterring domestic violence: Do criminal sanctions reduce repeat offenses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46, 51-80.

36.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

37.

State v. Modica: 164 Wash.2d. 186 P. 3d 1062, Wash. July 10, 2008, No. 79767-6.

38.

Thompson

R. S.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Dimer

J. A.

Carrell

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence: Prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 447-457.

39.

Walker

L. E.

(1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.