Intimate Partner Violence Dynamics and Help Seeking Among Mexican Women: Results From a 2016 National Household Survey

Abstract

Using the recent 2016 National Survey on Household Dynamics (N = 98,768 heterosexual Mexican women currently married, cohabiting, separated, divorced, or dating with a noncohabiting partner), this study has three objectives: first, to assess the prevalence of different intimate partner violence (IPV) dynamics, including situational couple’s violence (SCV), intimate terrorism (IT), and violent resistance (VR); second, to empirically operationalize VR; and, third, to study women’s help-seeking behaviors in public institutions, whether these are associated with violent dynamics and the type of responses offered by public institutions. Descriptive and multivariate logistic analyses show that, in the year prior to the survey, 5.8% of women experienced SCV, 1.2% IT and 0.6% VR. SCV is the most prevalent, but separated and divorced women are involved in IT and VR to a greater extent. Only 8.3% of females involved in IPV sought formal help from public institutions. Help seeking from public institutions is contingent upon violent dynamics and sociodemographic characteristics. Law enforcement and public security institutions fail to accept all IPV complaints and investigate them (especially in the case of VR), perhaps because women who seek help do not meet the social representation of battered women. The need to educate civil servants and service providers on the different dynamics of IPV, and recommendations for guaranteeing women greater access to public institutions that might be instrumental in putting an end to the violence are discussed in the Mexican context.

Keywords

domestic violence violent resistance law-enforcement disclosure of domestic violence coercive control intimate terrorism

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is irrefutably an extended social and public health problem (World Health Organization [WHO], 2014). Bolt et al. (2019) show that worldwide statistics reveal that one out of three women has experienced at least one incident of IPV; in some Latin American countries, that percentage reaches 58%. Most extreme cases, those in which physical and/or sexual IPV is imbedded in generalized coercive control, are more likely to lead to severe health consequences for women and even to their death (H. Johnson et al., 2019; Myhill, 2015).

In Mexico, most published research on IPV, with few exceptions (Esquivel-Santoveña et al., 2016, 2017; Ramos-Lira & Saltijeral-Méndez, 2008), tends either not to differentiate among different dynamics of IPV or to study physical, emotional, controlling, and sexual experiences of IPV separately (i.e., Casique & Castro, 2018; Rivera-Rivera et al., 2004). In 1995, Michael P. Johnson (1995, 2006) differentiated among intimate terrorism (IT) and situational couple’s violence (SCV; early on termed common couple violence; M. P. Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). IT is rooted in a generalized pattern of control and patriarchal family traditions in which men are most often the perpetrators. It is defined “by the attempt to dominate one’s partner and to exert general control over the relationship, domination that is manifested in the use of a wide range of power and control tactics, including violence” (M. P. Johnson & Leone, 2005, p. 323). The violence might be of a sexual and/or physical nature, and controlling tactics include, among others, “economic abuse, emotional abuse, the use of children, threats and intimidation, invocation of male privilege, constant monitoring, blaming the victim, threats to report to immigration authorities or threats to out a person to work or family” (M. P. Johnson, 2011, p. 290). According to this author, SCV is the most prevalent form of IPV and tends to be bidirectional, both men and women can be perpetrators (SCV), and it takes place when conflicts escalate into aggression that becomes violent.

He also included two additional violent dynamics: violent resistance (VR) and mutual violent control (MVC). VR is violence used in response to IT regardless of whether it occurs in self-defense or not, and MVC control refers to “controlling violence in a relationship in which both spouses are violent and controlling” (M. P. Johnson, 2006, p. 1010). Later, he expanded this typology to include familial IT “that involves the complicity of multiple members of the family in controlling women through a combination of violent and nonviolent tactics” (M. P. Johnson, 2017, p. 158). This definition fits the case of Mexico because it is a collectivistic familistic society (Frías & Agoff, 2015) in which (due to residency patterns) most couples tend to establish their first residency with the men’s parents or other male’s relatives (42% of women, own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH [Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares]).

Using the recent 2016 National Survey on Household Dynamics (ENDIREH; National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics [INEGI], 2017), this study examines the complexity of IPV dynamics (IT, SVC, and VR) among heterosexual Mexican women during the last year, their help-seeking behaviors and reasons for not seeking help, and whether turning to public agencies and the type of responses offered by public institutions are associated with the type of violent IPV dynamic experienced.

These goals are of empirical and/or methodological relevance for advancing current knowledge and informing practitioners interventions and public policy efforts for at least several reasons. First, previous studies in Mexico have not examined the association between different types of violent dynamics and help-seeking behaviors (Casique & Castro, 2018; Frías, 2013). Second, methodologically, to my knowledge, this may be the first time that VR is operationalized and examined in a nationally representative household survey. Most research only differentiates between SCV and IT (Anderson, 2008; Bubriski-McKenzie & Jasinski, 2013; Frye et al., 2006; Jasinski et al., 2014; M. P. Johnson et al., 2014; Laroche, 2005; Leone et al., 2004). Therefore, little is known about female violent resistors and the controlling tactics used against them. There are a few empirical studies on violent resistors, but none of them use national probabilistic samples (Frankland & Brown, 2014; M. P. Johnson, 1999). Third, more information is needed about the help-seeking behaviors of females in IPV dynamics, especially in those with a higher lethal potential (IT and VR). This is relevant because qualitative studies have shown that women in VR dynamics are seen by both service providers and themselves as less deserving of assistance because they do not fulfill the true victim stereotype (López, 2018; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013; Swan & Sullivan, 2009). Fourth, it includes an additional step—often missing in the current literature on IPV and help seeking—the response of public agencies upon women’s request for help (see Barrett et al., 2020; Barrett & St Pierre, 2011; Frías, 2013; Leone et al., 2014). This is of special relevance in Mexico because public security and law enforcement agencies have been extensively criticized for revictimizing women when they dismiss their requests for help and do not offer an effective protection against IPV, which has led in many cases to their death (Castañeda Salgado et al., 2013; Frías & Agoff, 2015; Torreblanca & Merino, 2017).

The underlying hypothesis in this study is that potentially lethal IPV dynamics (VR and IT) are associated with women being more prone to seek help in public institutions. However, public institutions are more likely to provide help and initiate an investigation in those cases in which IPV dynamics conform to the current and traditional social representation of IPV in which female victims of IPV are seen as passive and helpless. Therefore, women in SCV and VR would be less deserving of assistance.

Studies on the Prevalence of Women’s Involvement in IPV Dynamics and Help Seeking

Existing studies regarding help seeking in the event of IPV in Mexico are scarce and have not differentiated between IPV dynamics. They have found, however, that victims of severe physical IPV and those who experienced a combination of sexual violence and any type of physical violence are more likely to seek help from government agencies (Frías, 2013). Research conducted in other settings has also found that the experience of severe physical or sexual abuse, violence involving a weapon, and fearing for one’s life increases the likelihood of seeking help (Barrett & St Pierre, 2011; Goodson & Hayes, 2018; Leonardsson & San Sebastian, 2017; Sabina, 2011).

Studies on IPV dynamics reveal that female victims of IT are more likely to seek formal help than those in SCV dynamics (70% vs. 44%) during the year following a violent incident (Leone et al., 2007, 2014) and are more likely to seek medical assistance (Leone et al., 2004). Women in SCV, compared with those in IT, were more likely to report that they did not seek help from police, medical services, and/or specialized agencies because they considered it was not needed. IT victims tend not to approach these services due to fear of further abuse (Leone et al., 2014). Similarly, Myhill (2015) found that England and Wales’ male and female victims of coercive control were not only more likely to seek formal help, but also to request support from a higher number of agencies than noncoercive controlled victims. Other studies found no association between the level of control and women’s help seeking in official agencies and/or in social and family networks (Bates & Graham-Kevan, 2016).

Most research examining the help-seeking patterns of female victims of IPV and associated factors do not tend to differentiate among types of violent dynamics (see comprehensive review in Lelaurain et al., 2017). This is problematic because most IPV found in surveys is SCV and failing to differentiate between IPV dynamics “likely dilutes the dangerousness of IT and fails to give an accurate voice to the fear often reported by IT victims” (Leone et al., 2014, p. 1854). Moreover, it also fails to acknowledge the violence context in which active, passive, collective, and individual help-seeking strategies are taken. The reasons women do not seek help vary by type of IPV; a higher percentage of women in SCV contended that they did not seek formal help because it was not needed (Leone et al., 2014).

Method: Data, Variables, and Analytical Strategy

Data and Sample

The data for this study are drawn from the 2016 ENDIREH, a Mexican household nationally representative survey that collected extensive information on different forms of violence against women in different spheres—including IPV—and on attitudes and reactions toward the violence experienced; it is the most complete and recent source of information about women’s experiences of gender-based violence. First conducted in 2003, the 2016 ENDIREH is the fourth cross-sectional longitudinal survey carried out by INEGI, a governmental institution responsible of the Mexican census, surveys, and administrative records.

The 2016 ENDIREH is representative of each of the 32 states of Mexico and its questionnaire was administered through a face-to-face interview to 111,256 women, whose demographics have been presented elsewhere (Castro, 2019).¹ The analyses presented here are based on heterosexual women 15 years and older regardless of whether they were married, divorced, separated, or single without a cohabiting partner in the previous year (N = 98,768). Women whose partner’s death occurred more than a year ago and those who had never been in a romantic relationship were excluded from the analyses (n = 5,247).

Dependent Variables

The dependent variable, violent dynamics occurring during the previous year, has four categories: (a) no violence, (b) SCV, (c) IT, and (d) VR. This variable is based on Johnson’s (2011) conceptualization and is the combination of two different variables in which both the severity of physical and/or sexual violence and the level of coercive control are considered. A woman was considered a victim of physical and/or sexual violence if she suffered at least one of the following acts of physical or sexual violence in the previous year by her partner or former partner: being (a) pushed or having hair pulled out; (b) tied up; (c) having something thrown at her; (d) kicked; (e) slapped, punched, and beaten with hands, fists, or an object; (f) choked; (g) cut with a knife; (h) shot at with a firearm; (i) forced to have sex against her will; (j) forced to have any sexual activity against her will; (k) forced to have sex under threat of physical violence; and (l) forced to watch porn or sexual images or scenes (Cronbach’s α = .83). The variable victim of physical or sexual violence served as a basis for creating another measure aimed at capturing severity: severe physical and/or sexual violence if the woman was hit with an object or a fist; suffered a suffocation attempt; was hurt with a knife, machete, or pocket knife; was shot with a firearm; or was being forced to have sex under threat of physical violence.

Men’s controlling behaviors over women are measured using a scale of nonviolent control tactics. Given the different nature of each controlling behavior and the potential consequences for women’s health, life, and opportunities, I considered the frequency at which women experienced them. The prevalence of 13 items identified to measure control are shown in Table 1. A reliability analysis of these items shows alpha values of .82 for currently married or cohabiting women and .86 for separated or divorced women. 13.2% of the women experienced at least one controlling behavior during the previous year (Cronbach’s α = .84).

Table 1.

Control Tactics Employed by Males Against Their Female Partners, Frequency and Prevalence (in Percentages).

Frequency of Control Tactic	Prevalence
One or more times he
Threatened you with a weapon	0.3
Threatened to kill himself, you, or your children	1.1
Frightened you	3.7
Forbade you to work or study	2.8
Few or many times he
Threatened to leave you, take the children away from you, or kick you out of the home	5.0
Locked you up or forbade you to leave the house	1.2
Stalked, followed, or spied on you	1.7
Called or texted you all the time to know where you were or what you were doing	5.0
Destroyed your belongings, hid or threw away your personal or your house’s possessions	1.2
Checked your email or cell phone and required your passwords or pin numbers	3.9
Many times he
Humiliated, shamed, or looked down on you	1.1
Ignored you or did not take you into consideration	1.7
Told you that you are unfaithful	1.7
Any of the above	13.2

Source. Own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH (Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares).

A woman is considered to be subject to high control if her partner uses five or more controlling tactics against her and low control if she experiences between 1 and 4. As shown in Table 2, to reproduce Johnson’s typology, I considered that women were in SCV if they experienced physical violence (either moderate or severe) without control or moderate violence with medium levels of control (n = 5,645). Females involved in IT experienced high levels of control (regardless of the severity of physical and/or sexual violence) or severe violence with medium levels of control (n = 1,114). VR derives from IT. Women involved in IT exerted violence against their partner as well: (a) hit or threw things at him, (b) pushed or pulled him, or (c) hit, punched, or beat him or was physically aggressive (no specific time frame was specified). If women responded affirmatively to any of those, they were coded as VR (n = 574). The correct classification was validated by examining the consequences that IPV had on women’s health (see the appendix).

Table 2.

Identification of Violent Dynamics.

Severity of physical and/or sexual violence	Control
Severity of physical and/or sexual violence	No Control	Medium	High
Moderate	SCV	SCV	IT/VR
Severe	SCV	IT/VR	IT/VR

Note. SCV = situational couple’s violence; IT = intimate terrorism; VR = violent resistance.

Independent Variables

Regarding variables associated with violent dynamics and help-seeking behavior, the 2016 ENDIREH allows us to identify three groups of variables that might be associated with different dynamics of IPV: socioeconomic and demographic variables, previous experience of violence, and relationship variables. The construction of some of these variables has been described elsewhere (Frías, 2013; 2017). Strength of social networks is a categorical variable that measures how many people the respondent can rely on in these six circumstances: (a) take care of children when she has an emergency or they are sick, (b) help her with something, (c) when she is sick, (d) talk about her personal problems, (e) talk when she has problems with her partner, and (f) help when she experiences economic struggles. The respondent could provide up to three responses per item (neighbour, friend, family, acquaintance, and other). Based on the distribution of responses, a woman’s strength of social networks was considered low when she could rely on four or fewer people, medium if she could rely on five to seven people, and strong if she could rely on eight or more people. Among the violent background and experiences variables, direct physical violence in the family of origin records the respondents’ experience of physical and/or emotional violence during childhood or adolescence and indirect when the respondent withnessed them in her family while growing up. These variables are coded 0 if it did not happen and 1 if it did.

In relation to the analytical strategy, descriptive analyses regarding the prevalence of IPV dynamics and help seeking in public institutions are presented first; then, a set of logistic regressions are conducted to examine the factors associated with seeking assistance and support in public agencies and public security and law enforcement institutions. Finally, bivariate analyses are presented to assess the response of public institutions upon women’s request of help, as well as the reasons for not seeking formal help.

Results

Most Mexican women were not involved in violent dynamics in the previous year (92.4%, N = 91,601). 5.8% were involved in SCV, 1.2% in IT, and 0.6% in VR. These figures cover up significant differences related to marital status as revealed by Table 3: Of those women married or cohabiting, 81% suffered SCV, 68.9% of those single, and 57.2% of separated or divorced women. In this sample, separated and divorced as well as single women suffered more serious IPV than their married counterparts. 29.5% of separated or divorced and 24.1% of single women experienced IT. The percentage of women in VR is similar among partnered and single women (6.8% and 7.1%), and among separated and divorced, the percentage is almost double (13.3%).

Table 3.

Prevalence of Violent Physical and/or Sexual Dynamics Among Mexican Women in the Previous Year by Marital Status (in Percentages).

	No Violence	Situational Couple’s Violence	Intimate Terrorism	Violent Resistance
Entire sample	92.4	5.8	1.2	0.6
Those involved in violence
All		76.8	15.6	7.6
Married and cohabiting		81.1	12.1	6.8
Separated/divorced		57.2	29.5	13.3
Single		68.9	24.1	7.1
N	91,601	5,645	1,114	574

Source. Own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH (Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares).

Seeking Help After the Abuse

Table 4 examines the percentage of women who sought help (in the previous year and before that) from public, private, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) due to violence experienced in the previous 12 months by type of violent dynamic. A higher percentage of women reported seeking help from women’s institutions of assistance and support than from law enforcement and public security institutions in the previous year (8.2% vs. 4.9%). The percentage of women who seek help is low and contingent upon the IPV dynamics. Only 5.4% of women involved in SCV sought help from women’s institutions, whereas the percentage ranges from 16.6% to 18.9% among women in IT and VR relationships. As revealed by Table 5, women’s institutes (local, state, and federal) are the preferred source of support, followed by public specialized support centers for victims of gender/partner violence such as the Women’s Justice Centers and support and assistance centers for victims of IPV. It is noteworthy that 1.3% of females who experienced IPV sought help from NGOs.

Table 4.

Women Who Sought Help due to IPV Dynamics in the Previous 12 Months (in Percentages).

Sought Help	Situational Couple’s Violence	Intimate Terrorism	Violent Resistance	%Column
Women’s institutions of assistance and support
Women’s institutions	0.7	4.8	4.2	1.6
Public specialized assistance center	0.6	2.9	3.6	1.2
Health services	0.3	1.9	1.7	0.7
Hotline	0.1	0.5	1.0	0.2
NGO	0.4	1.3	0.8	0.6
Other	3.8	10.0	12.1	5.4
Any of the above	5.4	16.6	18.9	8.2
Law enforcement and public security
Police	0.6	3.8	7.0	1.6
Local authorities	1.3	2.9	3.7	1.7
Community authorities	0.5	1.4	0.6	0.6
State attorney’s office	1.2	5.4	7.0	2.3
%Any of the above	3.1	9.4	13.1	4.9
Sought help before 2016 but not in 2016	11.7	10.7	16.8	11.9
Sought help in 2016 (assistance, support, law enforcement, or public security)	5.5	16.8	19.7	8.3
Law enforcement, public security, and sought support in 2016	1.6	5.9	8.7	2.8

Source. Own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH.

Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization; ENDIREH = Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares.

Table 5.

Logistic Regression of Variables Associated With Seeking Assistance and Support in Public Agencies and Public Security and Law Enforcement Institutions.

	Assistance and Support From Public Agencies			Public Security and Law Enforcement
	SCV	IT	VR	SCV	IT	VR
Intercept	−4.24***	−4.02***	−3.33**	−3.03***	−3.41***	−4.13**
Sociodemographic
Marital status (married/cohabiting)
Single	0.43**	0.85	0.46	1.00	0.21*	0.67
Separated/divorced	3.50***	3.93***	2.23**	3.16***	4.51***	3.79***
Urban residency (rural)	1.31	1.11	4.06*	1.21	1.01	2.06
Speaks indigenous language (no)	0.64	0.62	0.41	1.93*	1.48	0.12
Age	0.99*	1.03***	1.01	0.98**	1.00	1.02
Schooling	1.07***	1.10***	1.00	1.03	1.04	1.00
SES (high)
Very low	2.00*	1.42	0.32*	1.49	1.61	0.52
Low	3.01***	0.99	0.42*	2.49**	0.79	0.51
Medium	2.39***	0.82	0.49ϯ	1.21	0.53	0.83
Employed	0.94	0.84	1.58ϯ	0.88	1.90**	1.22
No. of people in household	1.00	1.01	1.09	0.92^†	1.03	1.02
Strength of social networks (low)
Medium	0.93	1.32	1.43	0.94	1.48	3.83**
High	1.38	1.49	2.97**	1.37	1.88	7.70***
Experience of violence in family of origin
Direct physical and/or emotional	0.94	0.81	1.04	0.70*	0.66ϯ	0.52*
Indirect physical and/or emotional	1.14	0.74	0.71	0.78	0.62^†	1.28
−2LogLikelihood	2,201.77	925.51	473.68	1,486.42	585.47	362.24

Source. Own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH.

Note. Reference categories are in parentheses. SCV = situational couple’s violence; IT = intimate terrorism; VR = violent resistance; SES = socioeconomic status; ENDIREH = Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .001. ***p < .0001.

Only 4.9% of females involved in IPV during the previous 12 months approached public security or law enforcement institutions. Although public security institutions (police, local, and community authorities) are responsible for protecting women in the event of IPV and can turn offenders in to law enforcement institutions (state attorney’s office), the latter are responsible for prosecuting crimes. Most of these institutions can formally grant women protective orders. Only 2.3% of females involved in IPV dynamics resorted to state attorney’s offices, although, of those, the percentage of women in VR and IT dynamics is significantly higher than that of those in SCV (7.0%, 5.4%, and 1.2%, respectively). The percentage of women in VR dynamics that turned to law enforcement and public security institutions is four times higher than that of those in SCV (13.1% vs. 3.1%). Women in IT dynamics fall in between, but their help-seeking patterns in law enforcement and public security are similar to women in VR.

The last three rows of Table 4 reveal that, for a considerable percentage of women, previous help-seeking attempts had been ineffective in putting an end to IPV. 11.7% of women who experienced SCV in the previous 12 months had formerly sought help from women’s institutions, as well as from law enforcement and public security agencies but did not turn to any of them in the previous year. Females at a higher risk of lethal violence (IT and VR) had also sought help before but not in the previous year (16.8% and 10.7%, respectively). In the previous 12 months, 5.5% of women involved in SCV sought some help, 16.8% of those in IT, and 19.7% of those involved in VR. The last row of Table 4 presents data on women who both turned to women’s institutions and law enforcement or public security agencies in the previous year (2.8%). Again, women in IT and VR dynamics sought help, to a greater extent, from different sources than women in SCV. Although it is plausible that women had to turn to another agency for having their needs satisfied, they might also have required different services and been referred from one institution to another.

Who Are the Women Who Seek Help and Press Charges?

Table 5 presents the results of six logistic regressions examining factors associated with turning to women’s institutions on one hand and on the other requiring public security and law enforcement assistance by type of IPV dynamic. The only variable consistently associated with help seeking across violent dynamics is being divorced or separated. Separated and divorced women in SCV have a 250% higher relative risk of turning to women’s institutions than married or cohabiting women; the risk is 293% higher among those experiencing IT, and 123% higher among those in VR. Other variables are associated with seeking help in women’s institutions in some IPV dynamics but not in others, with the strength of the association varying as well. For example, each additional year of schooling is associated with a 7% higher risk of turning to women’s institutions among women in SCV, and a 10% higher risk among those in IT, but not for those in VR dynamics. For women in SCV, the likelihood of resorting to women’s institutions increases as their socioeconomic status (SES) increases. Table 5 reveals the opposite trend as well among those in VR; more socioeconomically disadvantaged women have a 68% decreased risk of seeking help from women’s institutions compared with women in the high-SES category; the risk decreases by 58% among those in the low-SES category.

After controlling for other variables in the model, the strength of social networks is not linked to SCV and IT victims turning to these women-friendly institutions. However, it is positively associated among those experiencing VR; compared with those with weak social networks, VR victims with strong social networks have a 197% higher risk of seeking assistance, and among those employed the risk is 58% higher (p < .10). Experiences of violence in the family of origin, speaking an indigenous language, and the number of people in the household are not associated with seeking help from women’s institutions in any of the IPV dynamics.

The second part of Table 5 examines the correlates of requiring public security and/or law enforcement assistance (they are more likely to provide effective protection against IPV and begin an investigation). As in the previous three models, the marital status of divorced women is consistently associated with a higher risk of requiring public security and/or law enforcement assistance compared with that of married or cohabiting women (the risk is 216% higher for divorced women in SCV dynamics, 351% higher for those in IT, and 279% higher for those in VR). It is also revealing that women who experienced direct physical and/or emotional violence in their family of origin during childhood or adolescence are less likely to seek help from public security and/or law enforcement. In addition, the strength of social networks is only significant among women in VR. Compared with VR women with weak social networks, those with stronger social networks are more likely to turn to public security and/or law enforcement agencies. Women with the strongest social networks are twice as likely as those with medium-strength social networks to turn to these formal sources of support.

Among women in SCV, additional variables are linked with seeking assistance from public security and/or law enforcement. Women who speak an indigenous language and younger women are more likely to seek help from these agencies than their nonindigenous language speaking and older counterparts. Among women in SCV (but not among those in other violent dynamics), as the number of people in the household increases, the risk of seeking this type of help marginally decreases by 8% per each additional person in the household (p < .10). This might be associated with family-related pressures.

Responses of Law Enforcement and Public Security Institutions to Women Who Seek Help

Respondents were questioned about what happened after they turned to law enforcement and public security institutions. According to women’s reports, these institutions do not always receive women’s complaints, nor do they begin an investigation for the alleged violence. Table 6 supports this statement because only 67.8% of women who turned to law enforcement agencies during the last year reported that their complaint was accepted and an investigation was initiated, 62.9% of those who went to community or traditional authorities, and around 48% for those seeking help from public security agencies and from municipal authorities. Despite the small number of cases, important differences emerge by type of violent dynamic. Consistently, fewer women in the VR category report that authorities accepted their complaint and proceeded with an investigation: in only 52% of cases in which women reached out to law enforcement agencies, 49% of cases in which women turned to municipal authorities, 36.7% of cases in which women sought the intervention of public security or police, and 32.9% of those who turned to community or traditional authorities. In contrast, more women in IT dynamics (except those who turned to community or traditional authorities) reported that their complaints were received and investigated than women in the other two categories examined.

Table 6.

Women Who Sought Help From Public Security and Law Enforcement Authorities and Reported That Their Complaint Was Received, and an Investigation Initiated (in Percentages).

Institution	SCV	IT	VR	Total	N
Law enforcement	68.7	76.4	52.3	67.8	201
Public security	40.7	65.4	36.7	48.7	135
Municipal authorities	47.3	67.3	49.1	48.5	117
Community or traditional authorities	69.4	58.0	32.9	62.9	48

Source. Own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH.

Note. SCV = situational couple’s violence; IT = intimate terrorism; VR = violent resistance; ENDIREH = Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares.

The remaining 33% of women reported that the complaint was accepted but no investigation took place, that the complaint was not accepted because (contravening the General Law on Women’s Access to a Life Free of Violence) they were offered a conciliation procedure, they were not believed, the authorities convinced them not to file a complaint, they were told that the violence was insignificant, they were told that the violence experienced was not a crime, and/or they did not want to press charges (analyses not shown).

Reasons Why Female Victims of Physical and/or Sexual Partner Violence Do Not Seek Help and Assistance

The reasons women do not turn to public and nongovernment institutions are crucial to examine because (at least theoretically) these organizations can guarantee protection and are the first step for women’s access to justice, especially for those in violent dynamics that can put their life at risk. Table 7 analyzes the explanations offered by women to explain their reluctance to seek formal help by type of violent dynamic. These reasons are grouped into five analytical categories: reasons associated with (a) the partner, (b) women’s perceptions of public authorities and knowledge of women’s rights, (c) women’s feelings and perceptions of violence, (d) family, and (e) other. As mentioned above, women might have sought formal help more than 1 year ago (before 2016), both that year (2016) and previously, or never. The coefficients in Table 7 refer to those who have never sought formal help (only information available in the questionnaire).

Table 7.

Reasons Mentioned by Women for not Seeking Formal Help From Public Institutions by IPV Dynamic (in Percentages).

Reasons	SCV	IT	VR	Total
Partner
She was afraid of the consequences	20.4	28.3	37.3	22.6***
She was frightened of her partner or was threatened by him	3.1	6.7	8.1	3.9***
She thinks her husband/partner has the right to discipline her	2.2	1.1	1.0	1.9^†
He told her he would change	8.0	13.4	14.3	9.2***
Authorities and knowledge about rights
She distrusts public authorities	6.2	7.6	11.7	6.8***
She did not know she could press charges	13.7	17.4	17.0	14.4**
She did not know about laws to punish partner violence	4.2	6.8	6.0	4.7**
Women’s feelings and perceptions
Violence was insignificant	29.2	16.5	13.3	26.4***
She was embarrassed	19.6	20.0	14.5	19.3^†
She believes he will not change	5.1	5.0	5.2	5.1
She thought nobody would believe her	3.3	4.4	2.4	3.4
Family reasons
Because of the children	12.2	14.5	11.3	12.5
She did not want her family to know	11.1	8.9	11.4	10.8
Her family persuaded her not to do it
Other
She was persuaded not to do it	1.4	1.7	1.9	1.4
Other reasons	3.2	4.6	6.5	3.6**

Source. Own calculations based on the 2016 ENDIREH.

Note. SCV = situational couple’s violence; IT = intimate terrorism; VR = violent resistance. ENDIREH = Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .001. ***p < .0001.

Some reasons were claimed by all women regardless of the violent dynamic they were involved in during the previous year: 12.5% because of their children, 10.8% because they did not want their family to know, and 3.4% because they thought nobody would believe them. An additional 5.1% thought he would not change, which suggests either that women do not always aim to put an end to the relationship or that they believe that the intervention of formal institutions will be ineffective at eradicating IPV. Regarding reasons related to the partner, threats and fear of the consequences of seeking formal help were claimed more often by women involved in IT and VR than among those in SCV. 20.4% of women in SCV revealed they were afraid of the consequences, whereas 28.3% and 37.3% of women in IT and VR, respectively. The last reason associated with the partner is “he told me he would change”; 8% of females in SCV provided this answer compared with 13.4% in IT and 14.3% in VR.

Women’s feelings and perceptions are also involved in their decisions to seek formal help from public institutions. A marginally higher percentage of women in SCV and IT than those in VR explained that they feel embarrassed about the situation (19.6%, 20%, and 14.5%, respectively; p < .10). The opposite is found for those arguing that the violence was insignificant. As might be expected due to the nature of SCV, 29.2% offered this justification, compared with 16.5% of women in IT and 13.3% of those in VR. Perceptions about confidence in public institutions and knowledge of legislation were also mentioned. A higher percentage of women in VR noted distrust of public authorities and lack of knowledge on how to press charges than women in the other categories. Finally, it must be noted that 1.9% of women involved in violent dynamics still believe that her partner has the right to discipline them. This is twice as prevalent among women in SCV (2.2%) than for those in the two other categories.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study examined IPV dynamics in a large nationally representative sample of Mexican women that included married, cohabiting, separated, and divorced women as well as women with a noncohabitating partner. IPV dynamics are complex and are associated with women’s help-seeking behaviors. Women in IT and VR are more likely to request help in public agencies. However, public agencies do not always fulfill their needs. IPV affected 7.6% of Mexican women in the previous 12 months, 5.8% experienced SCV, 1.2% IT, and 0.6% of women faced VR. However, as theorized by M. P. Johnson et al. (2014), violence entailing control (which is potentially more lethal) is more prevalent among separated and divorced women: 29.5% of those involved in IPV were subjected to IT and 13.3% to VR dynamics. Women in VR dynamics tend to experience more health-related consequences than women in IT. Their resistance might be perceived as a challenge by their partner and he might use more controlling and violent practices to restore his privilege and dominance in the relationship.

It is difficult to compare the prevalence of IPV dynamics found in this study with those from other international studies because of the time frame examined and the methodology (severity of violence and number of controlling tactics) used to classify women’s experiences (M. P. Johnson et al., 2014; Leone et al., 2014; Ramos-Lira & Saltijeral-Méndez, 2008). This study based on the 2016 Mexican ENDIREH supports the idea that SCV is the IPV dynamic most measured in population-based surveys (M. P. Johnson, 2006; Kelly & Johnson, 2008). However, it also suggests that other IPV dynamics might be captured as well with this methodology. One of the main contributions of this research is the operationalization and measurement of the VR dynamic in a population-based study. To my knowledge, this is one of the few studies examining help-seeking behaviors of women involved in VR dynamics. In addition, this study contributes to understand public authorities’ responses to victims of IPV, a neglected issue in most research, and shows that, after sorting several obstacles, female victims of IPV do not always receive the required assistance.

This study shows that the experiences of women in dating (or equivalent relationships) deserve special attention. Their involvement in IPV dynamics is lower than other women (3.9%). However, almost 25% of those involved experienced IT and 7.1% VR. This group of women must be further examined in future studies because they might have fewer resources to deal with more serious IPV dynamics.

The percentage of women seeking formal support from institutions that have the potential of providing services and support to put an end to the violence is low. Only 8.2% of females involved in IPV dynamics the previous year turned to women’s institutions that offer counseling, social work services, and/or legal support. The percentage of those who turned to law enforcement and public security institutions is even smaller (4.9%). This might be related to women’s perception of less hierarchical and more woman-friendly institutions. As found in other studies, Mexican women going through IT seek assistance to a greater extent than those in SCV (Leone et al., 2004, 2007, 2014). However, the percentage of women in the VR category that sought help during the previous year is higher than among those in IT. This suggests that, as violence becomes more dangerous for women, they are more likely to approach service providers to escape or put an end to the violence. This contradicts previous knowledge that women who resist violence and/or commit it against their partners perceive themselves as being less deserving of assistance. In Mexico, among service providers and law enforcement and public security personnel, it is still a widespread belief that it is a waste of time to follow cases of IPV victims because they will forgive their abusers and return to them, that their claims are false and are aimed at harming their partners; and that, given the current homicide epidemic, institutional resources must be devoted to more serious crimes. The results of this study challenge these views because women who seek help tend to be those in more potentially damaging and lethal IPV dynamics. By protecting and investigating all women’s claims of IPV and punishing aggressors, they are preventing more serious crimes such as feminicides. Feminicides comprise misogynistic killings for gender reasons (Corradi et al., 2016).

Sociodemographic characteristics intervene in women’s decisions to seek help from public institutions, and these vary according to the IPV dynamics. This suggests that public interventions aimed at promoting help seeking among victims of IPV need to consider the heterogeneity of violent dynamics. It is of special relevance that women in VR are more likely to turn to public institutions for help if they have strong social networks.

Mexican women go through a lengthy process before they approach a source of support and/or protection (Frías, 2013). However, public security and law enforcement institutions, responsible for protecting women and investigating IPV crimes against them, do not always provide the required assistance in terms of receiving their complaints and initiating an investigation (between 48.5% and 67.8% depending on the institution). By failing to investigate and protect women, these institutions are contravening the national and international legal framework. Moreover, they are acting as accomplices by omission of subsequent experiences of violence that might lead to the death of these women.

The situation faced by women in VR is of especial relevance. Despite the small number of cases, they reported, to a greater extent than women in any other dynamics, that public security and law enforcement institutions dismissed their claims. 16.8% of females in VR in the previous year had previously sought help from public institutions but not in the last 12 months, which suggests that the public authorities had been unable (or unwilling) to help them put an end to the violence or that the resources provided to them were ineffective. This is counterintuitive because, theoretically, they are at a higher risk of being harmed. While conducting qualitative research in law enforcement agencies, I found that civil servants believe that women who are physically violent against their partners do not comply with the stereotype of battered or abused women. It is likely that these women are perceived as less deserving of justice. Future research needs to address this issue because of the potentially lethal consequences that might be prevented by educating civil servants and service providers on the different IPV dynamics.

The reasons why women did not seek help are diverse and are associated with the IPV dynamics. Women in VR and IT are more afraid of the consequences and are more frightened and threatened by their partners than women in SCV. Similarly, they more frequently report that he told them that “He would change,” which corresponds to a specific stage in the circle of violence. Distrust of public authorities, lack of knowledge about where to press charges, and lack of knowledge about IPV being a crime are also important reasons that could be addressed through public interventions aimed at tackling barriers for women’s access to public institutions.

This research employed a population-based survey of Mexican women. This survey is representative of all heterosexual women regardless of their race or ethnicity, age, marital status, SES, urban/rural residency, religion, and nationality. This study has several limitations associated with the use of secondary data and social desirability associated with the disclosure of IPV experiences in a face-to-face interview. It is likely that the real prevalence of the phenomenon might be higher than reported in this study. In addition, the survey did not provide data on women’s use of controlling tactics against their partners and detailed information on the perpetration of physical abuse. This was a constraint for examining mutually controlling dynamics and the bidirectionality of IPV. Despite these limitations, this study has important contributions to understanding the complexity of IPV dynamics and women’s use of public institutions and institutional responses to them in a context in which the Mexican state has received a myriad of recommendations from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) committee² regarding prevention, assistance, punishment, and eradication of all forms of violence against women.

The results of this study also have the potential of informing public policy in the United States, where a large Mexican-origin population resides, and their help-seeking behaviors might be influenced by earlier experiences in their country of origin or the experiences of their relatives and acquaintances. As shown by Bridges et al. (2018), Hispanic women are less likely to seek formal help than their non-Hispanic counterparts. Beliefs about the provision of services, knowledge about where to seek help, and women’s feelings and perceptions might deter women from approaching service providers. Efforts must be made to encourage help seeking in public institutions because services offered in U.S. agencies might positively differ from those provided in Mexican institutions.

Footnotes

Appendix

Health consequences of IPV by violent dynamic.

Health consequences of IPV	Situational Couple’s Violence	Intimate Terrorism	Violent Resistance
Hospitalized or had surgery	4.1	6.0	7.0***
Bruises or swelling	29.6	41.8	57.1***
Cuts, burns, or lost teeth	3.2	6.1	10.9***
Bleeding (internal or external)	4.1	7.6	11.5***
Had bones broken	2.9	5.1	6.2***
Abortion or premature delivery	2.2	5.1	3.1***
Could not move a part of her body	1.9	5.6	6.8***
Family member was hurt	0.7	2.7	2.2***

Source. Own calculations based on 2016 ENDIREH (Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares).

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .001. ***p < .0001.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sonia M. Frías

Notes

Author Biography

Sonia M. Frías, PhD, is a researcher and professor at the Regional Center for Multidisciplinary Research (National Autonomous University of Mexico). She received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Texas at Austin. She conducts research on gender equality, violence against women and children from a gender perspective, and the role of the State in protecting women and children from violence. She is currently the associate editor of the Journal of Latin American Population (Revista Latinoamericana de Población).

References

Anderson

K. L.

(2008). Is partner violence worse in the context of control?Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5), 1157–1168.

Barrett

B. J.

Peirone

Cheung

C. H.

(2020). Help seeking experiences of survivors of intimate partner violence in Canada: The role of gender, violence severity, and social belonging. Journal of Family Violence, 35(1), 15–28.

Barrett

B. J.

St Pierre

(2011). Variation in women’s help seeking in response to intimate partner violence: Findings from a Canadian population-based study. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 47–70.

Bates

E. A.

Graham-Kevan

(2016). Is the presence of control related to help-seeking behavior? A test of Johnson’s assumptions regarding sex differences and the role of control in intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 7(1), 3–25.

Bolt

Guedes

Ruiz-Celis

A. P.

Adams Mendoza

(2019). Intimate partner violence in the Americas. A systematic review and reanalysis of national prevalence estimates. Pan American Journal of Public Health, 43, Article e26.

Bridges

A. J.

Karlsson

M. E.

Jackson

J. C.

Andrews

A. R.

Villalobos

B. T.

(2018). Barriers to and methods of help seeking for domestic violence victimization: A comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White women residing in the United States. Violence Against Women, 24(15), 1810-1829.

Bubriski-McKenzie

Jasinski

J. L.

(2013). Mental health effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among black and Hispanic women. Violence Against Women, 19(12), 1429–1448.

Casique

Castro

(2018). Cambios y constantes en los niveles y factores asociados a las violencias de pareja en México [Continuities and changes in prevalence and factors associated to intimate partner violence in Mexico]. In Castro (Ed.), De parejas, hogares, instituciones y espacios comunitarios. Violencias contra las mujeres en México (ENDIREH 2016) [Couples, households, institutions and public spaces. Violence against women in Mexico (ENDIREH 2016)]. Inmujeres.

Castañeda Salgado

M. P.

Ravelo Blancas

Pérez Vázquez

. (2013). Feminicidio y violencia de género en México: Omisiones del Estado y exigencia civil de justicia [Feminicide and gender violence in Mexico: omissions of the State and civil demands for justice]. Iztapalapa, 74, 11–39.

10.

Castro

(Ed.). (2019). De parejas, hogares, instituciones y espacios comunitarios. Violencia contra mujeres en México (ENDIREH 2016) [Couples, households, institutions and public spaces. Violence against women in Mexico (ENDIREH 2016)]. Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México & Inmujeres.

11.

Corradi

Marcuello-Servós

Boira

Weil

(2016). Theories of femicide and their significance for social research. Current Sociology, 64(7): 975-995.

12.

Esquivel-Santoveña

E. E.

Gurrola Peña

G. M.

Balcázar Nava

(2016). A typological identification of intimate partner violence in Mexican samples. CIENCIA ergo-sum, 23(2), 103–111.

13.

Esquivel-Santoveña

E. E.

Hernández

R. R.

Viveros

N. C.

Orozco

F. L.

van Barneveld

H. O.

(2017). Physical intimate partner violence and controlling behavior in Mexican University students and their attitudes toward social limits. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 403–425.

14.

Frankland

Brown

(2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22.

15.

Frías

(2013). Strategies and Help-Seeking Behavior in Law-Enforcement Offices among Mexican Women Experiencing Partner Violence. Violence against Women, 19(1): 24-49.

16.

Frías

(2017). Challenging the Representation of Intimate Partner Violence in Mexico: Unidirectional and Mutual Violence and the Role of Male Control. Partner Abuse, 8(2): 146-167.

17.

Frías

Agoff

(2015). Between Support and Vulnerability: Examining Family Support among Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in Mexico. Journal of Family Violence, 30(3), 277-291.

18.

Frye

Manganello

Campbell

J. C.

Walton-Moss

Wilt

(2006). The distribution of and factors associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among a population-based sample of urban women in the united states. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10), 1286–1312.

19.

Goodson

Hayes

B. E.

(2018). Help-seeking behaviors of intimate partner violence victims: A cross-national analysis in developing nations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518794508

20.

Jasinski

Blumenstein

Morgan

(2014). Testing Johnson’s typology: Is there gender symmetry in intimate terrorism. Violence and Victims, 29(1), 73–88.

21.

Johnson

Eriksson

Mazerolle

Wortley

(2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117701574

22.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294.

23.

Johnson

M. P.

(1999, November). Two types of violence against women in the American family: Identifying patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Irvine, CA, United States.

24.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control. Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 1003–1018.

25.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 286–296.

26.

Johnson

M. P.

(2017). A personal social history of a typology of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9(2), 150–164.

27.

Johnson

M. P.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 948–963.

28.

Johnson

M. P.

Leone

J. M.

(2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349.

29.

Johnson

M. P.

Leone

J. M.

(2014). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in general surveys: Ex-spouses required. Violence Against Women, 20(2), 186–207.

30.

Kelly

J. B.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–499.

31.

Laroche

(2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence—situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/sante/environnement-social/violence-couples/aspect-violence_an.pdf

32.

Lelaurain

Graziani

Lo Monaco

(2017). Intimate partner violence and help-seeking. European Psychologist, 22(4), 263–281.

33.

Leonardsson

San Sebastian

(2017). Prevalence and predictors of help-seeking for women exposed to spousal violence in India. A cross-sectional study. BMC Women’s Health, 17(1), 99.

34.

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.

35.

Leone

J. M.

Johnson

M. P.

Cohan

C. L.

Lloyd

(2004). Consequences of male partner violence for low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 472–490.

36.

Leone

J. M.

Lape

M. E.

(2014). Women’s decisions to not seek formal help for partner violence: A comparison of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(10), 1850–1876.

37.

López-Ramos

(2018). Evaluación de la implementación y los resultados de la política pública de atención a mujeres víctimas de violencia de pareja. El caso de las instituciones públicas de Zacatecas [Evaluation fo the implementation and results of the public policy aimed at providing assistance to female victims of partner violence. The case of public institutions of Zacatecas][Doctoral dissertation]. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

38.

Myhill

(2015). Measuring coercive control: What can we learn from national population surveys?Violence Against Women, 21(3), 355–375.

39.

National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics. (2017). Encuesta Nacional sobre la Relación de las Dinámicas en los Hogares [National Survey on Household Dynamics]. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/endireh/2016/?ps=microdatos

40.

Overstreet

N. M.

Quinn

D. M.

(2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help-seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 109–122.

41.

Ramos-Lira

Saltijeral-Méndez

M. T.

(2008). ¿Violencia Episódica o Terrorismo Íntimo? Una Propuesta Exploratoria para Clasificar la Violencia contra la Mujer en las Relaciones de Pareja [Episodic violence or intimate terrorism? An exploratory proposal to classify violence against women in the context of intimate couple relationships]. Salud Mental, 31(6), 469–478.

42.

Rivera-Rivera

Lazcano

Salmerón

Salazar-Martínez

Castro

Hernández-Ávila

(2004). Prevalence and determinants of male partner violence against Mexican women: A population-based study. Salud Pública de México, 46(2), 113–122.

43.

Sabina

(2011). Help-seeking in a national sample of victimized women: The influence of victimization types. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 40–61.

44.

Swan

Sullivan

T. P.

(2009). The resource utilization of women who use violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(6), 940–958.

45.

Torreblanca

Merino

(2017, November28). Una propuesta para contar feminicidios en México [A proposal to count feminicides in Mexico]. Animal Político. https://www.animalpolitico.com/el-foco/una-propuesta-para-contar-feminicidios-en-mexico/

46.

World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on violence prevention.