Public Stigmatization of Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence by Professionals Working in the Judicial System and Law Enforcement Agencies in Spain

Design

CGT was used to study the process of stigmatization among professionals working in law enforcement and the judicial system in their dealings with women who have suffered IPV. This methodology enables researchers to establish meanings and relationships between the components and processes involved, based on the data analyzed (Charmaz, 2014). Individual, in-depth, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals, with their comments being used as the basis for developing a descriptive model. The position of the research team (LM, lead researcher [LR]; FJSM and MLM) was also taken into account in the construction of said model (Charmaz, 2017; Creswell, 2007). Our starting point was a view of stigmatization as a complex process involving different interrelated factors at both an individual (e.g., the cognitive resources of the stigmatizing agent) and community level (e.g., cultural values) (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015). We also accepted that stigmatization may be both explicit and implicit (unintentional), extrapolating the findings of authors such as Ferrer-Perez et al. (2020) regarding the measurement of implicit attitudes toward IPV. In other words, we accepted that interviewees would not always be aware of their own stigmatizing behavior, which would come to light during the interview. Hence the essential nature of the identifying role played by members of the research team.

Participants and Recruitment

Participants were selected by means of a voluntary, intentional recruitment process, in which the inclusion criterion was having worked for a law enforcement agency or the judicial system for at least a year and a half. In studies such as this, in which the aim is not to ensure representativeness, but rather to enable an inductive and in-depth exploration of stigmatization among professionals, a small number (fewer than 20) of participants is recommended (Kolar et al., 2015). Nevertheless, the number of cases was increased until the data were saturated (theoretical sample), with more participants being recruited to help answer the questions that arose as the data were analyzed, until the point at which no new relevant information arose from the interviews, that is, no new perspectives, categories, or relationships between categories emerged (Rohleder & Lyons, 2014). An effort was made to ensure a varied selection of participants, including both professionals from specialist services for women victims of IPV, who have frequent contact with victims, and those from nonspecialist services (family lawyers and local police) who had dealt with victims of IPV at some point in their professional career.

To recruit participants, we contacted Municipal Centers for Women’s Information, police stations, and known professionals working in the field of IPV intervention to explain the aims of the study and the profile of the participants required. Once we had contacted the possible participants, we explained the purpose of the research and, on occasions, these participants put us in touch with other professionals. Professionals were not remunerated for participating in the study.

A total of 11 eligible participants were identified (6 from specialist services and 5 from nonspecialist services). The final group comprised a varied set of participants from different provinces in Spain (men and women, working in rural and urban areas, with or without experiences of IPV in their immediate environment, of different ages, in different posts, with different levels of seniority in that post, and different levels of training in gender-based violence). Participants were six men and five women, aged between 26 and 58 years (M = 44.45). All except two worked in urban areas, had been in their current post for at least a year and a half, with a maximum of age of 35 years. No mention is made of the exact place in which interviewees work and their names have been replaced with fictitious ones to guarantee anonymity. See Supplemental Appendix A for detailed characteristics of the participants.

Data Collection Strategy

First, the research team developed the script for the in-depth, semi-structured interviews, following the recommendations of Castillo-Montoya (2016). The questions were based on some of the studies on IPV stigma that were cited in the Introduction (e.g., Murray et al., 2016) and were audited in a group session by experts in IPV. The interview script was piloted with three professionals who had experience dealing with women victims of IPV. The final version of the interview is provided in Supplemental Appendix B.

In the script they were asked if there was stigma. If they answered yes, we would elaborate on the answer by continuing with the rest of the questions about the nature of this stigma. If they answered no, the interview ended. All questions included in the script were open ended and flexible and others arose during the conversation (Dicicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006), enabling the interviewer to explore both implicit (i.e., that which was observable in the interview and was carried out unintentionally by the interviewee) and explicit stigmatization (i.e., things that interviewees openly said they and other professionals in their field had done at some point) throughout the entire interview. To reduce social desirability bias, interviewees were told very clearly before the interview began that there were no right or wrong answers, and that we were simply interested in learning about their personal view of the problem and their own experiences.

Among those who thought that stigma existed, emphasis was placed on determining whether they believed that the stigma present in society in general was the same as that present among professionals, and, if they did, the information they provided about stigma in the general population was considered the object of analysis in this study. In accordance with the iterative qualitative analysis process used, as the data collection process progressed, the formulation of some of the questions changed in light of the information obtained in the analyses and the information provided by interviewees (Dicicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).

All data were collected between January and July 2022. Participants were contacted by telephone and told that the aim of the interview was to explore their personal view of the professional service provided to women who had suffered IPV. Participants’ informed consent was obtained, and they were assured that all information provided would be strictly confidential and would be used only for the purposes of the stated research project. Three of the participants chose to conduct the interview at the LR’s workplace (these interviews were audio recorded). The remaining eight interviews were conducted by means of a videocall, which was recorded in video file format and then converted to an audio file. No differences were observed when conducting video and face-to-face interviews. The mean duration of the interviews was 50 min. After the interview, participants were asked to complete a sociodemographic questionnaire (see Supplemental Appendix C). All interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis Strategy

The transcriptions of the interviews were analyzed using a progressive coding method that included annotation throughout the entire process, along with an ongoing comparative analysis of the data (Charmaz, 2014; Rohleder & Lyons, 2014). The codes derived directly from the data (Creswell, 2007) and the manifestations of stigma proposed by Crowe and Murray (2015) were taken into account, with some categories that emerged corresponding to them. Nevertheless, as recommended by CGT, we did not limit ourselves to finding only these categories, and were therefore open to finding new ones or similar ones that required a new conceptualization (Bazeley, 2009). This was followed by a focused coding process in which we selected the codes that were significant and compared them with each other and with the annotations made throughout the entire process, to classify and organize the data into more complex ideas. We paid special attention to whether or not the subject was aware that the code signified some kind of stigma, as well as to whether they seemed conflicted in any way in relation to it (e.g., interviewees sometimes claimed that something constituted stigma, but then stigmatized victims him/herself in the same way during the interview). Consequently, and using an axial coding process, the following four broad categories were established: Origin of the stigma, Stigmatizing myths, Stigmatizing responses, and Consequences for victims. Different codes were recorded in each category. Finally, associations were established between the codes and categories by means of a theoretical coding process, thereby developing the grounded theory that explains the process of stigmatization.

The actions taken to ensure the quality criteria necessary for research using the grounded theory methodology are outlined below (Gasson, 2004). The confirmability of the study was ensured using the constant comparison method, in which the prior conceptual framework established by the research team was specified and the LR maintained an attitude of critical reflection at all times in relation to her interpretations and the possible bias introduced by her training in and commitment to the field of gender-based psychology (Charmaz, 2017; Creswell, 2007). Moreover, confirmability was also ensured by the independent coding of four interviews by the rest of the team (Gasson, 2004). The LR drew up a diagram for each interview, reflecting the relationships observed, the most significant results found, and the dilemmas posed. With these annotations and the coding carried out by the rest of the team, all those involved in the study met to clarify any problems detected and reach a consensus.

The credibility of the results was ensured by following the steps outlined by the grounded theory methodology. The results presented were considered applicable and useful for professionals working in the field of IPV interventions. Finally, dependability was ensured by exhaustively outlining the steps followed in the present study (Gasson, 2004).

Origin of the Stigma

First, it is important to highlight the multicausal nature of the stigma. Throughout the excerpts selected, the factors giving rise to the stigma are intertwined. Some of the possible causes of stigmatizing myths and reactions include general factors to which all professionals are exposed simply by being part of society, just like everyone else. First, the patriarchal values informing the context in which they grew up, which are still present today, have been largely internalized and result in a negative view of women, as Brenda (a legal advisor) explained as follows:

I think it’s all connected to the sexist view we have in our society. I mean, at the end of the day, it is rooted in this belief that women lie; we are liars; women make up stories. All the myths that exist are inherent in this story they’ve been putting in our heads throughout our entire upbringing. [. . .] Debunking all these myths requires a major effort, because for many people it involves rethinking things, and not everyone is prepared to do that.

A high level of exposure to IPV cases also serves to reinforce the myths about it. The media often portray IPV in a subjective and sensationalist way, emphasizing those aspects and cases that pose doubts about victims’ credibility. Brenda explains as follows:

A woman is murdered. How is this reported in the news? Is it reported in an objective fashion, with the facts being laid out as they are, or is it told in a sensationalist way and made a spectacle of? That’s the problem. And we always fall back on the same old clichés, asking neighbors what they think. The thing is, the neighbors never see anything. Because in most cases, the abuser is utterly charming in public [. . .] But what do reporters do? They stick a microphone in front of the neighbor.

Marta (a member of the national police force) added that police officers’ continuous exposure to a certain type of victim, due to the nature of their job, may be at the heart of the stereotypes that exist about them:

Those are probably the best-known cases—victims with a low socioeconomic level [. . .] in other social layers such occurrences can be more easily hidden. [. . .] Those are the cases I see every day in my job, you know? So, based on what I see, I reckon the stereotypes could stem from there.

At the same time, extreme right-wing political parties launch misleading messages that question the legal system designed to protect victims, and deny the existence of IPV, something that Victoria (a legal advisor) said she had also observed among her coworkers:

With the far-right parties, for example, who claim that gender-based violence does not exist. [. . .] I have co-workers, and I’m talking about women here too, who have made similar comments, even though they see these cases in the courts every day. They are usually people who vote for the far right.

It is important to point out here that all the causes of stigma identified operate in a context in which the information available is incomplete, as Jose (a member of the national police force) indeed pointed out:

Everyone’s personal experience [. . .] we all let ourselves get carried away by what the media says [. . .]. But it’s not fair, because we often don’t have enough information. I mean, we often judge without having all the facts.

In addition to the factors outlined above, which are inherent to the context in which all professionals are immersed, individual factors were also detected that varied more from one person to the next. The most striking one was linked to a general unawareness of how IPV works and how people recover from it. This is something that is present among professionals regardless of whether or not they continuously work with victims, as Brenda (a legal advisor) remarked: “The truth is that a lot more training is required, a lot more awareness-raising. And at all levels also, because I’m talking about the justice system, I’m talking about the police.” This lack of knowledge prevents some people from understanding why women do not leave a violent relationship or why, having filed a restraining order, they then go back to their aggressor. This prompts some to judge such women and even doubt their credibility. This was evident in the interview held with Ruben (court clerk):

Imagine a case in which there is a restraining order and then, the next day, you get a call from the Civil Guard saying they have arrested the subject in question. But then you realize that he was probably with her in the car, they were at the cinema, or. . . Those cases are disgusting [. . .] If what is being reported is a situation of oppression, then that does not tie in with the fact that she then goes out for a walk with this person.

In addition to knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about IPV, personal experiences linked to this phenomenon must also be taken into account. As Jose (a member of the national police force) explained, being a man and having suffered IPV or having a close relationship with the aggressor and not being able to imagine that person abusing someone may prompt some to doubt the victim’s testimony:

Everyone thinks and talks in accordance with their personal experiences [. . .] “well I know Pepe or Manolo and I simply don’t believe they did this,” but no one knows what goes on behind closed doors [. . .] And if someone’s cousin, or brother, or they themselves have been directly involved in some kind of episode, then this is another barrier to them believing what the other person is saying.

A lack of experience with IPV in one’s immediate environment can also have an impact, prompting some to minimize the problem. David (a lawyer) talks about it in the following terms: “Someone who has never experienced a situation like this in their more or less immediate environment can’t really understand the true gravity of the problem.”

In addition to the above, certain social attitudes among professions also contribute to the stigmatization of victims. Julia (a lawyer) explains it as follows:

Let me tell you, this is a profession that is often very class oriented and some of my colleagues, well, they studied at good schools, they studied at private universities [. . .] And you say to yourself . . . that bloke has no idea what real life is like, he’s never had to break a sweat to make ends meet, he’s never even really had to work at all, and he simply can’t understand, he has no empathy. [. . .] “Seriously, she should be supporting herself.” Yeah, as if it were that easy, in the middle of a pandemic and with three kids.

Stigmatizing Myths About IPV and Victims

Continuing with the order established in the model shown in Figure 1, on the basis of the factors outlined above, a series of erroneous and stereotypical beliefs about IPV itself and IPV victims were identified. According to participants, these myths are present in society, and therefore among professionals as well. By far the most prominent were those beliefs that minimized the importance or denied the existence of IPV. One of these was the idea that many of the charges pressed are false. This belief was observed among interviewees; for example, when Pedro (a member of the national police force) was asked about the main difficultly he encountered in his work with victims: “Many people don’t understand the law and are guided by ‘someone said this, someone told me that’. So, there are those who press charges over something which is basically just a bad divorce.” Another belief detected was that what many women are really seeking is financial aid or benefits in the judicial system. Other related myths included the conviction that the Gender-based Violence Act discriminates against men, that if a woman presses charges the man immediately gets sent to jail and she wins and he loses everything, and that it is men who are being stigmatized, not women.

Another belief of this kind is linked to the idea that victims have a specific profile: they have a low socioeconomic and education level, come from dysfunctional families, have a passive attitude, and an unkempt appearance. According to Marta (a member of the national police force), one of the negative consequences of believing that these profiles exist is that it leads you to minimize the seriousness of a case or to disbelieve a victim when she fits the profile:

Between a call and [. . .] based on the location you are given [. . .] people minimize the importance of it because [. . .] it’s in a disadvantaged area; you generalize and say “well, what do you expect around here?” [. . .] “I expect it’s just a tiff, nothing more.” Or they think the woman is making it up or is exaggerating.

Sometimes, thanks to their experiences dealing with diverse victims, interviewees were aware that no profile in fact exists, but even so, traces of this stereotype remained and they acknowledged feeling surprised when victims were well educated. This is the case with Manuel (a member of the local police force):

I’ve seen it all [. . .] from those in high income brackets to homeless women living on the streets. All sorts. Education level? Exactly the same thing. People . . . even lawyers, eh? People you look at and say, gosh, you’d think being a lawyer she’d know better!

For their part, victims who do not fit the profile may also be judged or disbelieved. For example, according to Ruben (a court clerk), if the victim expresses herself in a way that he does not deem correct, this casts a doubt on her credibility:

They (young girls) are less consistent in their declarations [. . .] There are things that just don’t hold up well. [. . .] I sometimes see patterns; and you think, okay, so you don’t use violence, but if you really are a victim, that doesn’t mean you necessarily have to be in a weak position, it’s not that, but. . . Language defines an individual, don’t you think? So sometimes, I hear a certain language, certain things being said by him about her, and curiously enough, she uses the exact same terms when she talks about him.

Myths that blame the victim were also detected. First, there are those that focus the causes of the violence on the fact that the woman consents to it, as Brenda (a legal advisor) commented: “There are the myths that hold that if you let yourself be abused, it’s because you want it.” Second, there is the idea that the victim’s personality turns her into an easy target for violence, a belief that was expressed by Marta (a member of the national police force): “I don’t like to use the word ‘weaker’. It’s not that they’re weak, it’s more that they have less personality or are more likely to need someone else.”

At the other extreme of the myths that contribute to blaming victims, judging them, or doubting their credibility are those that hold that victims are broken toys or passive subjects. This was observed in the discourse of Ruben (a court clerk): “You realize you are with, how shall I put it, a ‘broken toy’. What’s the solution? Well, at the very least you need to take it out of the shop. And put it in a different context.”

A few mentions were made by participants of two other myths that exist about IPV but are now disappearing. First, the idea that victims should just put up with the situation of violence, and second, that IPV is a private matter.

Stigmatizing Responses

Following the order established in Figure 1, we next identified different stigmatizing responses. The most frequent ones involved minimizing the importance of the violence suffered by the victim or doubting her credibility (dismissing/denying), something that interviewees claimed happens both when the woman in question reports the abuse (“they say she’s exaggerating,” David, lawyer) and when she does not (“if she fails to press charges, then things can’t really be that bad, or it’s just not true,” Marta, national police force). These reactions were sometimes linked to the myths that minimize/deny the existence of IPV, as indicated by Kevin (lawyer): “I have seen public prosecutors who in some way have failed to protect the victim [. . .] They said: ‘Yeah yeah—come on. The only thing she wants is a payout.’” Some reactions are also linked to myths about the existence of a victim profile, something that Victoria (legal advisor) claimed had been the case with her: “I think I may have stigmatized a little in that sense. When you see physically strong women with a strong personality, it’s hard to see them as victims, you know? [. . .] They don’t seem as believable.”

As evident in the following excerpt, this type of reaction was detected even more frequently when there was no indication of physical violence and when the woman in question turned against her aggressor. Ruben (court clerk):

(talking about legal representatives) It’s just not taken as seriously as it should be; we shouldn’t just wait until the woman dies or turns up with grave physical injuries; we shouldn’t just wait until then [. . .] When violence is not manifested in a clear, unequivocal, direct manner (when the victim repeatedly goes back to the aggressor, even when a restraining order is in place) professionals get this inner feeling that prompts them, not to abandon the case, but, you know. . . They see the case as, well, a repetition, and they stop taking it so seriously.

According to some interviewees, women who suffer IPV often talk about coming across reactions of this type, even among their own defense attorneys. Brenda (legal advisor):

One of the things about which women complain a lot is that when they appear before a judge, they aren’t even given the opportunity to speak. Or when they try to explain what happened, they get the feeling that no one believes them. [. . .] The police or the Civil Guard, and all the rest. [. . .] It’s not normal that we have to constantly keep asking for a change of lawyer, because the woman says “look, this lawyer doesn’t listen to me, doesn’t keep me informed, I never know what’s going on, he or she is never available. I call them and they don’t answer.” Just imagine how awful that must be, how much anxiety and stress it must generate, not knowing what’s going on with your case.

Participants often claimed that victims were judged on the basis of certain aspects of their lives or circumstances: for not being financially independent and having to ask for benefits; for being financially independent and having a high socioeconomic status; for having an appearance or attitude that did not fit with the profile of a victim described above; and for their decision to divorce their aggressor, or to return to him time and time again. In this sense, Ruben (court clerk) admitted to doing just this: “In my opinion, they have forfeited their dignity by making improper use (of the judicial system).”

Interviewees also said that victims are blamed for suffering IPV, something which Ruben also observed among his coworkers:

You have to understand that we all sometimes form a bond with someone . . . and that person . . . well, of course they may go back to them. But I and those I work with have trouble understanding that; it’s really hard for us to understand. [. . .] People tend to think that if she goes back to him, then she’s responsible for what happens. But of course, it’s all relative.

Finally, as observed in relation to the myths, at the other extreme of minimizing and denying the violence and blaming and judging victims, we found paternalistic attitudes. This was observed, for example, in the case of Ruben: “Sometimes I have tried to support them more than I should have, and I think it was a mistake; I fell into a pattern of behavior that was like . . . well, giving them a pat on the shoulder.”

Consequences of Stigma for Victims

Finally, of the consequences of stigma for victims mentioned by interviewees, the most frequent were not disclosing the violence suffered and not asking for help. According to participants, this is mainly the result of the fact that women know that stigmatizing myths exist and simply assume that no one will believe them if they disclose the violence; alternatively, it is because they have ended up internalizing the messages (e.g., guilt) implicit in the stigmatizing myths and reactions to which they have been exposed. Moreover, if they do decide to seek help, victims may feel the need to justify the fact that they are not looking for financial handouts, again because they often assume that they will not be believed otherwise, as Maria (local police force) explained: “A woman may react by saying ‘I’ve come to press charges against my husband for being violent towards me, but I’m not looking for any financial help’.”

Other consequences of stigma were also detected, in which participants did not specify that the direct cause was either the myths or the reactions, but rather both together in general. These included becoming angry with professionals who assumed that they were only seeking financial aid; having to narrate the violent episode again and again to other professionals, because some had not believed them; suffering psychological effects that undermined their confidence even further and made it harder for them to escape the situation of violence; feeling unprotected and alone in a system that is supposed to help them; and disengaging from the judicial proceeding.

How Stigmatization Works

Several of the factors that originated the stigma have been suggested by the literature: patriarchal values (Garcia-Jimenez et al., 2019; C. Murray et al., 2016), personal experiences—such as not knowing a victim but knowing an aggressor or having recently experienced violence (Garcia-Jimenez et al., 2019), privileged social positions (Ferrer-Perez et al., 2020; Gracia et al., 2020; C. Murray et al., 2016), lack of professional training, and the media (C. Murray et al., 2016), the latter being related to the category “high exposure of IPV cases that reinforce the myths.” Progress appears to have been made in relation to some of these factors over recent years. First, the Gender Equality Index rating for Spain rose from 66.4 in 2013 to 73.7 in 2021 (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2021), an increase that indicates a weakening of patriarchal values. Nevertheless, as participants stated, these values continue to be present, albeit to a lesser extent. Second, the number of professionals who have received training in IPV has increased (Gracia et al., 2020). However, participants also claimed that the said training was often voluntary or very superficial. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind the fact that, in addition to theoretical knowledge about IPV, each professional also has their own personal experience of violence and a different level of privilege within society, aspects that seem to influence the degree to which they stigmatize women victims of IPV. In the field of mental health, it has been widely demonstrated, even with experimental studies, that information is not enough to reduce public stigma (Gaebel et al., 2017).

Regarding the media, cases of IPV receive a great deal of media attention, with the way in which such occurrences are presented often contributing to the negative image which exists today in society for IPV victims. López-Díez (2007) explained that it served to highlight the presence of a patriarchal culture in the media also. However, the media also plays a key role in rendering IPV more visible, which in turn has helped raise awareness among the general population, encouraging victims to seek help and prompting the government to develop public policies designed to fight against this particular manifestation of violence. For this reason, the GOGV has established a series of resources designed to ensure ethical reporting of cases of IPV by the media, although it is also true that not all media outlets follow these recommendations (Cuesta-Ramírez, 2021).

Another relevant factor that was also mentioned as contributing to stigmatization was the emergence of extreme right-wing political ideologies in Spain that minimize the importance of IPV through discourses that, for example, hold that the current law on gender-based violence discriminates against men. Such arguments (and others like them) have recently begun to be analyzed and criticized in feminist research (e.g., Varela-Guinot, 2021). All the above, coupled with the fact that IPV usually manifests in the private sphere and most of the pertinent information pertaining to cases is unknown, justifies the idea that professionals, even those working in specialist services, are not exempt from the act of stigmatizing (C. Murray et al., 2016).

The factors mentioned to date were identified as the basis of stigmatizing myths about IPV and victims, another component of stigma that has been mentioned in recent literature (C. Murray et al., 2016; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013). Among the myths identified, two extremes were observed. The first is represented by the myth of the “broken toy,” which corresponds to a view of women as passive or weak and was first introduced by Overstreet and Quinn (2013). At the other extreme we find all the other myths (blaming the victim, minimizing or denying the abuse, myths about the existence of a certain victim profile, etc.) that contribute to the acceptance and justification of IPV and which have been the focus of an increasing number of studies in different countries of the European Union (Gracia et al., 2020), including Spain (Ferrer-Pérez et al., 2019).

The conceptualization of victims as “broken toys” has been questioned over the past decade and an increasing number of studies have emphasized the need to understand and raise awareness of the fact that every woman faces unique challenges, depending on her social identity and circumstances (socioeconomic status, age, culture, language, etc.), and therefore has certain needs, prompting her to make certain decisions and employ certain strategies for coping with and recovering from violence, strategies that will be different in each case (Barrios et al., 2021; M. Cala, 2012; Campbell & Mannell, 2016).

Regarding the myths at the other extreme, some studies have found a correlation between beliefs that legitimize violence and patriarchal values (Gracia et al., 2020), and have highlighted how myths can negatively affect the service provided to victims and judicial sentences (Cala-Carrillo & García-Jiménez, 2014; Goodmark, 2008; Nikolova et al., 2021). Nevertheless, studies with university students, such as the one by Ferrer-Pérez et al. (2019), have reported findings that indicate a reduction in these myths, mainly thanks to legislative and preventative measures and increased training.

It is striking that practically all interviewees alluded to the existence of myths among law enforcement professionals and members of the legal system that minimize the importance or deny the existence of IPV. It would be interesting to explore the question of whether certain stereotypical beliefs are more present in certain professions. One example mentioned by one of the participants in this study referred to the fact that police officers tended to normalize and minimize the importance of the IPV suffered by women with a low socioeconomic status, largely due to the more frequent contact that they have with such victims during the course of their work.

Despite the importance of these myths, however, they only account for part of the stigma generated, and exclude behavioral components (Barnett et al., 2016). It is therefore interesting to analyze them in conjunction with stigmatizing responses. These responses were identified as stemming directly from the same factors mentioned at the start (patriarchy, lack of knowledge, etc.), as well as from the myths themselves, which was already highlighted by Overstreet and Quinn (2013). Nevertheless, in light of Pescosolido and Martin’s (2015) proposal regarding how stigma works, it is possible that stigmatizing responses also serve to strengthen false beliefs about IPV and victims. Consequently, the relationship between myths and responses may be bidirectional and, given the complexity of this analysis, may not have been expressed by participants.

Consistently, with that found by Crowe and Murray (2015) and that stated by certain victims in the 2019 Macro-survey (GOGV, 2019b), the stigmatizing responses most commonly detected in these professional fields were minimizing the importance of the abuse and not believing the victims, judging them and blaming them. At the other extreme, a paternalistic attitude toward victims was observed. This has not been mentioned in previous studies describing the different manifestations of stigma (Crowe & Murray, 2015; C. E. Murray et al., 2018). However, in other fields of study with a longer history, such as the stigma associated with mental illness, a clear association has been found between the stereotype of incompetence and paternalistic behaviors that seek to exclude the stigmatized person from the decision-making process (Gaebel et al., 2017). This stereotype of incompetence may be similar to that of the “broken toy” in the field of IPV.

Finally, several consequences of public stigmatization for victims who were mentioned in the interviews correspond with recent findings in the literature in this regard: anticipation and internalization of the stigma (Overstreet & Quinn, 2013), not disclosing the abuse and not seeking help (C. Murray et al., 2016; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013), proving they are doing things “right” (Meyer, 2016), and suffering psychological damage (Kennedy & Prock, 2018; Overstreet et al., 2019). The anticipation of stigmatization by professionals and the internalization of the stigma itself make it even more difficult for victims to decide to disclose the violence they are suffering and seek help. This is consistent with that reported recently by other authors (Barrios et al., 2021; Crowe & Murray, 2015; Pokharel et al., 2020). In the event of victims seeking help, anticipation of stigmatization may result in them making an extra effort to be believed, in line with Meyer’s (2016) findings. To this we must add the necessity of narrating the events over and over to other professionals because the previous ones did not believe them, the feeling of being unprotected and the possible decision to disengage from the judicial proceeding, and not to mention the psychological consequences, which was already emphasized in other studies (Kennedy & Prock, 2018; Overstreet et al., 2019). In light of the isolation to which many victims are exposed (Cala-Carrillo & García-Jiménez, 2014), how difficult it is for them to make the decision to disclose the violence they are suffering and ask for help (Pokharel et al., 2020), and the various factors that hamper the continuation of the judicial procedure once it has been initiated (M. J. Cala et al., 2016), the impact of stigmatization by those professionals who are supposed to act as a fundamental support base is well worth highlighting.

Implications for Research and Practice

The qualitative methodology used enabled us to explore the complex nature of stigma and is a valid source of knowledge in itself (Pescosolido & Martin, 2015). Moreover, the survey method that has been used by authors such as Crowe and Murray (2015) is not considered the most appropriate since, unlike interviews or focus groups, it does not allow responses to be either clarified or explored further (Creswell, 2007). Nevertheless, to complement these results, we suggest that a quantitative instrument be designed and validated to measure stigma, to enable data to be collected from a broader sample. This would help consolidate the results reported to date and establish a model of how stigmatization works that could then be generalized to the rest of the population. Similarly, to obtain a more sensitive measurement of stigma that is not affected by social desirability bias, and in light of the success of certain studies over recent years in analyzing beliefs and attitudes to IPV (e.g., Ferrer-Perez et al., 2020), we suggest that measures of implicit stigmatization be developed. This may enable the in-depth study of more subtle behaviors, such as paternalism.

Our results also highlight the need to improve the training provided to professionals. To this end, we suggest the design and assessment of a training plan for law enforcement professionals and those working in the judicial system, aimed at fighting against stigma. The said plan should take into account the empirical evidence collected in other fields, such as mental health, and some recommendations for IPV training for workers in the judicial system that have been made recently in Spain (García-Jiménez et al., 2022).

Among the participants in our study, stigmatization was usually unintentional or unconscious, although interviews often ended with professionals reflecting on their own behavior. This suggests that it would be a good idea for the training program to include self-analysis exercises about stigmatization in professional practice, as well as about patriarchal values, social attitudes, and personal experiences with IPV that may influence behavior. Finally, it should be added that the experience of stigma associated with suffering from IPV varies and is sometimes amplified by the intersection with other stigmatized identities (ethnic origin, age, social class, etc.), constituting yet another obstacle to help seeking (Mason et al., 2017; C. Murray et al., 2016; Potter, 2015). We recommend that this perspective be incorporated into training programs, to foster an effective, sensitive approach to the specific needs of each individual victim in cases of IPV.

Critical Reflection About the Research

During our study of stigma, which is an issue strongly affected by social desirability, the fact that the LR was a woman, a psychologist, and a gender studies researcher may have constituted an initial barrier, since participants may not have felt they could express themselves with total freedom for fear of being evaluated and judged. This could be redressed by using implicit stigma assessment methods. We are also aware that, despite having compared the findings of the LR with those of the rest of the team and having maintained a self-reflexive attitude, the conclusions drawn from the data collection are influenced by the LR’s specific view of IPV stigma. In accordance with the principles of CGT (Creswell, 2007), we accept that this is only one possible interpretation of the reality analyzed. Finally, it should be pointed out that the nature of our research prevents us from extrapolating the results found to the rest of the population; nor can we establish quantitative or qualitative differences in stigma in accordance with the sociodemographic variables studied.