Women’s disclosure of dating violence: A mixed methodological study

Abstract

The researchers utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to examine college women’s disclosure of dating violence. Quantitative analyses showed that disclosure of dating violence was related to stress associated with abuse, partner blame, and thoughts about ending the relationship. Qualitative content analyses demonstrated that women’s minimization of the abuse was the most commonly given reason for nondisclosure. Women who disclosed dating violence reported that the following responses to their disclosures were most helpful: receiving ‘good advice’, the opportunity to vent/talk about it, receiving comfort and other emotional support, rationalizing the partners’ behavior, and providing a neutral perspective. Conversely, the following responses were reported as least helpful: being told to end the relationship, not understanding, joking about the experiences, and ‘bad advice’. Implications for intervention and future research are discussed.

Keywords

dating violence disclosure social reactions intimate partner violence

The majority of women will be the victim of dating violence during their lifetime (Edwards et al., 2009). A burgeoning body of research documents the deleterious consequences of dating violence to victims and society (Lewis and Fremouw, 2001). Less research, however, has focused on women’s disclosure of dating violence, especially research utilizing mixed methodologies and samples of non-treatment seeking college women in abusive dating relationships. Using a feminist lens, the purpose of the current study was to explore this gap in the literature. In particular, the present study represents a follow-up to Mahlstedt and Keeny’s (1993) mixed-methodological study about US college women’s disclosure of dating violence.

Mahlstedt and Keeny (1993) found that 92% of abused women disclosed the abuse to at least one source, and that these women were much more likely to disclose abuse to informal support services than formal support services. Specifically, they found that although only 9% of abused women disclosed dating violence to police, 80% disclosed dating violence to a friend. Other common informal support sources to whom women disclosed were relatives, including mothers (43%), sisters (47%), brothers (33%), and fathers (15%). These rates of disclosure are similar to rates of sexual assault disclosure found in more recent studies with college (Orchowski and Gidycz, forthcoming) and community (Ullman, 1996, 2010) samples.

Mahlstedt and Keeny (1993) also documented that women endorse barriers to disclosure such as embarrassment about the abuse, believing that the abuse is a private matter, fear for their own safety, or concerns about social reactions. Orchowski and Gidycz (forthcoming) found that women who endorse lower levels of self-blame were more likely to disclose sexual violence than individuals who endorse higher levels of self-blame. The data from these studies are consistent with Ahrens (2006) and Ullman’s (2010) assertions that violence against women serves to reinforce women’s powerlessness in a patriarchal society, and that silence (or nondisclosure) symbolizes this powerlessness.

In addition to assessing rates of disclosure and reasons for nondisclosure, Mahlstedt and Keeny (1993) assessed social reactions to abused women’s disclosure. These researchers found that the most commonly reported responses to disclosure were that confidents ‘listened’, ‘gave helpful advice’, and were ‘angry with the assailant’. The least frequent responses were ‘trivialized it’, ‘saw me as a failure’, and ‘made decisions for me’. Responses that women reported as the most helpful included: ‘understanding,’ ‘advice-giving,’ ‘listening,’ and ‘interrupting victim blame.’ Mahlstedt and Keeny reported that excessive advice giving (e.g. to leave the abuser) was often interpreted by women as an insinuation of victim-blame, and were considered by women to be the most unhelpful responses. These results underscore the differences in social reactions that women receive to their disclosure of dating violence within the context of a patriarchal culture.

Although the Mahlstedt and Keeney (1993) study contributes to our knowledge of disclosure of dating violence, there remains a dearth of research assessing reasons for nondisclosure and the responses from confidants that college-aged women who disclose dating violence perceive as the most and least helpful. Also, there have been considerable efforts in our society (e.g. media awareness campaigns, dating violence prevention, and intervention programming) to raise awareness about dating violence over the past years (Gidycz et al., 2011), which may have contributed to changes in disclosure processes (Ullman, personal communication, January 6, 2011). In order to build upon the results of earlier research, we attempted to answer the following questions utilizing quantitative data: To whom do women disclose dating violence? What are the correlates of women’s disclosure of dating violence? Utilizing qualitative data, we attempted to answer the following questions: For women who disclosed, who was the most helpful and why? Who was the least helpful and why? For women who did not disclose, what were their reasons for doing so? Of note, we agree with other researchers (e.g. Ahrens, 2006; Ullman, 2010) that social reactions to interpersonal violence emanate from broader social norms and attitudes related to violence against women and gendered power relations. Although we did not directly assess these social norms and attitudes in our study, we assert that these invariably affect social reactions to disclosure and survivors’ perceptions of helpfulness and unhelpfulness of specific responses. We thus use a critical feminist lens when interpreting and discussing our results.

Method

Participants

Participants included 44 women who reported at least one incident of sexual, physical, or psychological abuse in their current heterosexual relationship, as measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996) and obtained from a larger screening sample (N = 107). The 44 women were predominantly young (mean age = 19.30, SD = 1.36) and white (82%).

Measures

The CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996) was used to identify women currently in relationships characterized by dating violence. Women (N = 44) who endorsed any experiences of physical, sexual, or severe psychological dating violence in their current relationships on the CTS2 were considered to be in abusive relationships and included in the study analyses. Abused women most commonly reported experiences of what Straus et al. (1996) consider moderate forms of abuse (e.g. being pushed/shoved, verbally coerced to have sexual intercourse) in their current relationships, as opposed to more severe forms of abuse (e.g. being choked, physically forced to have intercourse).

Following the CTS2, women were asked to review their answers on the measure and pick the most severe/upsetting experience that they endorsed, and to answer the remaining questions about this experience. Specific questions (with response options ranging from ‘Not at all’ to ‘Very much’) assessed self-blame, partner blame, and how stressful the experience was for participants. Additionally, participants were asked if they thought about ending the relationship following the specific incident (‘Yes’ or ‘No’). A question also assessed who participants told about the experience. After these forced-choice response questions, women completed three open-ended questions about the most helpful and least helpful responses to their disclosure, as well as reasons for nondisclosure. For each question, women were asked to provide ‘several sentences’, and written responses ranged from a few phrases to several sentences.

Procedure

Following institutional review board approval, participants were recruited through introductory psychology courses and were compensated with course credit. Data were collected in groups, which included informed consent, survey completion, and debriefing and referral information.

Participants’ written responses to open-ended questions were independently content analyzed (Krippendorf, 1980) by two raters who were doctoral students in clinical psychology. In the first steps of content analysis, coders read participants’ responses repeatedly in order to obtain the Gestalt of the data. Second, words and phrases that addressed each of the questions asked were highlighted. This was done in an effort to identify and categorize all aspects of women’s responses to the various open-ended questions. Third, similarities and differences in the responses to each of the questions were noted and led to the emergence of categories of similar responses. After initially coding all participants’ responses using these initial categories, the researchers examined all data within a particular code and some codes were combined, whereas others were split into subcategories. As suggested by Joffe and Yardley (2004) there is considerable overlap in content and thematic analytic approaches. Whereas the researchers focused primarily on the manifest content of the data (derived from content coding), the categories were also used to explore themes across categories at a more latent level in the discussion section using feminist theory.

Results

To whom do women disclose dating violence?

Approximately 75% (n = 33) of the sample disclosed dating violence to at least one source. As demonstrated in Table 1, the most common disclosure sources were informal supports, specifically friends.

Table 1.

Rates of disclosure

Source	Percentage who disclosed to source
Female friend	73%
Male friend	25%
Sister	25%
Brother	2%
Mother	23%
Father	7%
Counselor	5%
Medical doctor	0%
Law enforcement	0%
Priest/minister	0%

Note: Percentages exceed 100% because many participants disclosed to multiple sources.

What are the correlates of women’s disclosure of dating violence?

Three t-tests and a chi-square test were conducted to determine the correlates of women’s disclosure of dating violence. Results from the t-tests (see Table 2) suggested that, compared to nondisclosers, disclosers reported higher levels of stress associated with the experience [t (42) = 1.78, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.70] and higher levels of partner blame [t (42) = 1.78, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.58]. Results from the chi-square test (see Table 3) suggested that disclosers were more likely to think about ending the relationship than nondisclosers [X² = 5.13, p < .05].

Table 2.

Means (and standard deviations) for variables of interest

	Disclosers	Nondisclosers
Partner blame	3.15 (1.03)	2.45 (1.36)
Self blame	1.67 (1.19)	1.36 (1.43)
Stress of situation	2.85 (1.03)	1.91 (1.58)

Table 3.

Rates of disclosure as a function of thoughts about the ending relationship

	Thought about ending relationship
	Yes	No
Disclosers	58%	42%
Nondisclosers	18%	82%

For women who disclosed, who was the most helpful and why?

Content analyses showed that 56% of disclosers perceived their friends as the most helpful, with the remainder stating family members were most helpful. The most common reasons that disclosers stated people were helpful were that confidants offered good advice (36%), provided the opportunity to vent/talk about it (28%), and provided comfort and other emotional support (20%). Additional helpful responses were that confidants related to the experience (16%), provided rationalization for the partners’ behavior (12%), and provided a neutral perspective (8%). See Table 4 for quotes depicting the reasons disclosers stated individuals were helpful.

Table 4.

Quotes depicting most helpful responses

Category	Example quotes
Offered advice	‘My friends told me they never see me and talked about [how] they hated him and my mom hated him so I knew he was no good.’‘My sister because I tell her everything and she gives me good advice.’‘[Friends] gave me a lot of guidance.’‘My friends told me not to talk to him for a couple of days so we can both cool down.’‘My sister and parents always give good advice.’
Vent/talk about it	‘Just talking it out to some of my girlfriends calmed me down.’‘My best friend just let me talk about it.’‘I talked to my roommate about it.’
Emotional support	‘They comforted me.’‘Friends [were] very supportive.’‘[My best friend] was very comforting.’
Related	‘I thought my best friend was helpful because she had it happen to her.’‘My friends were the most helpful because they have been there.’
Rationalized behavior	‘His friends were the most helpful because they informed me that this was how he always acted when he drank.’‘Male friends. They explained that he needed to cool off.’
Neutral perspective	‘[My friends] didn’t justify the action, but allowed me a different perspective.’‘My best friend because she knows me so well and knows my boyfriend pretty well so she could give me an informed and helpful opinion.’

For women who disclosed, who was the least helpful and why?

Content analyses showed that 49% of disclosers felt that friends were the least helpful, with the remainder stating their partner (20%), family member (19%), or counselor (13%) were the least helpful. Reasons that disclosers stated people were unhelpful were because others told them to break-up with their partner (33%), provided ‘bad advice’ (27%), did not understand (27%), and joked about the experience (20%). See Table 5 for quotes depicting the reasons disclosers stated people were least helpful.

Table 5.

Quotes depicting least helpful responses

Category	Example quotes
Encouraged relationship dissolution	‘Female friends just said “so dump him”.’‘They aren’t a fan of my boyfriend so they automatically wanted me to leave him.‘My brother. He wants us to break up.’‘My mom wanted me to end the relationship.’‘[My friends] didn’t understand why I wouldn’t just leave him’
‘Bad advice’	‘Some friends said not to do anything which was worthless.’‘They couldn’t give an informed opinion.’‘Telling me to call his mom.’‘My father because he didn’t think it was appropriate to be dating at the age of 15–16.’
Did not understand	‘My counselor didn’t know how to respond.’‘[My mom] didn’t understand.’‘[My friends] didn’t understand why I would be so upset.’‘They don’t understand our relationship.’
Joked	‘Male friends because they jokingly asked why I wouldn’t [give into sexual pressure].’‘Male friends just laugh it off.’

For women who did not disclose, what were their reasons?

The most common reason for nondisclosure was that the incident was ‘no big deal’ (80%). Additional reasons included concerns that no one would understand (10%) and concerns about anticipated confidants’ reactions (20%). See Table 6 for quotes depicting the reasons participants did not disclose.

Table 6.

Quotes depicting reasons for nondisclosure

Category	Example quotes
‘No big deal’	‘It was not a big deal to me! Stuff happens; you get into fights, not a big deal.’‘It wasn’t that big of a deal.’‘It was not a big deal – my boyfriend [and I] talked about it afterward.’‘The incident was no big deal. I just wanted to have sex but he wanted me to perform oral.’‘It was nothing out of the ordinary for two teenagers. I forgave him b/c he was sorry and we moved on, I did not need to discuss it with others – it was miniscule.’‘I felt like it was a normal dating thing and that it was unnecessary to tell anyone. Afterwards, I felt like he really didn’t mean it to come out that way so I just forgot about it.’
Would not understand	‘I didn’t feel anyone would understand the situation since they weren’t there.’
Concern about reactions	‘Because I was embarrassed and it was my business I didn’t want anyone else to know.’‘I think it’s not a good thing to talk to the people who really care about me. I don’t want to let them worry about me, especially my family.’

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess college women’s disclosure of dating violence utilizing a mixed methodological design. Similar to Mahlstedt and Keeny’s (1993) study, many women were able to break their silence and disclose dating violence. Almost all women who disclosed did so to an informal support, most commonly female friends. Additionally, quantitative results demonstrated that there was a relationship between several factors – stress associated with abuse, partner blame, and thoughts about ending the relationship – and the disclosure of dating violence. However, given the retrospective nature of this study, the temporal sequencing of these variables is unclear of the temporal sequencing of these variables (i.e. if a certain thought or emotion led to disclosure, or if the act of disclosing and the responses of others led to a certain thought or emotion).

Qualitative content analyses suggested that women’s minimization of the abuse was the most commonly mentioned reason for nondisclosure. In fact, 80% of nondisclosers chose not to discuss the experience with anyone because it was ‘no big deal.’ This finding may be reflective of larger social ideologies that legitimize and normalize violence against women, often leading victims to internalize these norms and beliefs (Baly, 2010; Wood, 2001). Additional reported reasons for nondisclosure included fear that no one would understand, feelings of embarrassment, or believing that the experience was a private matter, all of which are consistent with Mahlstedt and Keeny’s (1993) research and consistent with patriarchal social structures that influence micro-level disclosure processes. For those women who disclosed dating violence to others, responses from confidants varied in their perceived helpfulness. Perhaps due to the fact that 98% of women in this sample who disclosed did so to friends, friends were perceived as both the most helpful (56%) and least helpful confidants (49%). Indeed, consistent with Mahlstedt and Keeny, women often disclosed to multiple friends, some of whom were helpful and some of whom were unhelpful.

Interestingly we found that whereas some individuals reported a particular response (such as telling one to leave) was helpful, others found the same response unhelpful. This finding is consistent with the transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1984) and other research with abused women (e.g. Enander, 2011), such that for women who are in contemplation or preparation stages of leaving, advice such as being told to leave may be perceived as helpful (and consonant with one’s own beliefs), whereas for precontemplative individuals, being told to leave would be dissonant with one’s own beliefs about her relationship. This finding may also be related to patriarchal cultural factors and social discourses that maintain some women in abusive relationships and affect how women understand their role in relationships and their subjectivity as women. This notion is related to feminist research suggesting that some women internalize oppressive social norms regarding gender ideologies and hold more accepting attitudes of violence against women (Baly, 2010; Wood, 2001), which undoubtedly affects the extent to which women find certain social responses to their disclosures of dating violence helpful or unhelpful.

Several limitations of the current study and suggestions for future research are noted. First, the sample size was small and the participant demographics of our sample were homogenous (i.e. white, heterosexual women). This limited our ability to assess differences in perceived helpfulness and unhelpfulness among the varying types of supports (e.g. informal vs formal supports) and different abuse types (e.g. physical, sexual, and psychological). Additionally, the retrospective nature of this study did not allow us to assess the temporal sequencing of the correlates of dating violence or how disclosure of dating violence relates to women’s long-term adjustment and relationship stability – questions that could be followed up using longitudinal mixed-methodologies with larger, more diverse samples. Additionally, it is unclear from the qualitative data what constituted participants’ perceptions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ advice, as well why some participants viewed responses as helpful and others viewed the same responses as unhelpful. Accordingly, future research could attempt to understand participants’ perceptions of various types of advice using more rigorous and in-depth qualitative methodologies (e.g. interviews) and assess readiness to change, empowerment, and cultural variables as possible explanations for variability in what women view as helpful and unhelpful.

Despite these limitations, the findings from the current study offer implications for dating violence programming and social awareness efforts. Given the large percentage of women who minimized the abuse, there is a need for psychoeducation and public awareness campaigns to educate people about dating violence. Further, these data underscore the importance of educating others – especially college students since they are the most likely source of their friends’ disclosures – on how to respond to the disclosure of dating violence. Although dating violence prevention programs often provide suggestions on how to help a friend in an abusive relationship (Black and Weisz, 2008; Foshee et al., 1998; Senn, 2011), findings from the current study underscore the complexity in what women deem as helpful and unhelpful responses to their disclosures of dating violence. Indeed, some of the responses that women reported as helpful (e.g. minimize the abuse) are responses that program developers and facilitators discourage and consider harmful. Clearly, this is a critical area for more mixed-methodological and participatory action research that must include dialogue between researchers, clinicians, program developers, survivors of dating violence, and their formal and informal supports. Furthermore, programming efforts alone will not lead to widespread change in reactions to disclosure because these interpersonal reactions are situated in larger patriarchal social and institutional contexts that legitimize violence against women, and these too must be addressed.

Footnotes

Katie M Edwards is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Hampshire, USA. Her professional interests include the causes, consequences, and prevention of intimate partner violence in addition to the ethical considerations of trauma research and therapy with women currently in abusive relationships. She is also committed to engaging in violence-related advocacy work.

Christina M Dardis is a graduate student in the clinical psychology doctoral program at Ohio University, USA. Her professional interests include sexual assault and domestic violence prevention and recovery processes, as well as perceptions of abuse and intervention efforts.

Christine A Gidycz is a professor of psychology and the director of clinical training at Ohio University, USA. Research interests include the evaluation of sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programs, and correlates, predictors, and consequences of various forms of violence. Her work has been funded through the Centers for Disease Control and the Ohio Department of Health. She has served on various state and national panels that address violence-related issues.

References

Ahrens

(2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the disclosure of rape. American Journal of Community Psychology 38: 263–274.

Baly

(2010). Leaving abusive relationships: Constructions of self and situation by abused women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25: 2297–2315.

Black

Weisz

(2008). Effective interventions with dating violence and domestic violence. In: Franklin

Harris

Allen-Meares

(eds) The School Practitioner’s Concise Companion to Preventing Violence and Conflict. New York. Oxford University Press, pp. 127–139.

Edwards

Desai

Gidycz

Van Wynsberghe

(2009). College women’s aggression in relationships: The role of childhood and adolescent victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly 33: 255–265.

Enander

(2011). Leaving Jekyll and Hyde: Emotion work in the context of intimate partner violence. Feminism and Psychology 21: 29–48.

Foshee

Bauman

Arriaga

Helms

Koch

Linder

(1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health 8: 45–50.

Gidycz

Orchowski

Edwards

(2011). Sexual violence: Primary prevention. In: White

Koss

Kazdin

(eds) Violence Against Women and Children Vol. 2: Navigating Solutions. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association, pp. 159–179.

Joffe

Yardley

(2004). Content and thematic analysis. In: Marks

Yardley

(eds) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology. London. SAGE, pp. 56–68.

Krippendorf

(1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA. SAGE.

10.

Lewis

Fremouw

(2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review 21: 105–127.

11.

Mahlstedt

Keeny

(1993). Female survivors of dating violence and their social networks. Feminism and Psychology 3: 319–333.

12.

Orchowski

Gidycz

(forthcoming). Psychological consequences associated with positive and negative responses to disclosure of sexual assault among college women: A prospective study. Violence Against Women.

13.

Prochaska

DiClemente

(1984). The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing Traditional Boundaries of Therapy. Homewood, IL. Dow Jones-Irwin.

14.

Senn

(2011). An imperfect feminist journey: Reflections on the process to develop an effective sexual assault resistance programme for university women. Feminism and Psychology 21: 121–137.

15.

Straus

Hamby

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues 17: 283–316.

16.

Ullman

(1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly 20: 505–526.

17.

Ullman

(2010). Talking about Sexual Assault: Society’s Response to Survivors. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association.

18.

Wood

(2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romatic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18: 239–261.