In the present study, the authors explore the differential meaning of choice among battered women who stay in violent relationships and challenge the either/or paradigm that equates leaving with choice and staying with entrapment. A theoretical sample of 25 interviews was selected from a database of 120 in-depth, qualitative interviews with cohabitant couples who remained together despite violence. Sampling and data analysis followed the principles of grounded theory. Findings are organized around 2 conceptual categories: choosing to stay and being prevented from leaving. Each of the categories is examined in relation to both temporal and spatial dimensions. This conceptual framework implies that choices may be constructed by battered women.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerP. L. (1997). And I went back—Battered women's negotiations of choice. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 26, 55–74.
2.
BarnettO. W., & LaVioletteA. D. (1993). It could happen to anyone: Why battered women stay.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
BerkR.A., NewtonP. J., & BerkS. F. (1986). What a difference a day makes: An empirical study of the impact of shelters for battered women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 481–490.
4.
BogradM. (1984). Family systems approach to wife battering: A feminist critique. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54, 558–568.
5.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrunerJ. (1990). Acts of meaning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BurstowB. (1992). Radical feminist therapy: Working in the context of violence.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DobashR. E., & DobashR. (1979). Violence against wives.New York: The Free Press.
10.
EisikovitsZ., & WinstokZ. (2002). Reconstructing intimate violence: The structure and content of recollections of violent events. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 685–699.
11.
FerraroK. J., & JohnsonJ. M. (1983). How women experience battering: The process of victimization. Social Problems, 30, 325–339.
12.
FolingsteadD. R., NeckermanA. P., & VormbrockJ. (1988). Reactions to victimization and coping strategies of battered women: The ties that bind. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 373–390.
13.
Giles-SimsJ. (1983). Wife battering: A systems theory approach.New York: Guilford.
14.
GrahamD. L. R., RawlingsE., & RiminiN. (1988). Survivors of terror: Battered women, hostages, and the “Stockholm syndrome”. In YllöK., & BogradM. (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 217–233). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Haj-YahiaM. M. (1997). Predicting beliefs about wife beating among engaged Arab men in Israel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 530–545.
16.
HarlowC. W. (1991). Female victims of violent crimes (Publication No. NCJ 126826). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17.
KalmussD. S., & StrausM. A. (1982). Wife's marital dependency and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 277–286.
LampertL. B. (1996). Women's strategies for survival: Developing agency in abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 269–289.
20.
LosekeD. R., & CahillS. E. (1984). The social construction of deviance: Experts on battered women. Social Problems, 31, 296–310.
21.
MillsL. (1996). Empowering battered women transactionally: The case for postmodern intervention. Social Work, 41, 261–268.
22.
OkunL. E. (1986). Woman abuse: Facts replacing myths.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
23.
PagelowM. D. (1984). Family violence.New York: Praeger.
24.
PfoutsJ. H. (1979). Violent families: Coping responses of abused wives. Child Welfare, 57, 101–11.
25.
SaundersD. G., & BrowneA. (1990). Domestic homicide. In AmmermanR. T., & HersonM. (Eds.), Case studies in family violence (pp. 379–402). New York: Plenum.
26.
SaundersD. G., & SizeP. B. (1986). Attitudes about women abuse among police officers, victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 25–42.
27.
SchechterS. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women's movement.London: Pluto.
28.
SchillingerE. (1988). Dependency, control, and isolation: Battered women and the welfare system. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 469–490.
29.
SchwartzM. D. (1988). Marital status and woman abuse theory. Journal of Family Violence, 3, 239–248.
30.
StaceyW., & ShupeA. (1983). A family secret: Domestic violence in America.Boston: Beacon.
31.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
StrubeM. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship. In HotalingG. T., FinkelhorD., KirpatrikJ. T., & StrausM. A. (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 93–106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
33.
StrubeM. J., & BarbourL. S. (1983). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: Economic dependence and psychological commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 785–793.
34.
SullivanC. M. (1991). The provision of advocacy services to women leaving abusive partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 41–54.
35.
SymondsA. (1979). Violence against women: The myth of masochism. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 32, 161–173.
36.
WalkerL. E. A. (1993). The battered woman syndrome is a psychological consequence of abuse. In GellesR. J., & LosekeD. R. (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 133–135). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
YllöK. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and violence. In GellesR. J., & LosekeD. R. (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
