Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T11:32:31.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“Staying alive” in the context of intimate partner abuse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

Courtney Humeny*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada Courtney_humeny@carleton.ca

Abstract

Females are disproportionately affected by intimate partner abuse that can result in severe physical and mental harm. Benenson et al. provide little exploration of how female-evolved traits enhance females' survival in abusive relationships. Discussion centres on “why” females do not “just leave” an abusive relationship and the effectiveness of female-evolved traits in navigating intimate partner abuse over time.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Benenson et al. provide a compelling case that corroborates Campbell's “staying alive” theory. Substantial evidence was overviewed to support Benenson et al.'s claim that females invest more resources in reducing social conflict and protecting social bonds through various strategies (e.g., politeness, emotion identification) that enhance their survival. While I generally agree with Benenson et al.'s conclusions, I would like to extend them to the context of intimate partner abuse.

Benenson et al. acknowledge that females are disproportionately affected by gendered violence, particularly intimate partner abuse (Conroy, Reference Conroy2021). Yet it is unclear how female-evolved traits enhance their survival in abusive intimate relationships and if this is associated with “why” females do not “just leave” a relationship once it becomes abusive. Evidence suggests that the risk for violence is heightened when females leave or attempt to leave an abusive intimate relationship, with more than half of femicide being committed by a current or former intimate partner (Conroy, Reference Conroy2021; Petrosky et al., Reference Petrosky, Blair, Betz, Fowler, Jack and Lyons2017). Femicide is found to be the leading cause of death of females in the pregnancy and post-partum period in the United States (Wallace, Gillispie-Bell, Cruz, Davis, & Vilda, Reference Wallace, Gillispie-Bell, Cruz, Davis and Vilda2021). Further, Johnson, Eriksson, Mazerolle, and Wortley (Reference Johnson, Eriksson, Mazerolle and Wortley2019) found, in a sample of males incarcerated for femicide, that 50% did not perpetrate physical abuse in the year leading up to the femicide but exhibited coercively controlling behaviours (e.g., jealousy, stalking). Thus, severe violence and even femicide can occur even when escalating injuries from physical assaults are absent.

It could be argued that females do not immediately leave an abusive relationship as it could be safer to stay and wait for a less dangerous time for separation (e.g., once they have developed good coping skills, secured transportation/shelter/finances; Walker, Reference Walker2009). During this time, they may use female-evolved traits to adapt to their environment. These include their enhanced sensitivity and reactivity for threat-related cues (e.g., abuser's expressions of anger) and proficiency for emotion identification that may aid them in learning their abuser's triggers to navigate the cycle of abuse and mitigate confrontation. While these strategies could diminish the severity of abuse episodes, they may not be self-protective over the long term. Particularly because females can be in an abusive relationship for extended periods (with studies reporting relationships lasting over 20 years; Eckstein, Reference Eckstein2011; Humeny, Forth, & Logan, Reference Humeny, Forth and Logan2021), which heightens the risk for severe forms of abuse and detrimental consequences for females' mental and physical health (Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, Reference Mechanic, Weaver and Resick2008). This includes acute and chronic pain from injuries (e.g., traumatic brain injury, maxillofacial injuries; de Macedo Bernardino et al., Reference de Macedo Bernardino, Santos, Ferreira, de Almeida Lima, da Nóbrega and d'Avila2018; Smirl et al., Reference Smirl, Jones, Copeland, Khatra, Taylor and Van Donkelaar2019).

Even if abusers do not perpetuate physical abuse, chronic stress from the cycle of abuse and abusers' coercively controlling behaviours increase females' isolation (Walker, Reference Walker2009) and susceptibility for mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression (Karakurt, Patel, Whiting, & Koyutürk, Reference Karakurt, Patel, Whiting and Koyutürk2017). Substantial evidence suggests post-traumatic stress disorder and depression impedes facial affect recognition (Cotter et al., Reference Cotter, Granger, Backx, Hobbs, Looi and Barnett2018; Moser et al., Reference Moser, Aue, Suardi, Kutlikova, Cordero, Rossignol and Schechter2015) and emotion regulation (Plana, Lavoie, Battaglia, & Achim, Reference Plana, Lavoie, Battaglia and Achim2014; Vanderlind, Millgram, Baskin-Sommers, Clark, & Joormann, Reference Vanderlind, Millgram, Baskin-Sommers, Clark and Joormann2020), contributes to cognitive impairments (e.g., attention, working memory) and social withdrawal (Cotter et al., Reference Cotter, Granger, Backx, Hobbs, Looi and Barnett2018; DePierro, D'andrea, & Pole, Reference DePierro, D'andrea and Pole2013; Schweizer & Dalgleish, Reference Schweizer and Dalgleish2011), and impairs the processing of “safe environments” (i.e., hinders processing of socially affirming information, reduces approach behaviours; Nawijn et al., Reference Nawijn, van Zuiden, Frijling, Koch, Veltman and Olff2015). Karakurt et al. (Reference Karakurt, Patel, Whiting and Koyutürk2017) found intimate partner abuse survivors demonstrated elevated rates of gynaecological and pregnancy-related problems, including injuries from sexual assault, sexually transmitted diseases, low birth rates, and late entry and/or inconsistent pre-natal care. Intimate partner abuse also contributes to reduced immune system functioning (Karakurt et al., Reference Karakurt, Patel, Whiting and Koyutürk2017), decreased sleep quality (Lalley-Chareczko et al., Reference Lalley-Chareczko, Segal, Perlis, Nowakowski, Tal and Grandner2017), and enhanced risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality (Chandan et al., Reference Chandan, Thomas, Bradbury-Jones, Taylor, Bandyopadhyay and Nirantharakumar2020).

Since intimate partner abuse is associated with a heightened risk of all-cause mortality, staying in an abusive intimate relationship impedes survival and reproductive success. This is further evident via the effects of chronic stress and injury on mental and physical health, which appear to hinder the effectiveness of female-evolved traits (e.g., emotion identification proficiency) that may aid in navigating the cycle of abuse. Given the prevalence of intimate partner abuse and the effects it has on females' survival and reproductive success, Benenson et al.'s argument would benefit from including a discussion of how Campbell's “staying alive” theory applies to intimate partner abuse. One avenue would be to explore the association between female-evolved traits and their social networks that were established prior to the abusive relationship.

Benenson et al.'s findings parallel research that shows females have more intimate and reciprocal interpersonal relationships (Pearce, Machin, & Dunbar, Reference Pearce, Machin and Dunbar2021) and rely on a wider array of family and friends for mutual support than males (Conrad & White, Reference Conrad and White2010; Einolf, Reference Einolf2011). Females are also found to have more positive help-seeking attitudes than males (Mackenzie, Gekoski, & Knox, Reference Mackenzie, Gekoski and Knox2006). Males’ adherence to traditionally masculine norms (e.g., risk taking, self-reliance, dominance) is associated with less help-seeking behaviours and declines in mental health (Wong, Ho, Wang, & Miller, Reference Wong, Ho, Wang and Miller2017). Sylaska and Edwards (Reference Sylaska and Edwards2014) found females had a higher rate of disclosing intimate partner abuse than males and tended to disclose to friends and female family members. Disclosure, coupled with the reception of social support (e.g., emotional or tangible forms, such as shelter, childcare, and/or financial resources), was predictive of improved mental health (Sylaska & Edwards, Reference Sylaska and Edwards2014). It has also been found to mitigate the isolation caused by intimate partner abuse and serve as a protective mechanism against continued abuse (Bybee & Sullivan, Reference Bybee and Sullivan2005). While females may have a wide social network and a willingness to disclose and seek help it is important that their support network is equipped with the appropriate resources to assist them in safely navigating and/or exiting an abusive relationship. Thus, continued education and community outreach, complete with community and institutional resources (e.g., risk assessments, reducing stigmatization, ensuring housing and employment stability), is necessary. These factors could provide survivors a safe environment for disclosure and help-seeking that may aid in mitigating the severe negative outcomes that can result from intimate partner abuse.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

Conflict of interest

None.

References

Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2005). Predicting re-victimization of battered women 3 years after exiting a shelter program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 8596. doi: 10.1007/s10464-005-6234-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandan, J. S., Thomas, T., Bradbury-Jones, C., Taylor, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Nirantharakumar, K. (2020). Risk of cardiometabolic disease and all-cause mortality in female survivors of domestic abuse. Journal of the American Heart Association, 9(4), e014580. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conrad, D., & White, A. K. (Eds.). (2010). Promoting men's mental health. Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
Conroy, S. (2021). Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2019. Statistics Canada; 2019 [accessed November 20, 2020]. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00001-eng.htmGoogle Scholar
Cotter, J., Granger, K., Backx, R., Hobbs, M., Looi, C. Y., & Barnett, J. H. (2018). Social cognitive dysfunction as a clinical marker: A systematic review of meta-analyses across 30 clinical conditions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 9299. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Macedo Bernardino, Í., Santos, L. M., Ferreira, A. V. P., de Almeida Lima, T. L. M., da Nóbrega, L. M., & d'Avila, S. (2018). Intimate partner violence against women, circumstances of aggressions and oral-maxillofacial traumas: A medical-legal and forensic approach. Legal Medicine, 31, 16. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2017.12.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePierro, J., D'andrea, W., & Pole, N. (2013). Attention biases in female survivors of chronic interpersonal violence: Relationship to trauma-related symptoms and physiology. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 4, 110. doi: 10.3402/ejpt.v4i0.19135Google ScholarPubMed
Eckstein, J. J. (2011). Reasons for staying in intimately violent relationships: Comparisons of men and women and messages communicated to self and others. Journal of Family Violence, 26(1), 2130. doi: 10.1007/s10896-010-9338-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 10921112. doi: 10.1177/0899764010385949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humeny, C., Forth, A., & Logan, J. (2021). Psychopathic traits predict survivors’ experiences of domestic abuse. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, H., Eriksson, L., Mazerolle, P., & Wortley, R. (2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 323. doi: 10.1177/1557085117701574Google Scholar
Karakurt, G., Patel, V., Whiting, K., & Koyutürk, M. (2017). Mining electronic health records data: Domestic violence and adverse health effects. Journal of Family Violence, 32(1), 7987. doi: 10.1007/s10896-016-9872-5Google ScholarPubMed
Lalley-Chareczko, L., Segal, A., Perlis, M. L., Nowakowski, S., Tal, J. Z., & Grandner, M. A. (2017). Sleep disturbance partially mediates the relationship between intimate partner violence and physical/mental health in women and men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(16), 24712495. doi: 10.1177/0886260515592651Google ScholarPubMed
Mackenzie, C. S., Gekoski, W. L., & Knox, V. J. (2006). Age, gender, and the underutilization of mental health services: The influence of help-seeking attitudes. Aging and Mental Health, 10(6), 574582. doi: 10.1080/13607860600641200CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mechanic, M., Weaver, T., & Resick, P. (2008). Risk factors for physical injury among help-seeking battered women: An exploration of multiple abuse dimensions. Violence Against Women, 14(10), 11481165. doi: 10.1177/1077801208323792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moser, D., Aue, T., Suardi, F., Kutlikova, H., Cordero, M., Rossignol, A., & … Schechter, D. (2015). Violence-related PTSD and neural activation when seeing emotionally charged male–female interactions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(5), 645653. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu099CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nawijn, L., van Zuiden, M., Frijling, J. L., Koch, S., Veltman, D., & Olff, M. (2015). Reward functioning in PTSD: A systematic review exploring the mechanisms underlying anhedonia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 189204. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, E., Machin, A., & Dunbar, R. I. (2021). Sex differences in intimacy levels in best friendships and romantic partnerships. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 7(1), 116. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrosky, E., Blair, J. M., Betz, C. J., Fowler, K. A., Jack, S. P., & Lyons, B. H. (2017). Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence – United States, 2003–2014. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(28), 741. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6628a1Google ScholarPubMed
Plana, I., Lavoie, M., Battaglia, M., & Achim, A. (2014). A meta-analysis and scoping review of social cognition performance in social phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder and other anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(2), 169177. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.09.005Google ScholarPubMed
Schweizer, S., & Dalgleish, T. (2011). Emotional working memory capacity in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(8), 498504. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2011.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirl, J. D., Jones, K. E., Copeland, P., Khatra, O., Taylor, E. H., & Van Donkelaar, P. (2019). Characterizing symptoms of traumatic brain injury in survivors of intimate partner violence. Brain Injury, 33(12), 15291538. doi: 10.1080/02699052.2019.1658129Google ScholarPubMed
Sylaska, K. M., & Edwards, K. M. (2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(1), 321. doi: 10.1177/1524838013496335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderlind, W. M., Millgram, Y., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Clark, M. S., & Joormann, J. (2020). Understanding positive emotion deficits in depression: From emotion preferences to emotion regulation. Clinical Psychology Review, 76, 101826. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101826CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, L. (2009). The battered wife syndrome (3rd ed.). Springer.Google Scholar
Wallace, M., Gillispie-Bell, V., Cruz, K., Davis, K., & Vilda, D. (2021). Homicide during pregnancy and the postpartum period in the United States, 2018–2019. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 138(5), 762769. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004567CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, Y. J., Ho, M. H. R., Wang, S. Y., & Miller, I. S. (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 8093. doi: 10.1037/cou0000176Google ScholarPubMed