Public Perspectives of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): Factors Influencing Identification and the Difference in Perspectives When IPV is Committed In-Person In Comparison to Via Technology

Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a significant societal concern, accounting for 15% of all violent victimizations in the United States between 2002 and 2012 (Truman and Morgan, 2014). It has consistently been a prevalent issue, especially victimizing women (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, and Lozano, 2012). IPV encompasses various forms of abuse, such as physical, sexual, stalking, and psychological aggression, inflicted by a current or former intimate partner (CDC, 2015). This can manifest in behaviours like physical violence, emotional abuse, sexual coercion, surveillance, and isolation (Krug et al., 2002). Over time, the terminology and societal attitudes regarding IPV have evolved.

Historically, IPV was neither recognized as a criminal offence nor condemned, often trivialized and even treated with humour (Jacquet, 2015). Before the 1800s, it was referred to as 'wife battering,' which was perceived as a legitimate way for husbands to assert authority over their wives (Clark, 2011). However, during the late 19th century, Western societies began to shift their perspectives and introduced laws and regulations against 'wife battering.' This term was eventually replaced with 'domestic violence' and 'IPV' when focusing on violence by an intimate partner. Until the 1970s, IPV was largely regarded as a private matter, with limited attention from the Criminal Justice System (CJS) (Schechter, 1982). Since the 1970s, the CJS has made substantial strides in acknowledging IPV as a crime. Despite legislative efforts, IPV remains a significant societal issue, especially when addressing non-physical violence, which can be harder to establish due to the absence of physical evidence. This issue is particularly concerning since both men and women are more likely to experience non-physical IPV than physical IPV (ONS, 2019; Woodlock, 2014).

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2010) revealed that over a third of women and more than a quarter of men in the United States have been victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (2019) reported that 4.2% of adults aged 16-74 experienced some form of violence committed by an intimate partner in the year 2018-2019, encompassing non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault, and stalking. It further disclosed that 17.6% of individuals over the age of 16 had encountered intimate partner violence. Research, including Emery (2010), strongly suggests that IPV is significantly underreported, influenced by factors such as not recognizing the event as a crime, reluctance to be seen as a victim, or negative perceptions of law enforcement. Furthermore, the stigma associated with IPV often deters victims from seeking help, alongside fear of further violence and economic dependence on the perpetrator (Kennedy & Prock, 2018; Wolf et al., 2003; Vranda et al., 2018; Rose et al., 2011; Fugate et al., 2005).

While the terms IPV and domestic violence are often used interchangeably, IPV specifically pertains to violence within romantic relationships. It is a multifaceted issue encompassing both physical and non-physical forms of abuse, with both men and women experiencing non-physical abuse more frequently than physical abuse (ONS, 2019; Woodlock, 2014). IPV is a global concern that transcends gender, culture, and sexual orientation (Coker et al., 2002; Archer, 2006; Vandello & Cohen, 2004; Renzetti & Miley, 1996). Certain risk factors, such as gender and age, make individuals more vulnerable to IPV (Brenner et al., 2013).

As technology rapidly advances and becomes more accessible, it brings advantages and risks. The prevalence of internet usage has grown significantly, transforming how people communicate and connect (Statista, 2020; ONS, 2019). Technology plays a central role in the lives of adolescents and young adults, altering how they engage in romantic relationships (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Connolly and McIsaac, 2011). Online dating and social media have redefined how people meet potential partners and engage in dating (Baker and Carreño, 2016; Vogels, 2020). However, this digital shift has also introduced new avenues for IPV. Technology can be used for monitoring, tracking, excessive messaging, and the unauthorized distribution of intimate images, contributing to IPV (King-Ries, 2011).

This paper predominantly focuses on non-physical IPV, including stalking and coercive, controlling behaviours. It underscores the significance of recognizing and addressing non-physical forms of IPV within the context of modern technology and changing societal dynamics.

Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review guides researchers through the vast terrain of existing knowledge, illuminating the past to navigate the future.

It's a treasure trove of ideas, a mosaic of scholarly voices, and a canvas upon which new research paints its contributions.

The literature review doesn't just inform; it weaves the tapestry of context, connecting existing research threads into a coherent narrative.

In this intricate dance of ideas, researchers wade through the river of prior work, carefully selecting and integrating insights to build a bridge to their contribution.

• Impacts of IPV

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) doesn't just cause immediate harm; its consequences can be long-lasting, taking a toll on victims' mental and physical well-being (CDC, 2012; Fleming et al., 2012; Devries et al., 2013). Coker et al. (2002) discovered that both men and women who were victims of physical IPV experienced negative health outcomes, including poor health, depressive symptoms, and substance abuse. Furthermore, they were at a heightened risk of developing chronic mental and physical illnesses. However, this study relied on anonymous self-reported surveys, which might lead to misclassification of reported health issues and the sequence of IPV victimization and health diagnoses.

Pico-Alfonso et al. (2006) identified that women subjected to physical or psychological partner violence suffered from increased rates and severity of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder compared to non-victimized women. The enduring impacts of IPV underscore why addressing this issue is vital; it extends beyond immediate injuries and can affect victims for a lifetime. This research highlights the importance of investigating the various methods perpetrators use to abuse their victims and how these methods can be identified and addressed. Previous studies have predominantly focused on the effect of physical IPV on mental health. Still, this research delves into the ramifications of psychological IPV, revealing that it can harm women's mental health in the absence of physical violence. This finding is significant as it challenges the misconception that IPV without physical abuse is less serious. However, it's crucial to note that this study primarily examined its impact on women, and the consequences of IPV may differ when considering male victims.

• Stalking and Coercive Control

Tjaden & Thoennes' (1998) research reveals a concerning trend in stalking cases: the majority are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, with half of all stalking cases involving current or former intimate partners. Recent research by Peterson, Liu, Merrick, Basile & Simon (2019) corroborates this, estimating that approximately 85% of stalking cases in the United States involve a current or former intimate partner. Tjaden & Thoennes (1998) also uncovered that stalking by an intimate partner tends to persist for longer durations than stalking by strangers. Furthermore, intimate partner stalkers display a greater inclination to carry out physical threats (Palarea, Zona, Lane & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999), assault their victims (James & Farnham, 2003), and re-offend even after legal intervention (Davis, Ace & Andra, 2000).

Coercive control is a pattern of controlling behaviours exhibited by an intimate partner that curtails an individual's independence, self-esteem, and decision-making autonomy (Hamberger, Larsen & Lehrner, 2017). An inspection of police responses to IPV in England and Wales revealed that officers often struggle to identify such patterns of abusive behaviour, especially when physical violence is not overt (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2014). Studies on coercive control suggest that it is more prevalent than physical violence and potentially more harmful. A study by Glass, Mangello, and Campbell (2004) discovered that, alongside factors such as recent separation and the presence of a weapon, the extent of control in a relationship was a more reliable predictor of homicide than the severity or frequency of physical violence.

Research conducted by Myhill & Hohl (2016) consistently identified behaviours indicative of coercive control in cases of IPV reported to the police. Coercive control was significantly associated with other IPV risk factors, far more so than physical violence. These findings suggest that focusing on identifying coercive control, rather than solely looking at physical violence, may be crucial in effectively assessing and addressing IPV before it escalates into physical violence.

• Age and Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) isn't confined to adulthood; it also plagues young adults, particularly adolescents. Extensive research has explored dating abuse among this age group, with young women aged 16 to 24 exhibiting the highest prevalence of IPV (Rennison, 2001). In a college dating violence and abuse poll conducted by Knowledge Networks, 57% of college students expressed difficulty in recognizing dating abuse. Among those who had experienced it, a staggering 70% failed to realize they were in an abusive relationship at the time (Knowledge Networks, 2011).

A study by Simon et al. (2001) discovered that acceptance of physical violence in intimate partner relationships was less likely among individuals over 35 years old, indicating that older adults may be less tolerant of such behaviours. However, this study specifically focused on the physical aspects of IPV. It did not provide insights into whether similar trends would be observed for other forms of IPV, such as psychological abuse.

More recent research by Maquibar, Vives-Cases, Hurtig & Goicolea (2017) delved into professionals' perceptions of IPV among young people. Participants in the study described relationships among young adults as distinct from those in the adult population, with shorter durations and less clearly defined boundaries. They also noted that IPV among young adults appeared "normalized."

This study underscores how prior victimization experiences can influence current attitudes towards intimate partner violence. However, it primarily examined physical IPV, leaving questions about whether past victimization would have a similar impact on non-physical aspects of IPV, such as psychological abuse.

• Gender and Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is often perceived through a gendered lens (Kubicek, McNeeley & Collins, 2015). Regrettably, female-to-male violence receives considerably less research attention than male-to-female violence despite studies indicating its more frequent occurrence than commonly believed (Strauss & Ramirez, 2007; Black et al., 2011).

Russell, Chapleau & Kraus (2015) conducted a study investigating the role of gender in perceptions of intimate partner violence. The study presented participants with a case summary of an assault, manipulating several factors related to gender and sexual orientation. Participants were then asked to assess to what extent the described behaviours could be considered abusive. The study revealed that female participants were more likely to view the assault as constituting abuse in comparison to their male counterparts. Surprisingly, the gender of the perpetrator did not significantly impact whether the incident was perceived as more or less abusive.

However, other research examining the influence of gender on IPV has found that violence perpetrated by males is often regarded as more severe (Seelau & Seelau, 2005). Additionally, males are frequently perceived as more violent than women in the context of IPV (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward & Tritt, 2004). These contrasting findings underscore the complexity of how gender influences our perceptions of intimate partner violence.

• Intimate Partner Violence and Technology

As previously mentioned, technology is rapidly advancing, with 95% of adults in the UK spending a significant amount of time online (ONS, 2019). While these technological advances offer numerous benefits, such as staying connected with loved ones and easy access to information and entertainment, they can also be misused. This misuse encompasses cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking, online sexual harassment, and abuse (Winkelman, Early, Walker, Chu, & Yick-Flanagan, 2015).

Researchers have categorized behaviours that constitute cyber-harassment and stalking, including:

1. Monitoring their victim's emails.
2. Sending threatening or insulting emails.
3. Sending spam emails, including virus-laden emails.
4. Using the internet to gather personal information to use against their victims.
5. Excessive instant messaging, texting, or calling.
6. Posting inappropriate messages online, such as on forums, social media pages, chatrooms, or blogs (Winkelman et al., 2015).

Woodlock's (2013) SmartSafe study delved into the issue of technology-facilitated stalking within the context of IPV. This study involved focus groups with IPV professionals and two online surveys: one targeted IPV support practitioners, and the other targeted IPV victims. The study revealed that 98% of support practitioners reported cases where perpetrators abused their victims through technology. This study shed light on how abusers employ technology to continue their abuse during and after the relationship, creating a sense of omnipresence in their victims' lives.

Research on non-physical aspects of IPV, such as stalking and coercive control, is crucial due to their long-lasting effects. Additionally, 76% of women who had an intimate partner murdered had been stalked before their murders (McFarlane, 1999). In recent years, research on IPV has expanded significantly, as has on cyberstalking and harassment (e.g., Ellison, 2003; Pittaro, 2007; Finn, 2004). However, there is a notable gap in research regarding individuals' ability to identify technology-facilitated intimate partner violence (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda & Calvete, 2015).

Zweig et al. (2015) conducted a questionnaire involving adolescents aged 12 to 18, revealing common forms of cyber abuse, including using the victim's social network without permission, sending messages to engage in unintentionally sexual behaviour or sharing sexual photos, and sending threatening messages. These findings indicate that technology-facilitated violence is present in individuals of various ages, although the study did not specifically investigate these behaviours in the context of intimate relationships.

Draucker & Martsolf (2010) reviewed interview transcripts of 56 young adults retrospectively reflecting on dating violence during their adolescence. They found that technology, including texting, calling, social networking sites, and instant messaging, was frequently used by participants' partners to abuse them verbally. Furthermore, technology facilitated the escalation of arguments and was employed to monitor the victim's behaviour. While technology was also used for seeking help during violent episodes with intimate partners, it often led to further conflict when victims attempted to call the police, friends, or family for assistance.

Burke et al. (2011) investigated the extent to which university students used technology to engage in acts of IPV. Their findings indicated that both male and female participants reported using technology to monitor their intimate partners, whether as the perpetrator or the victim. The study revealed that women were more likely to be perpetrators of monitoring their partner's emails, Facebook, and call history. At the same time, they were also more likely to experience their partners monitoring their emails, Facebook, and call history. It suggests that technology is increasingly becoming a means for individuals to perpetrate IPV. However, the self-report method employed in this study may introduce biases in participants' responses, particularly in terms of admitting to acts of controlling behaviour.

Schnurr, Mahatmya & Basche (2013) explored cyber abuse in IPV using an adapted version of Draucker & Martsolf's (2010) questionnaire for couples. Their results indicated that women were more likely to be perpetrators of both physical and non-physical intimate partner violence. Nevertheless, given the self-report nature of this questionnaire, biases may influence participants' willingness to admit to perpetrating IPV. This study underscores the fact that IPV is not a gender-specific social issue and indicates that women can be perpetrators of IPV to the same extent or even more so than males.

Attitudes

Attitudes and perceptions surrounding Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) held by the general public, law enforcement, and IPV workers are vital factors that influence the identification, reporting, and handling of IPV cases within the criminal justice system. Research reveals that people are more inclined to recognize certain behaviours as stalking when the perpetrator is a stranger as opposed to a partner or former partner (Scott, Rajakaruna, Sheridan & Sleath, 2013; Scott, Rajakaruna & Sheridan, 2013; Cass, 2011; Scott & Sheridan, 2011). Similarly, individuals are more likely to attribute alarm and fear of violence to the victim if the perpetrator is a stranger rather than a current or former partner (Scott, Rajakaruna, Sheridan & Sleath, 2013; Scott, Lloyd & Gavin, 2010; Scott & Sheridan, 2011; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, Blaauw & Patel, 2003). However, this contrasts with research indicating that stalking is most frequently perpetrated by someone known to the victim and tends to be more protracted with potentially severe outcomes (Tjaden & Thoenennes, 1998; Napo, 2011; Peterson et al., 2019).

In the UK, controlling behaviour is defined as "acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance, and escape, and regulating their everyday behaviour" (The Serious Crime Act, 2015). Robinson, Myhill, and Wire (2018) examined attitudes and comprehension of coercive control among IPV professionals, as coercive control became a criminal offence in the UK in 2015. Their findings revealed varying levels of understanding among practitioners, with many failing to recognize patterns of coercive control. This study could be expanded to include the perspectives of clients of IPV professionals to determine if they demonstrate a better grasp of coercive control and are more adept at identifying abuse patterns.

Freed et al. (2017) explored digital technologies in the context of intimate partner violence. They conducted semi-structured interviews with IPV professionals, including police officers, case workers, support workers, and attorneys/paralegals, as well as focus groups with IPV victims. The study revealed that IPV professionals and victims felt ill-equipped to identify and address technology-facilitated IPV. This research underscores the necessity for further investigation into the role of technology in IPV, with a focus on educating professionals and victims to enable them to recognize and respond to technology-related abusive behaviours. It's important to note that while this study provides insight into the attitudes of IPV professionals and victims toward technology-facilitated abuse, it does not assess their ability to identify such behaviours.

Harway & Hansen (1993) and Hansen, Harway & Cervantes (1991) researched therapists' ability to identify patterns of IPV behaviour correctly. They used vignettes depicting IPV within a real couple undergoing therapy, with therapists tasked with conceptualizing the case. The results indicated that 40% of therapists failed to identify the conflict in the relationship before learning of the murder that occurred shortly after the therapy session.

A decade later, Dudley, McCloskey & Kustron (2008) replicated this study and found that only 13% of respondents failed to recognize the conflict in the relationship. This demonstrates an improvement in therapists' ability to detect and identify IPV behaviours. However, as these studies did not publish the vignette or questionnaire content, the specific types of IPV behaviours within the vignette remain unknown. Moreover, both studies only focused on therapists' ability to identify IPV, making their results less generalizable to the wider population.

Robinson, Pinchevsky, and Guthrie (2015) conducted a study using hypothetical vignettes illustrating patterns of physical and non-physical IPV behaviours. Police officers in the UK and the US were presented with these vignettes. Their findings indicated that police officers had a good understanding of IPV but also revealed that officers tended to expect physical abuse to be present in IPV cases. When physical abuse was absent, police officers were less likely to respond proactively. This study highlights how non-physical abuse is often overlooked by law enforcement, primarily because it does not align with their preconceived notions of what constitutes IPV. However, the study did not specifically evaluate whether officers recognized technology-facilitated IPV as abusive when it occurred in isolation.

While it is crucial to explore the attitudes of those within the criminal justice system regarding various forms of abuse, it is equally essential to consider the perspectives of other stakeholders. Victims of abuse are often less likely to approach the police than informal sources, such as family members or friends (Ashley & Forshee, 2005; Moe, 2007). Informal sources provide emotional support, practical assistance (such as shelter), and encouragement to leave an abusive relationship (Renzetti, 1988; Trotter & Allen, 2009). However, research suggests that negative reactions from informal sources can worsen the psychological well-being of victims and decrease the likelihood of reporting to the police or leaving the abusive relationship (Belknap, Melton, Denney, Fleury-Steiner & Sullivan, 2009; Goodkind et al., 2003; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Kennedy & Prock, 2018). Therefore, understanding public perceptions of IPV, including technology-facilitated abuse, is critical, as these individuals may form a crucial support network for victims.

Aims and Hypotheses

The first crucial step in addressing Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is recognizing and acknowledging it. The existing literature underscores that non-physical IPV is the most prevalent form experienced by both men and women. To effectively combat IPV, it is essential that law enforcement, IPV professionals, and the general public can identify these behaviours. This study investigates the general public's ability to recognize patterns of non-physical IPV behaviours, in-person and through technology while examining potential associations with age, gender, and technology and social media usage.

Prior research has indicated that both IPV professionals and victims felt ill-equipped to identify technology-facilitated IPV (Freed et al., 2017). Thus, it is hypothesized that participants in this study will be more likely to recognize IPV when it occurs in person rather than through technology. Consequently, in-person IPV is expected to be perceived as more severe. Recognition of harassment is also anticipated to be higher when behaviours occur in person, with subsequent ratings of lower severity.

Previous research with a UK sample using a non-violent IPV vignette found that participants were more inclined to label the behaviours as harassment rather than abuse (Robinson, Pinchevsky & Guthrie, 2015). Therefore, it is hypothesized that the behaviours in both vignette conditions will be primarily categorized as harassment rather than IPV.

Studies have suggested that older individuals are less accepting of IPV behaviours and that younger people have less defined boundaries in their intimate relationships (Simon et al., 2001; Maquibar et al., 2017). Therefore, age is hypothesised to influence perceptions concerning behaviours, harassment, and IPV severity.

Previous research on IPV indicates that female participants are more likely than males to view IPV behaviours as abusive (Russell, Chapleau & Kraus, 2015). As a result, it is hypothesized that female participants will rate concerning behaviours, harassment severity, and IPV severity higher than male participants.

This study will also explore the impact of social media and technology usage on the perception of IPV behaviours. Notably, no previous research has delved into whether such usage affects how these behaviours are considered. Therefore, this study seeks to illuminate the potential influence of social media and technology usage on the perception of concerning behaviours, harassment, and IPV severity.