Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), also known as domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating violence, or “the invisible epidemic” (Oto, 2023), is a widespread problem affecting millions of people in the United States each year. Beyond causing immediate physical harm, IPV can lead to long-term health issues and mental health challenges for survivors. It also carries significant public health and societal consequences, with survivors often needing support from multiple services and points of care. Marginalized groups face even greater vulnerability to intimate partner violence, so we must understand the variety of cultural understandings when it comes to IVP to address the issue effectively. By growing cultural competency and collaboration among supports and services, we can better support and strive towards a future where they all victims and survivors feel adequately cared for by meeting them where they are.

Implications of IPV and Effects on Marginalized Groups

According to data from the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS, 2016-2017), approximately 41% of women and 26% of men have encountered contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner (Marcie-jo et al., 2021). But we should be worried about not just the immediate consequences. IPV can lead to long-term, chronic health issues affecting various systems in the body, such as cardiovascular, nervous, skeletal, reproductive, and more. Mental health issues like depression and PTSD are also common among IPV survivors. They’re also more likely to engage in risky behaviors, like smoking, binge drinking, and unsafe sexual activity. (CDC, 2022)

The consequences of IPV are not limited to survivors alone; these signify severe public health challenges and societal repercussions. IPV survivors are more likely to rely on law enforcement and community support, report absenteeism from work or school, and experience extreme concern for their safety. US crime reports indicate that an intimate partner kills 1 in 5 homicide victims (CDC, 2022). Consequently, nearly half of female homicide victims in the country fall victim to a current or former male intimate partner (AbiNader et al., 2023).

Marginalized groups are more at risk of experiencing IPV due to social disadvantages like discrimination, oppression, poverty, intersectionality, and potentially their cultural understanding. In an early 2000 study, experts examined the effects of abusive relationships of pregnant women from various ethnic backgrounds, and most participants seemingly approached their situations analytically. However, interpretations of their partners’ behaviors varied. Among African American women, only one acknowledged abuse, with those considering leaving often describing their relationships as positive or that they love their partner. Among Latino-American women, five out of fourteen saw themselves as abused and usually attributed their partners’ behavior to typical male traits (Ulrich, 2006).

Interestingly, almost all Latino women, except one, considered leaving their relationships (Ulrich, 2006). In a California study by Wells and DeLeon-Granados in 2002, they found that Hispanic and Black people had more cases of intimate partner violence leading to death than white people (Wells et al., 2002). Responding to this, researcher Mechanic lists possible factors to such disparities in IPV interventions and care, like limited adequate and culturally competent services and distinct cultural norms that devalue women for leaving their relationships (Mechanic et al., 2013).

Impression Management and Protection

Intimate partner violence continues to be a topic of research whose data is often underreported. Varying factors like cultural norms, honesty in self-reporting, and stigma can make it challenging to assess the true extent of the problem accurately. Some research and interpretation suggest that both the perpetrator and the victim could implement strategies in impression management.

Impression management refers to behaviors aimed at controlling how others perceive oneself, often to attribute desirable traits (Martin, 2021). It’s commonly believed that people engage in impression management to gain social rewards and boost self-esteem, suggesting that it entails deliberate and conscious strategies. This concept was first described in 1959 by Canadian-born U.S. sociologist Erving Goffman (1922–1982) (APA Dictionary of Psychology). 

Perpetrators can apply impression management by trying to control how others perceive them; this can include their victims and outsiders. They may manipulate their behavior and communication to maintain and protect a specific image while distracting their social circles from their damaging actions. This strategy aligns with mitigating others in gaining their approval or avoiding negative judgments and potential legal action. In this context, perpetrators could engage in impression management to conceal their abusive behavior or maybe rationalize it in ways that make them appear less guilty.

One study involving child custody cases and fathers accused of domestic violence reflected that most of those interviewed did utilize impression management tactics to improve their image in court proceedings. Despite efforts to downplay their behavior, documented perpetrators of domestic violence consistently scored higher in measurements of aggression. This evidence suggests that individuals accused of domestic violence can utilize impression management regardless of their guilt or innocence, creating a layer of difficulty in self-reporting (Helfritz et al., 2006).

There has been much analysis into the dynamics of protective behaviors among victims, usually regarding protecting themselves and their children from physical violence. However, researcher Hamby (2009) sheds light on a critical yet understudied aspect – what could their other protective behaviors be? Hamby underscores the need to reconsider certain behaviors typically viewed as “dysfunctional” or “passive” by original researchers. For instance, they suggest that for some, refraining from disclosing abuse may not solely stem from denial but can also serve as an effort to manage impressions in various groups and settings. And like perpetrators, this could be an attempt to mitigate social stigma or familial shame. Such insights, drawn from Hamby’s reinterpretation of published data, prompt us to reconsider how we perceive and understand protective behaviors and call for further research into this concept. (Hamby, 2009). 

In addition to impression management strategies, cultural factors influence how victims navigate their IPV situations. Current IPV research reflects some bias towards Western values and assumes that most victims also employ the same ideals and understandings.

“…Only some strategic responses to IPA [intimate partner abuse] are deemed appropriate (e.g., contacting the police, seeking legal intervention, and leaving the batterer), whereas others are judged inferior (e.g., seeking informal social support, staying for the sake of children, seeking support from clergy). Research premised on Eurocentric autonomy assumptions fails to reflect how collectivist and family-centered cultural values inform battered women’s experiences of and responses to IPA.”

(Mechanic et al., 2013)

Scholars point out that further research should be sought to understand and improve the realm of victim protection strategies (AbiNader et al., 2023; Hamby, 2009; Mechanic et al., 2013). It could be assumed that the combination of impression management tactics and their relevance to cultural values are critical factors in understanding how different cultural groups handle these experiences, and how to better support these same groups. We must recognize that the issue remains on a spectrum of sorts in different cultural contexts, and our systems must adapt to these differences to address the apparent gaps in victim and survivor services.

Cultural Competence Around IPV Care and Services

As mentioned earlier, intimate partner violence can have profound effects on one’s overall well-being and safety, whether immediate and acute or long-lasting and chronic. This aftermath leads many victims and survivors to rely on and engage with healthcare providers (HCPs), who are often the first point of care or support for them (Ying Ying et al., 2023). Healthcare systems have always been an integral part of the support network for victims and survivors to overcome their circumstances and rebuild their lives. And even then, studies show that victim needs were “far from being met” in these settings and other services (Chhetri, 2023). When services and providers lack the necessary skills to recognize and address the diversity of IPV experiences and needs, and when language barriers disrupt communication channels, practices are neither culturally responsive nor survivor-centered. Current approaches fail to fully recognize, understand, and address the diverse needs of victims of different cultures (Watcher et al., 2019).

Coupling this with the disparities mentioned earlier, it is apparent there is a disconnect in IPV care and services for marginalized cultural groups and people of color. These groups are at significant risk for adverse or deadly outcomes yet are severely misunderstood and disadvantaged in the very systems that aid them. Noting these cultural perspectives alongside what we know of impression management, services and care systems must better assess their cultural competence and practices in the context of IPV to understand the nuances in perspectives outside their own.

Implementing cultural competence around IPV in various settings can look like many things and could lead to improved outcomes for marginalized groups experiencing the issue. Collaboration and discussion among multiethnic teams open windows to other perspectives, growing the field’s understanding of IPV for those groups. Listening to what victims have to say as individuals, rather than a part of a generalized whole, helps professionals and providers to “become more culturally appropriate” (Ulrich, 2006). As well, seeking education like workshops, training, or even outside consulting from people who study or have experience with marginalized groups can assist in helping systems and services become more aware of such differences.

Social service providers are also instrumental in aiding survivors of intimate partner violence by advocating for them and connecting them with community-based support, including healthcare services. Their ability to provide adequate medical advocacy is directly tied to their knowledge of survivors’ health needs and awareness of available and reliable medical services and options. Strong connections between IPV service organizations and low-cost, culturally competent healthcare providers are essential to ensure survivors can access and utilize care (Chhetri, 2023).

In addition to community collaborative efforts, organizations should be more proactive in meeting the needs of those who do not speak or are not familiar with English. In connection to the inaccuracy of data and self-reporting mentioned above, just because there is a language barrier does not mean that person should be forgotten; they are just as worthy of solace, safety, and understanding. People who speak any language could be and are victims of these situations, too.

“Misunderstanding or misinterpreting the meaning of self-report questions will contribute to error variance and diminish the validity of research findings. Some evidence suggests that immigrants may leave more items unanswered… due to language barriers preventing comprehension of some items or cultural prohibitions against disclosing specific information.”

(Mechanic et al., 2013)

Language differences in care and services can be the determining factor for many people reaching out for help in the United States. Being conscious of and proactive about language is essential to widening the scope of whom we help and how. Teams can discuss options like language interpreters, refrain from technical jargon, make context relevant to cultural understanding, and ensure all materials (like handouts, resource pages, pamphlets, etc.) are translated and readily available in multiple languages.

The issue of intimate partner violence and victim care is complex and requires a comprehensive community approach that is sensitive to cultural differences. The research mentioned earlier, and I’m sure much more, has shown that various systems often fall short in addressing the unique needs of marginalized cultural groups and people of color. This disparity comes from a lack of awareness of cultural norms, values, and dynamics in the populations they serve. Service and care providers must understand the correlations of one’s cultural being, how it connects to impression management, and how both concepts reflect in the dynamics of intimate partner violence. By prioritizing cultural responsiveness in how we respond to victims and survivors of IVP, services and care systems can help bridge the gap and ensure that victims of all cultures receive the necessary support and care.

Now what?

Intimate partner violence remains a devastating reality for far too many people, inflicting suffering and leaving lasting scars on survivors, their loved ones, and communities alike. This post briefly went over a few of the many cultural considerations in working with intimate partner violence victims and survivors, and further research into how to best aid them should be further assessed. Cultural competence is essential, and collaboration among professionals and community resources is vital in ensuring victims are cared for now and in the long run. 

It’s crucial to approach this issue with a critical lens, exercise empathy and understanding, and recognize the immense courage it takes for any survivor to seek help. By fostering accessibility, inclusivity, and compassion within healthcare settings and social service organizations, we can create safer spaces where survivors feel welcomed and empowered to seek assistance. When we put in cultural competency efforts for victims and survivors, we can better meet them where they are.

Our collective efforts to combat IPV must be rooted in cultural awareness. Through this, we can create more thoughtful and practical strategies to address intimate partner violence and support those who have been affected by it. Together, we can work towards a future where intimate partner violence is no longer tolerated; all individuals can live with dignity and respect, and where love is synonymous with kindness, safety, and compassion.