ORIGINAL PAPER

Why I Stayed/Left: An Analysis of Voices of Intimate PartnerViolence on Social Media

Jaclyn D. Cravens1 • Jason B. Whiting1 • Rola O. Aamar1

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract A common response to intimate partner vio-

lence is to ask victims why they stay in the abusive rela-

tionship. Unfortunately this can have the effect of blaming

or holding the victim responsible for the abuser’s actions.

Recently, social media brought attention to this issue fol-

lowing the highly publicized case of intimate partner vio-

lence (IPV) with NFL player Ray Rice and his fiance.

Twitter users responded to the media’s perceived victim

blaming by posting their own stories of why they stayed or

left abusive relationships. The purpose of this study was to

conduct a qualitative content analysis of these Twitter

postings. The Twitter hashtags generated N = 676

responses (‘‘whyIstayed’’ n = 409; ‘‘whyIleft’’ n = 267)

and these were examined to answer the following research

questions: (1) what factors influence victims of IPV to stay

in an abusive relationship? (2) What factors influence

victims of IPV to leave an abusive relationship? 12 themes

and 8 subthemes emerged that highlight the numerous

factors that influence decisions about abusive relationships.

Clinical implications and future research recommendations

are discussed.

Keywords Intimate partner violence � Victim blaming �Social media

Introduction

Although reports of domestic violence in the media are

common, it is unusual for an event to generate the

responses that one episode did in 2014. Ray Rice, an NFL

running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was arrested and

charged for domestic violence after punching his fiancee

Janay Palmer in the face. However, after he was charged, a

video surfaced of the incident, which included a heated

exchange, followed by a hit where he knocked her

unconscious and then dragged her out of an elevator. The

effect of the video was significant, with outcry from the

public towards Rice, as well as the NFL. In the media

storm that followed, his fiancee spoke out in his defense,

and they were subsequently married. This event led to

further media and social media conversations about

domestic violence, some of which centered on the culpa-

bility of the victim, and why someone would stay in a

relationship where they are hurt. The tone of some of the

coverage was perceived as blaming the victim and mini-

mizing the difficulties that victims face. In response,

campaigns on Twitter offered counter points and discussion

of these issues. These responses help to shed light on the

complex and difficult process women experience when

making decisions about their abusive relationships.

Examining these responses can provide insights and con-

text that may be helpful for professionals who work with

individuals and relationships who experience intimate

partner violence (IPV).

The purpose of this project was to conduct a qualitative

content analysis of Twitter postings that addressed why

users chose to stay or leave their own abusive relationships.

Data was retrieved from the Twitter hashtags ‘‘whyIs-

tayed’’ and ‘‘whyIleft,’’ each of which generated hundreds

of responses. These were examined and coded according to

& Jaclyn D. Cravens

jaclyn.cravens@ttu.edu

1 Community, Family, and Addiction Sciences Program, Texas

Tech University (TTU), 1301 Akron Avenue, Room CSAR

208, Human Sciences, Box 41250, Lubbock, TX 79409-1250,

USA

123

Contemp Fam Ther

DOI 10.1007/s10591-015-9360-8

themes related to how these women described their deci-

sion making process. The following research questions

were explored: (1) what factors influence victims of IPV to

stay in an abusive relationship? (2) What factors influence

victims of IPV to leave an abusive relationship? The

exploration of these research questions was limited to the

nature of the data posted on Twitter, which was primarily

comprised of stories about male-to-female violence. The

researchers acknowledge that there are many patterns of

violence, including female perpetrators, and that abuse

occurs in all relationship types (Elliott 1996; Miller et al.

2000), not just heterosexual relationships. Due to the nature

of the data, we limited our focus to male-to-female vio-

lence, using the terminology victim and perpetrator.

Decision Making in Abusive Relationships

Violence is a common and often hidden problem in inti-

mate relationships, with estimates usually suggesting that

around a third of women experience some form of IPV

over their lifetime (Garcia-Monroe et al. 2006). Hearing

about and seeing intimate violence is disturbing. Observers

and clinicians alike often have strong negative reactions of

outrage or disgust. Unfortunately, sometimes this anger

gets channeled toward the victim of IPV, with questions

like: ‘‘why does she not just leave the jerk?’’ Clinicians

may also attempt to shame or guilt the victim into leaving

their partner with statements such as ‘‘What if the kids

become the next target?’’ or ‘‘Does the violence have to

result in you being hospitalized before you decide enough

is enough?’’ Although common, at best this question (and

its variations) oversimplifies a complex situation and is

naıve. At worst, these questions become accusatory,

blaming the victim for getting hurt (implying that if she

stays, then she somehow deserves to be hurt or is not doing

something she should). Merchant and Whiting (2014)

highlight that these are normal responses to painful situa-

tions; however, when this occurs in a therapeutic setting

the clinician’s interventions become more about managing

their own anxiety and less about helping the client. Thus, it

is important that clinicians work to avoid minimizing the

danger of leaving by raising awareness of their attitudes

toward victims and understanding the diverse factors

related to the leave/stay decision. There are many reasons

that women who are in violent relationships do not leave

their abusive male partners. These are sometimes divided

into two categories, internal and external (Barnett 2001).

Internal inhibitory factors consist of beliefs about self

and situation that are constraining. These beliefs may be

logical and accurate, such as the fear that a threatening

partner will make her life difficult, or fight for custody of

the kids. These internal beliefs may also be distorted, such

as the negative beliefs about self-worth or minimization of

the problem. These perceptions are common for those who

live with a psychologically controlling and demeaning

partner. For example, it is very common for a violent man

to tell his partner that she deserved what she got, that she is

unattractive to other men, or that she is lucky that he is with

her (Sleutel 1998). Psychological abuse is commonly found

in controlling and violent relationships, and has the effect

of instilling self-doubt, self-blame, and feelings of worth-

lessness or depression (Whiting et al. 2012a). Also, the fear

and anxiety caused by violence (or threats of violence) is

traumatizing, leading to symptoms of PTSD that bring

doubts or denial (like becoming numb or blocking out

threats). Fear changes perception and is a controlling fac-

tor. For instance, many abusers will make life very difficult

for partners who try to leave, and for some women it is

easier to stay in a bad situation than it is to try to get out of

it. Leaving an abusive relationship can be dangerous for

women, with the increased possibility of severe injury and

death associated with attempts to leave (Langhinrichsen-

Rohling et al. 2000).

Other internal factors are related to gender socialization,

in that women are socialized to value themselves in terms

of their relationships (Bograd 1999), and that failing in a

relationship reflects poorly upon her abilities as a partner.

Other cultural and religious values about the importance of

marriage, or of raising children with two parents may also

factor into these decisions (Kelly 2009). And many women

in abusive situations love their partners (although they

want the abuse to stop), and they want to believe him when

he promises to change, or that he needs to be there for the

children (Barnett 2001). Many abused women experience

shame, embarrassment, isolation, and doubt about their

future without the abuser.

External inhibitory factors include elements that are

built into the context of the relationship that make it dif-

ficult to leave. For example, it is common for victims to

have limited financial resources. This may be because the

perpetrator has isolated them from employment opportu-

nities, or because they have lost jobs due to not being able

to come to work because of bruises or injuries (Swanberg

and Logan 2005). Other external factors include children

and the threats that he may try to take or hurt them. It is

also difficult for many isolated women to connect with

resources such as therapy, legal, or protective services,

particularly for women with financial constraints (Barnett

2000). For some, there may also be issues related to cul-

tural stigmas or views of religious leaders that may pres-

sure her to stay to work things out.

The decision to leave an abusive partner is more of a

process than an isolated event, however, the factors related

to this process also fit into internal and external categories

(Barnett 2001; Moss et al. 1997). The most important

internal empowering factor is cognitive, a shift in the

Contemp Fam Ther

123

victims thought process. This shift is often triggered by a

‘‘breaking point’’ in the relationship, which is most often a

violent incident of abuse that causes severe injury or hos-

pitalization (Short et al. 2000). This breaking point moti-

vates victims of abuse to begin the process of re-evaluating

the relationship, learning the truth about victimization, and

to see the abuse as the responsibility of the perpetrator

(Short et al. 2000). The shift in the victims thought process

focuses on viewing the relationship as unhealthy and

accepting that the relationship may not get better. The

victim then starts the process of reclaiming self, a process

of rebuilding their identity (Merritt-Gray and Wuest 1995;

Moss et al. 1997).

External empowering factors include material resources

(e.g., employment and income), systems of support, and the

motivation to protect self and children. Both employment

status and income have been found to be among the most

powerful factors for predicting a victim’s ability to leave an

abusive relationship (Anderson and Saunders 2003; Lesser

1990; Williams 2000). For many victims of abuse the

recognition that violence continued to escalate, the fear that

they might be killed by the perpetrator, or the fear that the

effect of witnessing abuse by their children was harmful,

are external empowering factors (Barnett 2001). The sup-

port of friends and family empower victims to leave, but

societal resources also play an important role, such as

access to transportation or child care (Anderson and

Saunders 2003). Recommendations on how society can

support victims during the leaving process include the

creation and enforcement of laws on batterers, resources

that support independence (e.g., housing, money), educa-

tion about abuse, and the development of more shelters

(Short et al. 2000).

Although it can be very difficult to extricate oneself and

family out of controlling and abusive situations, most

women who experience violence do seek help and many of

these women ultimately leave their abusive partners

(Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 1997b). Sometimes this takes

multiple efforts over time, and may involve getting con-

nected to personal and professional resources that can

provide emotional and practical support. This may take the

form of talking through the problem to see the violence for

what it is, and it may also involve finding help through

services such as protective services that may help victims

to legal and financial help.

Methods

To better understand the decision making process that

women go through when considering whether to stay in or

leave an abusive relationship, tweets that used the hashtag

‘‘whyIstayed’’ and ‘‘whyIleft’’ were downloaded from the

social networking site Twitter using NVivo and were

analyzed using qualitative content analysis. This form of

methodology is used ‘‘for subjective interpretation of the

content of text data through the systematic classification

process of coding and identifying themes or patterns’’

(Hsieh and Shannon 2005, p. 1278). Tweets, or postings on

Twitter, are short posts with a maximum of 140 characters.

Schreier (2012) states that qualitative content analysis is an

appropriate methodology for analyzing short response data

that require interpretation. Although qualitative content

analysis is flexible and allows for either inductive or

deductive approaches, the researchers used an inductive

approach to allow the categories and subcategories to be

generated directly from the data (Kondracki et al. 2002).

Internet-based research has ethical issues that do not

have clear guidelines. Specifically, issues related to

informed consent require researchers to carefully consider

decisions about consent and how to protect participants’

privacy. Published guidelines exist, which provide a

checklist to determine researchers’ ability to waive

informed consent (Bruckman 2002; Eysenbach and Till

2001; Whitehead 2007). Eysenbach and Till (2001) offer

three questions for researchers: (1) are postings public or

private? (2) What is the size of the website or blog/forum?

And (3) what is the level of perceived privacy of the

website users/members? To address this, the researchers

limited data collection to publically accessible tweets,

excluding any private tweets. Twitter is one of the largest

social networking sites, with over 500 million users

worldwide as of December 2014 (Keach 2014). In relation

to guideline three, Twitter serves the purposes of providing

a public platform for users to interact with other users

around the world. Thus, the ‘‘whyIstayed’’ and ‘‘whyIleft’’

tweets should be considered public conversation. The study

also meets the three requirements to waive informed con-

sent mentioned and similar guidelines outlined by other

researchers (Bruckman 2002; Whitehead 2007). Finally, in

terms of privacy and confidentiality, the results of the study

do not include the participants’ Twitter username.

Sample

The passive analysis that was conducted with this dataset

limited the researchers’ ability to obtain demographic

information from the participants. NCapture, the NVivo

function that allows researchers to download data directly

from websites was used to gather the following from

Twitter: tweet type, retweeted by, number of retweets,

hashtags used in the post, user name, location, and the

number of tweets and followers of the twitter user. From

the location information provided by NCapture, partici-

pants were predominantly located in the United States;

however, participants represent 6 of the 7 continents, with

Contemp Fam Ther

123

only Antarctica not being represented in the sample.

Information such as sex, age, relationship status, occupa-

tion and socioeconomic status were not available, pre-

venting the researchers from drawing any conclusions

based on sample characteristics.

Procedure

To determine the usability of the data, the researchers

investigated the origins of the website and the nature of the

postings. Twitter is an online social networking site that

allows users to send and read tweets. The use of Twitter to

spark a social justice movement against victim blaming is

credited to author Beverly Gooden, who reported feeling

shame when reading reactions on social media that ques-

tioned Janay Palmer’s decision to stay with her then fiance

Ray Rice (Bahadur 2014). Gooden used Twitter to share

the reasons why she decided to stay in an abusive rela-

tionship, using the hashtag ‘‘whyIstayed,’’ and inviting

other Twitter users to share their stories. Gooden’s posts

sparked a popular movement that resulted in hundreds of

tweets using these hashtags. Researchers downloaded

tweets from the time of Gooden’s original posts on

September 8, 2014 until November 30, 2014. The

researchers requested NCapture to download tweets con-

taining the hashtags ‘‘whyIstayed’’ and ‘‘whyIleft,’’ which

resulted in some of the tweets not being directly related to

people’s decision to stay or leave an abusive relationship.

For example, Twitter users who had published an article on

domestic violence posted links to their article with these

popular hashtags to gain a larger audience for their article.

These tweets were removed from the final dataset. The

tweets that were analyzed in the final dataset included 409

‘‘whyIstayed’’ tweets and 267 ‘‘whyIleft’’ tweets. NVivo

was used to compile the tweets for analysis, using separate

files for the two hashtags.

Data Analysis

Researchers used Mayring’s (2000) procedures for con-

ducting inductive qualitative content analysis. Mayring’s

three core steps to qualitative content analysis are: (1)

selecting units of analysis, (2) creating categories, and (3)

establishing themes. The first core step, selecting the unit

of analysis, was conducted by determining which tweets

would be analyzed. The first author cleaned the Twitter

dataset by removing any tweet that did not include infor-

mation directly related to the research question. Next, the

researchers developed inductive categories (step 2) using

an open coding method by reading each tweet and naming

concepts or preliminary codes. Each researchers’ initial

codes were compared and when a disagreement amongst

the research team occurred each researcher explained their

coding process and the team collectively decided which

code most closely reflected the data. The goal of open

coding is to compress a large amount of data into fewer,

content related categories (Crowley and Delfico 1996).

Examples of preliminary codes that emerged during initial

coding include: children deserve better, break cycle of IPV,

protect kids, and stop kids from witnessing violence. Next,

all three researchers engaged in focused coding, which

entails organizing each concept/preliminary code into cat-

egories. The researchers met to discuss the categories that

had emerged from focused coding. For example, focused

coding led to the synthesis of children deserve better, break

the cycle of IPV, and stop kids from witnessing into the

category ‘‘protect the children.’’ Following the develop-

ment of the conceptual categories, the researchers estab-

lished themes, which are ‘‘a way to link the underlying

meaning together in categories’’ (Graneheim and Lundman

2004, p. 107). Based on the categories that emerged during

data analysis, the researchers felt that the latent content of

the text could best fit into 12 themes and 8 subthemes.

Trustworthiness

No specific evaluation criteria currently exist to evaluate

the trustworthiness of qualitative content analysis. Cho and

Lee (2014) recommend using general qualitative research

criteria, such as credibility for content analysis. Credibility

is achieved by selecting a well-established methodological

approach and accurately using the procedures. The

researchers’ utilized Bauer’s (2000) empirically validated

method of examining qualitative text within the social

sciences. Additionally, the researchers followed Mayring’s

(2000) steps to ensure the research procedures were accu-

rate. The researchers were not able to use multiple sources

of data; however, triangulation was used in comparing the

results of the current study to previous findings related to

the research question (Barnett 2001; Langhinrichsen-

Rohling et al. 2000; Sleutel 1998; Whiting et al. 2012a, b).

It was also used in the coding where three coders interac-

tively discussed and refined the emerging categories. This

helped to minimize the likelihood of the data being mis-

represented (Cho and Lee 2014). The final evaluative step

taken was the disclosure of the researchers’ context to the

subject being studied (Charmaz 2006). All of the

researchers have training and education on the topic of

intimate partner violence, and one author has been

involved with IPV research and training for many years. It

was important for the researchers to be reflexive during this

process and acknowledge their values and biases as they

came to bear on the coding process. Particular attention

was paid during the second stage of coding to let codes

reflect the data, rather than the preconceived views of the

researchers.

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Results

Conceptual Categories

The results of this study suggest that individuals who

experience intimate partner violence are influenced by a

myriad of factors that impact their decisions to stay or

leave an abusive relationship. A total of 12 themes (8

‘‘whyIstayed’’; 4 ‘‘whyIleft’’) and 8 subthemes (5

‘‘whyIstayed’’; 3 ‘‘whyIleft’’) emerged from analysis. The

results are organized by hashtag, with the ‘‘whyIstayed’’

and ‘‘whyIleft’’ results presented separately. The emergent

themes and subthemes are described below with several

direct quotations from the participants’ tweets (Table 1).

‘‘whyIstayed’’

Theme 1: Self-deception and Distortion

Self-deception and distortion are common in abusive

relationships. This theme describes any misrepresentation

of events that aided in influencing the participants’ decision

to stay in the abusive relationship. Participants’ self-de-

ception and distortion included justifications about why the

abuse happened, such as believing they deserved the abuse

or minimizing the abuse by distorting the degree of vio-

lence that they had experienced. This theme had two sub-

themes: rationalization and minimization.

Rationalization Participants frequently rationalized their

partners’ behavior by making excuses for the violence. A

common rationalization reported by participants was the

‘‘abuse was my fault.’’ Participants rationalized the abuse

as being something they deserved: ‘‘I believed I deserved

it,’’ and ‘‘because after being stuck in an abusive rela-

tionship for a while I started to believe I deserved all of it.’’

Other participants’ tweets described a belief that if they had

done something different they would not have been abused:

‘‘Because I felt like it was my fault and if I just listened

more, he would stop,’’ ‘‘I felt I had done something wrong

and I deserved it,’’ and ‘‘I was ashamed, embarrassed, and

blamed myself because I thought I triggered him.’’

Minimization Several participants’ tweets suggested a

process of minimization, or downplaying the extent or

degree of violence that had occurred. Participants’ tweets

often revealed that they stayed in the relationship because

they did not label emotionally abusive acts as actually

being abuse. These included: ‘‘I thought as long as he

wasn’t hitting me it wasn’t abuse,’’ ‘‘b/c he never hit me

and I didn’t think verbal abuse and emotional manipulation

was considered an abusive relationship,’’ and ‘‘I really

didn’t realize that he was abusing me since he didn’t hit

me. Words hurt just as much as fists.’’ Other participants’

tweets captured the minimization process when the abuse

fell into less frequently discussed forms of abuse, such as

financial or sexual abuse. For example, one participant

tweeted: ‘‘Because I didn’t think that emotional and

financial abuse was really abuse. Because words don’t

leave bruises.’’ Another participant’s tweet stated: ‘‘Be-

cause I didn’t know what my boyfriend did to me was

rape.’’ The subtheme minimization can be summarized

with the tweet ‘‘He hadn’t hit me yet.’’

Theme 2: Self-worth

The second theme that related to participants’ reasons for

staying concerned feelings of low self-worth. One shared,

‘‘He made me believe I was worthless and alone.’’ While

another wrote: ‘‘I was convinced I wasn’t worth anything.’’

Other participants’ tweets were similar: ‘‘In his presence I

became the lowest denomination of myself,’’ ‘‘because he

had already shredded my self-worth with his words in a

hundred subtle ways,’’ and ‘‘because he kept me down as

he was jealous of the light inside of me. He made me forget

the magic inside of me with his abuse.’’ Other participants

shared that their low self-worth tricked them into thinking

they could not do better than their abusive partner.

Examples include: ‘‘He brainwashed me into thinking no1

[sic] could love me but him and I gave up on life for a

while,’’ ‘‘I was manipulated and brainwashed into thinking

I could never find ANYONE who didn’t beat me or cheat

on me,’’ and ‘‘because he told me I couldn’t do better so

much that I believed him.’’ Finally, the lowered self-worth

also led participants to believe that they deserved the

abuse. For example one participant tweeted: ‘‘I felt I had

done something wrong and I deserved it.’’ Another par-

ticipant tweeted: ‘‘I thought I could help him change. I

didn’t want to abandon him. I started to believe I deserved

it, that I was unlovable.’’

Theme 3: Fear

One of the predominate factors related to participants’

reasons for staying in the abusive relationship was due to

living in fear of their partner and what might happen if they

tried to leave. Participants’ tweets include: ‘‘Abused and

made feel like I couldn’t do better, the fear of what they’d

do if I left,’’ ‘‘because he was going to kill my parents and

my dog if I left. I stayed for 3 years then took my dog and

disappeared into hiding,’’ and ‘‘I was afraid of him…I

knew he’d make leaving an ugly drawn out nightmare.’’

Other participants shared how a fight had escalated, they

tried to leave, and became too scared to follow through

with the decision due to their partners’ actions. For

example, one Twitter user stated: ‘‘I was scared. One of the

Contemp Fam Ther

123

worst incidents, I fought back and tried to call for help, he

broke my phone in half.’’ While another participant twee-

ted: ‘‘I tried to leave the house once after an abusive epi-

sode, and he blocked me. He slept in front of the door that

entire night.’’ Participants also described how the fear of

the known was better than the fear of the unknown: ‘‘The

terrible, but known, was far less scary than the unknown,’’

and ‘‘I was scared if I tried to leave that something worse

would happen to me.’’

This theme also reflects fear regarding threats made by

the perpetrator, which included threats about leaving and

committing suicide. For example, many wrote that the

perpetrator made verbal threats about what would happen if

they left: ‘‘He threatened. I listened. The fear of what he’d

do if I left was far greater than the fear of what he’d do if I

stayed.’’ Other participants described threats against their

loved ones: ‘‘Threats of hunting me down and harming all

my loved ones including our kids while I watched and then

killing me,’’ and ‘‘He threatened me that he would hurt my

family if I left him…so I stayed until I met my husband.’’

The participants also described how the perpetrators

threatened suicide as another way to make participants too

fearful to leave. One participant wrote that they stayed

because ‘‘he said I deserved it and he would kill himself’’

while another tweeted ‘‘he’s thrown things at me, cheated

on me, publically ridiculed me, threatened suicide, but

hasn’t hit me.’’

Theme 4: Savior

The theme of savior captures the participants’ distorted

belief that they would be able to save their partner or

change them, which was a motivating factor for remaining

in the abusive relationship. Participants shared that they

thought they could help their partner change, that they

didn’t want to give up on their partner/relationship, and

that their partner needed their help. This theme has three

subthemes: change partner, not giving up, and help

partner.

Change Partner This subtheme describes participants’

belief that they could change their partner and stop the

Table 1 ‘‘WhyIstayed’’ themes and subthemes

Theme Subtheme Description Supporting tweet

Self-deception

or distortion

Any misrepresentation of events that aided in

influencing the participants decision to stay in the

abusive relationship

Rationalization Process of making excuses for the violence ‘‘Because I felt like it was my fault and if I just

listened more he would stop’’

Minimization Shrinking the extent or degree of violence that had

occurred

‘‘I thought that as long as he wasn’t hitting me it

wasn’t abuse’’

Self-worth Participants’ feelings of low-self-worth impacted

their decision to stay in the relationship

‘‘In his presence I became the lowest denomination

of myself’’

Fear Participants remained in the relationship due to the

fear of their partner or what they might do if they

tried to leave

‘‘I was afraid of him. I knew he’d make leaving an

ugly drawn out nightmare’’

Savior Participants expressed a feeling of responsibility for

changing their partner or saving their relationship

Change partner Participants remained in the relationship because they

believed they could change their partner

‘‘I believed I could love the abuse out of him’’

Not giving up Participants attributed leaving the relationship to

giving up on their partner

‘‘I was determined to make it work, wanted kids to

have their dad, and convinced myself what he did

to me wasn’t affecting them’’

Help partner Participants described specific reasons the partner

needed help and they could not leave them due to

circumstances

‘‘His father died, he became an alcoholic, and said

that God wouldn’t want me to leave him because

he needed me to make him feel better’’

Children A major barrier to leaving the abusive relationship

was the participants’ children

‘‘I was afraid if he wasn’t beating me he would beat

his kids’’

Family

expectations

and

experiences

Expectations from participants’ family and

experiences with violence in their family of origin

‘‘I grew up in a household wrecked by domestic

violence’’

Financial Concerns over finances ‘‘Financial fear is one large factor why I stayed’’

Contemp Fam Ther

123

abuse. Several tweets discussed the idea that love would be

enough to change their partner: ‘‘bc I loved him with all my

heart and soul. I believed that he would be better and things

would change,’’ ‘‘I believed I could love the abuse out of

him,’’ and ‘‘because I thought love would conquer all.’’

Other partners felt they could change their partner either by

fighting for the relationship ‘‘I stayed because I was going

to fight to be ‘the one,’’’ or ‘‘I thought I would be the strong

one who would never leave him and show him loyalty. I

would fix him and teach him love.’’ Another participant

revealed a belief that not trying to help their partner was

abandonment: ‘‘I thought I could help him change. I didn’t

want to abandon him.’’

Not Giving Up The not giving up subtheme of savior is

defined as the participants’ decision to stay in the rela-

tionship because they did not want to give up on their

partner or the relationship. For example, one tweeted: ‘‘I

was determined to make it work, wanted kids to have their

dad, convinced myself what he did to me wasn’t affecting

them.’’ Other participants equated leaving with failure,

which was captured in this tweet: ‘‘because I didn’t want to

fail.’’ Finally, some participants felt there was pressure to

not give up on the relationship: ‘‘I also felt societal pressure

to stick it out. The way I grew up you married for life.’’

Help Partner The subtheme help partner describes par-

ticipants’ view that they stayed in the relationship because

their partner needed their help. For example, one partici-

pant tweeted they stayed in the relationship: ‘‘because I

wanted to help him.’’ Several participants’ describe the

perpetrating partner telling the participants that they nee-

ded them. Examples include: ‘‘Because he told me that he

needed me to be able to ‘fix’ himself’’ and ‘‘His father died,

he became an alcoholic and said that God wouldn’t want

me to leave him because he needed me to make him bet-

ter.’’ Others believed that their partner needed their help,

either for the sake of the romantic relationship or for their

children.

Theme 5: Children

One of the common barriers to leaving the abusive rela-

tionship were the children of the victim. Participants’ dis-

cussed protecting the children, not wanting to break up the

family, and that children need both parents. Some shared

that they stayed in the relationship because they believed

that children needed both of their parents. For example, one

tweeted: ‘‘I believed a child needed both parents.’’ Other

participants’ tweets discussed how leaving the partner

would take away access to the other parent: ‘‘because I

wanted my son to have a father,’’ ‘‘I didn’t want my kids to

be without their father’’ and ‘‘because I thought my

children needed their father.’’ Additionally, participants

shared how being pregnant with their child was a reason for

staying: ‘‘I was pregnant and forced by law’’ and ‘‘I felt

like I had no way out and being pregnant I thought I had to

stay.’’

Participants also shared that they stayed to protect their

children from the abuser. Several participants believed that

by allowing themselves to be abused they were preventing

their partner from turning the abuse on the children: ‘‘I was

afraid if he wasn’t beating me he would beat his kids. And I

valued their lives more than my own,’’ ‘‘Because I was

afraid he would hurt our child if I wasn’t there to run

interference,’’ and ‘‘I stayed for 20 years while I protected

our children all while I was being abused.’’ Another par-

ticipant tweeted that they stayed to protect their children

from poverty: ‘‘He said he would leave me and my children

homeless because he knew how to.’’

Theme 6: Family Expectations and Experiences

This barrier describes expectations from the participants’

family about remaining in relationships and intergenera-

tional transmission of violence. One reason participants

remained in the abusive relationship was their family’s

expectations. Family expectations came from religious

beliefs: ‘‘because my mother told me God would disown

me if I broke my marriage and discontinued the cycle of

abuse.’’ Other expectations came from family values: ‘‘My

family said I have to stand by my man no matter what, they

would make me go back to an abuser’’ and ‘‘I believed in

making marriage work.’’ Participants also described the

intergenerational transmission of violence process (Stith

et al. 2000) as they discussed how their family of origin

experiences with IPV shaped their decision to stay. Several

tweets described how the violence they witnessed growing

up was playing out in their own relationships: ‘‘I grew up in

a household wrecked by domestic violence,’’ ‘‘I couldn’t

face the fact that I was a textbook statistic: if (step) daddy

hurts you, so will hubby,’’ and ‘‘I stayed because dys-

function was all I knew.’’ Other participants described the

transmission process with creative metaphors: ‘‘Because

raised by animals, you partner with wolves’’ and ‘‘My dad

was James Brown. I watched him beat my mom. Then I

found someone just like dad.’’ Another participant said

they mirrored their parents’ relational decisions: ‘‘because

my mom stayed.’’

Theme 7: Financial

Another barrier to being able to leave the abusive rela-

tionship concerned finances. One of the most frequent

financial issues reported by participants was the partici-

pants’ difficulty maintaining financial stability to raise their

Contemp Fam Ther

123

children. Participants’ tweets stated: ‘‘Why I am still here,

kids, I don’t think I can make it out there with 4 kids,’’ ‘‘I

had no family, two young children, no money and guilt

because he had brain damage from a car accident,’’ and ‘‘I

wanted financial stability for my kids.’’ Other participants

tweeted about being broke: ‘‘because I had no money,’’

and, ‘‘financial fear is one large factor of why I stayed.’’

Another participant worried about their lifestyle: ‘‘I

couldn’t afford the life we had established by myself. I was

drowning.’’ Finally, participants described staying in the

relationship due to financial abuse: ‘‘It’s a real thing,

financial abuse. I experienced it, ex racked up thousands of

debt in my name’’ and ‘‘financial abuse is a big deal in

abusive relationships.’’

Theme 8: Isolation/No Social Support

A final theme for staying in the abusive relationship was

isolation from friends and family and unavailable support

services. Many of the participants tweeted that their partner

had isolated them from friends and family. For some par-

ticipants this was due to geography: ‘‘I stayed because I

was halfway across the country, isolated from my friends

and family. And there was no one to help me’’ and ‘‘be-

cause I was literally trapped in the backwoods of WV, and

he would use my little boy to keep me close.’’ Other par-

ticipants described how their partner kept them isolated

from others with ultimatums: ‘‘I fell out of contact with

everyone who was important to me. ‘You can either have

friends and family or you can have me’’’ and ‘‘‘you need to

choose: them or me.’ That’s the ultimatum my abuser gave

me.’’ Isolation also made it difficult for participants to

locate a place to go: ‘‘He isolated me so perfectly from my

family and friends that I couldn’t conceive of a safe place

to fall.’’ Additionally, participants described how there was

a lack of community services available to allow them an

option to leave their partner. One participant stated that due

to the time period shelters weren’t available: ‘‘We did not

have shelters when this was happening to me. There was no

hotline’’ (Table 2).

‘‘whyIleft’’

Theme 1: Personal Growth/Authenticity

The theme of personal growth and becoming more

authentic represents the participants’ recognition that they

had changed through the process of developing more

clarity in their lives. This theme had three subthemes that

represent different areas of growth: clarity about self,

clarity about partner, and clarity about healthy

relationships.

Clarity About Self The subtheme of clarity about self

describes the process of self-improvement that participants

experienced when they recognized that they deserved bet-

ter and were able to increase their self-esteem and self-

worth. A predominate number of participants’ tweets

attribute their decision to leave the abusive relationship to

recognizing, as one stated: ‘‘I grew up and learned that I

deserve better.’’ Clarity about what one deserved helped

another participant find their voice: ‘‘I woke up 1 morning

Table 2 ‘‘whyIleft’’ themes and subthemes

Theme Subtheme Description Supporting tweet

Personal growth

or authenticity

Participants’ recognition that they had

changed by developing more clarity in

their lives

Clarity about

self

Process of self-improvement when

participants realized they deserved better

‘‘I woke up 1 morning and my voice had returned from a

long hibernation. And it said ‘I am enough and I deserve

better’’’

Clarity about

partner

Participants’ recognition that they could

not change their partner

‘‘I had to love myself and realize that it wasn’t up to me to

change him’’

Clarity about

healthy

relationships

Participants’ clarity concerning what

factors influence a healthy relationship

‘‘When someone truly LOVES you they will make an effort

instead of excuses’’

Connection to

systems of

support

Leaving was a possibility when they had

access to systems of support

‘‘Because my therapist told me that’s not love’’

Protect their

children

The decision to leave was based on the

desire to protect their children

‘‘So that my daughter would not think that the way I was

treated was OK, I wanted her to be stronger than I was’’

Fear and

severity of

violence

Level of fear and severity of violence

reached a point where it was a necessity

to leave

‘‘I knew I would never be happy w [sic] him. I feared that he

might kill me one day’’

Contemp Fam Ther

123

and my voice had returned from a long hibernation. And it

said ‘I am enough and I deserve better.’’’ Other participants

highlighted that they and their children deserved better: ‘‘I

realized I never deserved any of it. My son didn’t deserve

to live like that and he would never change, the abuse only

got worse.’’ Clarity about self also occurred when partici-

pants recognized their partner’s action was abusive and that

they did not deserve the abuse. For example, one partici-

pant tweeted: ‘‘He hit me when I didn’t ‘give in.’ I learned

‘abuse’ was the word for what I was going through. Once I

knew, I knew better.’’ Another participant recognizing the

abuse was not their fault tweeted: ‘‘I finally realized it

wasn’t my fault and that I didn’t have to put up with it. My

mental state deserved better, I deserved better.’’

Another reason the participants stated they were able to

leave was the clarity they developed about their self-esteem

and self-worth. Tweets included messages of: ‘‘I finally

realized my life was more valuable and had regained some

self-esteem that he destroyed,’’ ‘‘Never let someone make

you believe that you’re less than what you are, and

everything you can be,’’ and ‘‘I wanted better for me and

my son, I realized my self-worth!’’ Another stated: ‘‘I was a

human being and worth every breath of life, I deserved

better by breaking the cycle of broken people, starting with

me.’’ Finally, this subtheme captured participants’ moti-

vation to care for themselves: ‘‘Because I woke up.

Because I saw myself in the pain of my family’s eyes. I

deserved to love myself again,’’ ‘‘I learned to love me and

left him,’’ and ‘‘Because I needed to love myself more.’’

Clarity About Partner Another subtheme of personal

growth and authenticity represented the participants’ clar-

ity about their abusive partner. Participants reported that

their decision to leave their relationship was the recogni-

tion that they couldn’t change their partner: ‘‘I had to love

myself and realize that it wasn’t up to me to change him’’

or that their partner was not going to change: ‘‘because I

finally realized he will not change and never will,’’ ‘‘I

realized he would never change and that I deserved better,’’

and ‘‘10 years never changed, 5 years later he’s still per-

petrating, our kids won’t be us.’’ Participants’ tweets also

detailed how they left because they recognized their part-

ner’s lies: ‘‘I believed all the apologies and pledges of love

but #whyIleft I realized that those words were lifeless

falling from cold dead lips,’’ and ‘‘because he told me I

couldn’t do better so much I believed him; he was a liar so

he must be lying.’’

Clarity About Healthy Relationships The final subtheme

of personal growth and authenticity that influenced par-

ticipants’ decision to leave the abusive relationship is the

clarity participants reached about what a healthy relation-

ship is. Participants shared tweets about their realization

that love does not include abuse: ‘‘I was shown that love

doesn’t hurt,’’ and ‘‘He said he was my soulmate. Soul-

mates don’t abuse soulmates.’’ Other participants tweeted

that no one had a right to abuse: ‘‘No man has a right to use

his fist on me,’’ and a message to stand up for one’s rights:

‘‘Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights.’’ One partici-

pant shared their view of what love means stating: ‘‘When

someone truly LOVES you they will make an effort instead

of excuses.’’

Theme 2: Connection to Systems of Support

One factor that influenced participants’ decision to leave

the abusive relationship was the connection to various

systems of support. One system of support identified on

Twitter was family and friends. Several demonstrative

tweets include: ‘‘I finally told my family. I admitted to

myself that I needed help and strength/support. My mind

became clear and unfogged [sic] with his lies,’’ ‘‘because of

my dad,’’ and ‘‘I left because I found friends that made me

strong.’’ Other participants found support through religion.

Two participants discussed the influence of God: ‘‘Felt

nudge from God when he had a gun to my head… ‘Do not

be afraid’ left next day,’’ and ‘‘I realized God had a safer

plan for me and led me to my husband, a man of integrity.’’

One participant found support from words of scripture:

‘‘Because someone repeatedly told me I deserved better.

Thank you scripture.’’ Twitter users also attributed their

decision to leave to professional help. One participant

credited their therapist, tweeting: ‘‘because my therapist

told me that’s not love,’’ while another user tweeted:

‘‘Courage is not easy, but you can. It is possible. Seek

professional help.’’ Another important factor was the

access to community services, such as shelters. ‘‘Realized

ppl [sic] DID believe me and help was available DV shelter

near my nursing school let my kids and I stay until I

graduated.’’ Another participant tweeted: ‘‘I finally saw the

truth and got help in leaving from W.E.A.V.E.’’. A final

system of support was accredited to meeting a new

romantic partner. Tweets include: ‘‘When I met Anthony

and realized there were amazing men out there that wanted

to love and take care of,’’ ‘‘I met someone who showed me

that love wasn’t supposed to hurt, that love wasn’t sup-

posed to be scary or hard to talk about,’’ and ‘‘I finally

found someone who loved me and left him.’’

Theme 3: Protect Their Children

A predominate reason that participants tweeted they left the

abusive relationship was to protect their children from

witnessing the abuse, being abused, or to prevent inter-

generational transmission of violence. To break the cycle

of abuse, several of the participants’ tweets mentioned not

Contemp Fam Ther

123

wanting to model abusive relationships for their children:

‘‘Another reason I left was because I had two daughters. I

didn’t want to be the excuse they used to put up with abuse

later,’’ ‘‘So that my daughter would not think that the way I

was treated was OK, I wanted her to be stronger than I

was,’’ and ‘‘If I stayed any longer, my boys would not have

only seen ‘how men are supposed to be’ but ‘how women

are supposed to respond’.’’ Another participant tweeted:

‘‘Because he abused me in front of our children, I finally

had enough. I didn’t want my children repeating the

cycle.’’

Related to breaking the cycle of abuse, participants’

tweets detailed not wanting their children to witness the

abuse. One twitter user wrote: ‘‘The risk of staying out way

[sic] those of leaving especially if a child is a witness.

Seeing, hearing abuse will impact their lives.’’ Other’s

worried what their children were learning from witnessing

the abuse: ‘‘WTF was I teaching my daughters by stay-

ing?!?!’’ ‘‘I felt worse knowing my daughter saw him hit

me,’’ and ‘‘Because I didn’t want my daughters to watch

me fade away and think that was acceptable.’’ One par-

ticular tweet captures the pain a participant’s child expe-

rienced from witnessing the abuse: ‘‘When my 5 yo [sic]

little girl asked why Daddy treats me like that with tears in

her eyes, I knew I had to leave.’’ Another factor related to

protecting their children was to prevent their children from

also becoming victims of abuse. One participant tweeted:

‘‘He turned that despising stare upon my children knew

they were next.’’ Another participant stated: ‘‘I knew he

would hit our son and I risked losing custody for failure to

protect.’’ Finally, participants felt they needed to leave the

relationship so they would live to be around for their

children. One tweet captures this factor, stating: ‘‘My girls

needed a father #whyIstayed, my girls needed a mother

#whyIleft.’’

Theme 4: Fear and Severity of Violence

Another factor that motivated participants to leave the

abusive relationship was due to the fear they felt and the

level of severity the violence had reached. Participants

described how fear motivated them to leave: ‘‘I was tired of

being afraid of the person I slept next to every night,’’

‘‘Someone reminded me that living in fear isn’t supposed

to be normal,’’ and ‘‘I was filled with so much anxiety. I

had stomach issues, panic attacks, and TMJ. On the verge

of insanity.’’ Many of the participants’ tweets captured the

fear that if they did not leave the relationship they would be

killed. Examples of these tweets include: ‘‘I knew I would

never be happy with him. I feared that he might kill me

1 day,’’ ‘‘because I knew he would kill me,’’ ‘‘I didn’t want

the next time that he hurt me to be the very last…ever,’’

‘‘because he would have killed me if I stayed’’ and ‘‘I

actually felt the possibility of death breathing down my

neck.’’ Other participants’ tweets shared how the violence

had reached a level of severity that made them certain they

would be killed: ‘‘he put a knife to my neck’’ and ‘‘he came

home drunk and started choking me while I was asleep in

bed;’’ while other participants’ tweets mentioned the

severity of the threats: ‘‘because I believed him when he

told me he was going to beat me to death,’’ and

‘‘#whyIstayed because he told me he would kill me if I left

#whyIleft because I realized he would if I stayed.’’ Other

participants’ tweets capture how they had to decide to leave

and live or stay and die: ‘‘I finally had enough. I had to

make the decision of whether I wanted to continue dying a

slow death or get out. I chose life,’’ ‘‘A physical mark was

left and I valued my life more than I loved him,’’ and ‘‘I

didn’t want to be alone in a casket.’’

Discussion

While the factors that drive a victim’s decision to stay or

leave are multifaceted, the findings of this study capture

some of the influential factors present in decision-making,

illustrating commonalities among the unique experiences.

We will discuss these findings in terms of the internal and

external factors mentioned previously (Barnett 2001) that

are often involved in a victim’s decision to stay in or leave

an abusive relationship.

External Factors

Two themes from this study could be categorized as

external factors for staying or leaving an abusive rela-

tionship. One of these themes was social support, including

access to or lack of access. Researchers highlight the role

that available social support plays on the ability to leave an

abusive relationship (Barnett 2001; Edwards et al. 2015;

Kim and Gray 2008; Koepsell et al. 2006). Koepsell et al.

(2006) found that victims who sought social support, but

did not receive it were less likely to leave an abusive

relationship. Further, certain types of social support are

more helpful than others. For example, there are three

common reactions that people have when hearing of abuse

(Edwards et al. 2015): (1) positive or validating, (2) neg-

ative or blaming and disbelieving, and (3) leaving,

specifically being encouraged to leave. Victims who

received negative reactions, such as blaming or disbeliev-

ing, often experienced significantly more psychosocial

distress, while those who received positive or supportive

reactions frequently reported intention to leave and less

distress. Family of origin experiences with abuse and

family expectations about staying in or leaving an abusive

relationship also influence the perception of support that a

Contemp Fam Ther

123

victim has (Barnett 2001; Kim and Gray 2008). In this

study, participants’ tweets revealed they stayed due to

witnessing abuse in childhood, or not having a role model

for leaving violent relationships. Exposure to interparental

abuse is related to an increased likelihood of staying in

violent relationships (Kim and Gray 2008).

The second external theme that played a role in both

remaining in and leaving an abusive relationship was

children. Rhodes et al. (2010) found that children can both

motivate and inhibit the leaving process. The desire to

leave an abusive relationship for the benefit of their chil-

dren was a predominant theme in this study. The psycho-

logical and social impacts of childhood exposure to

parental partner violence are well documented (Goodwin

et al. 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 1997a, b), and the

protective instincts behind leaving have been reported to be

a strong motivating factor (Koepsell et al. 2006). The

finding in this study that women stay in violent relation-

ships for the sake of their children has also been noted in

other studies (Eckstein 2011; Kelly 2009; Rhodes et al.

2010). This can have particularly significant implications

for working with ethnic minority victims of abuse, who

might view their role as a parent within the context of a

two-parent family (Kelly 2009).

Also consistent with our findings, Benson and Fox

(2004) found that financial status is a risk factor for staying

in violent relationships. Specifically, lack of access to

financial support not only put women at greater risk for

violence, but also limited the opportunities for these vic-

tims to leave their abusive partner. Other researchers have

found that economic dependency is related to a victim’s

decision to stay or inability to leave (Barnett 2000, 2001;

Carlson et al. 2002). Financial status is often a barrier to

leaving; however, connection to systems of support (i.e.,

community resources, family, and friends) that aid in

reducing the financial burden of leaving, can alleviate this

barrier while also providing emotional support to victims

(Carlson et al. 2002).

A unique contribution of this study is the explanation

from the victims about how the fear and the severity of the

violence led to their decision to leave. Fear of violence has

been found by others to play an influential role in why

victims stay (Barnett 2001; Eckstein 2011; Khaw and

Hardesty 2007; Short et al. 2000), with far less studies

indicating that fear motivates victims to leave (Scheffer

Lindgren and Renck 2008). Many tweets revealed that fear

coupled with severity of violence prompted the decision to

leave. This highlights how the concept of fear can be linked

not only to the potential for violence, but also to the

severity of violence in the relationship, particularly the

escalation of violence in the relationship (Barnett 2001;

Sleutel 1998). As suggested by the current study, these

concepts are often interconnected, and other research

supports that severity and fear of violence may provide

victims with the final push to leave abusive relationships

(Barnett 2001; Scheffer Lindgren and Renck 2008; Sleutel

1998).

Internal Factors

This study suggests that the self-identity and self-percep-

tion of the victim is a contributing factor to both staying in

and leaving abusive relationships. While self-deception,

distortion, and low self-worth were associated with staying

in an abusive relationship, personal growth, particularly

clarity about self, was associated with leaving. Carlson

et al. (2002) found that self-esteem can be a protective

factor among victims, particularly against the development

of psychological trauma related to abuse and future abuse.

Whiting et al. (2012b) highlight how victims of abuse

report that blame leads to self-doubt, which often leads to

the use of distortions to cope with the abuse. Short et al.

(2000) illustrate how violent relationships change victims’

identity, with victims reporting themselves as different

people after the relationship than they were before violence

occurred in the relationship. Furthermore, Whiting et al.

(2012a, b) reported on the use of distortions by victims to

protect self-image, and found that in order to leave an

abusive relationship the victim must see the abuse for what

it is and not minimize it. This emphasizes the importance

of developing a capacity to and desire for leaving the

relationship.

Many of these participants felt a responsibility for

facilitating change in their partner. The idea of being the

abusive partner’s savior is supported by previous literature

that suggests that the desire to change their partner pro-

vided hope to the victims and influenced the decision to

remain in the relationship (Short et al. 2000). Further,

many believed that staying despite the abuse demonstrated

commitment and emotional connection to their partner

(Short et al. 2000). Making the decision to leave the rela-

tionship was often connected with the victim’s recognition

that they were not responsible for changing their partner

(Eckstein 2011), or was related to changing expectations

about the relationship (Khaw and Hardesty 2009).

Based on the findings of this study, it is important for

therapists to pay particular attention to the interplay

between the internal and external factors related to the

decision to leave or stay. For many victims, internal and

external factors such as societal expectations, the influence

of the partner, and the victim’s perceptions about the

relationship are often inseparable (Barnett 2001). Under-

standing the interconnection of these factors can impact

how clinicians approach clinical work with victims of

abuse.

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Clinical Implications

These findings can help professionals provide victims with

validation, support, and patience when helping them sort

through the complex decision making process. Many

clinicians fail to understand the complex and interactive

nature of violence, and may miss important signs or

become judgmental with clients, which is not helpful (Jory

2004; Merchant and Whiting 2015). Therapists need to be

cautious in their own language to avoid victim blaming and

being over directive. While safety is always the primary

concern when violence is discovered, clinicians can

address this while still remaining respectful of the client’s

agency and decision process. Therapeutic discussions

about decisions to leave or stay in an abusive relationship

may seek to empower victims, but should not place the

burden of responsibility onto the victim to change their

partner (Bliss et al. 2008; Eckstein 2011; Merchant and

Whiting 2014). This can create embarrassment, shame, and

self-blame (Eckstein 2011). Merchant and Whiting (2014)

suggest that victim blaming will likely negatively impact

the therapeutic alliance, indicating a need for self-of-ther-

apist work, which should include self-reflection about

attitudes and examining biases concerning IPV. The aim of

such self-of-therapist work not only should be to help

therapists become more aware of their attitudes and values

surrounding violence, but also to help clinicians develop

compassion for victims of abuse.

When working with those struggling with decisions to

stay or leave, it is important to focus on the therapeutic

alliance and acknowledge the needs of the client. For

example, it is often important to validate the reasons that

people choose to remain in abusive relationship. This can

communicate that the therapist values the client’s internal

process of understanding and coping with the abuse, and

that the therapist respects the client’s ability to make the

necessary decision based upon their unique situation

(Eckstein 2011; Merchant and Whiting 2014). Validation

can also be balanced with challenging the client’s distor-

tions to help clients evaluate the impact of violence in their

relationship, as well as the potential for future harm.

Examples of how therapists could challenge the client’s

distortions while validating might include questions like:

‘‘It is clear you care about your partner and value this

relationship. Is it possible that your partner might try to

convince you that you deserved to be treated that way,

when really they are blaming you for their own actions?’’

Or, ‘‘It is common for partners to accuse or blame each

other when their behavior becomes abusive. I know that

you and your partner have a history together, but I wonder

if your feelings for your partner may lead you to minimize

the pain they are causing you?’’

A concern that should be acknowledged by therapists is

that some victims of violence do not know how to access

and use services (Petersen et al. 2005). Therapists should

be knowledgeable about local and state resources available

for clients (such as Women’s Protective Services, Legal

Aid, and low-cost therapy), and should focus on helping

clients learn how to access and use these resources. This

could also include developing a safety plan with clients that

incorporates the local and state resources available to them;

particularly reaching out to their support systems (Kress

et al. 2008). It is common for therapists to subtly or overtly

encourage victims of abuse to leave the relationship.

However, care should be taken to remain collaborative,

even when expressing concerns and values about safety and

empowerment. While it is understandable, therapists who

try to make the decision for the client often push them

away (Merchant and Whiting 2015) and this can have a

disempowering effect. It is often helpful to increase

awareness of safety and respect, and work together with the

client to get to a place free of abuse and fear. This will

likely include connecting clients with the resources to

continue to help them make healthier and more empowered

decisions.

Future Research

Future research could compare reasons for staying in or

leaving an abusive relationship as reported by victims who

sought clinical services versus those who did not. Under-

standing the experiences of individuals who seek out and

use support services versus those who do not could help

inform the way support systems are set up to be more

accessible and user-friendly for victims. Future researchers

should also seek to further understand the experiences

related to victim blaming among victims who stayed or

left, and how those experiences related to reaching out for

support or accessing other protective factors. Finally, the

‘‘whyIleft’’ themes revealed that an important factor to

leaving an abusive relationship was personal growth.

Research should explore how developing self-worth and

empowerment can be utilized to create new clinical inter-

ventions that help victims of IPV.

Limitations

Due to the nature of secondary data analysis, the ability of

the researchers to control the data collection process was

limited. Tweets collected for and included in the data

sample were retrieved at only one time point, even though

both hashtags continued to trend after data was collected.

Therefore, subsequent reactions to and discussion about the

topic may continue to evolve over time. Also this type of

Contemp Fam Ther

123

analysis does not allow for member checking, which helps

to ensure that the results truly captured the experience of

the participants. The access participants had to previous

tweets about ‘‘whyIstayed’’ and ‘‘whyIleft’’ could have

influenced the tweets they posted, which could ultimately

influence the content and story of the data. Finally, research

is inherently driven by the values, biases, and questions of

the researchers. Although this is inherent in all research,

the researchers acknowledge that their own backgrounds

and understandings influenced the shape of the analysis and

presentation of these findings. Additionally, due to the

nature of these participants, the focus was on male-to-fe-

male violence, with the corresponding terminology of

‘‘perpetrator’’ and ‘‘victim.’’ As mentioned briefly earlier,

there are many types and patterns of violence (e.g., Johnson

2008) and our analysis focused on only one area (decision

making by females in abusive relationships) out of many

that could be explored.

Conclusion

Intimate partner violence is a pervasive problem that leads

many to question why an individual remains in an abusive

relationship. Such questions leave victims feeling blamed

for the violence they are experiencing. The results of this

study reveal that a number of factors, both internal and

external, influence an individual’s decision to stay in or

leave an abusive relationship. For therapists who work with

individuals and couples concerning issues of intimate

partner violence, understanding the various factors that

influence decisions to stay in or leave the relationship can

assist therapists with building a strong therapeutic alliance

and will better support the client in their decisions about

the future of their relationship. Of additional importance is

the therapist’s ability to avoid responding to the disclosure

of violence in ways that communicate a blaming stance.

References

Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive

partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of

leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence, &

Abuse, 4, 163–191. doi:10.1177/1524838002250769.

Bahadur, N. (2014, September, 9). #WhyIstayed stories reveal why

domestic violence survivors can’t ‘just leave.’ In The Huffington

post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/

09/whyistayedtwitter-domestic-violence_n_5790320.html

Barnett, O. W. (2000). Why battered women do not leave, Part 1:

External inhibiting factors within society. Trauma, Violence &

Abuse, 1(4), 343–372. doi:10.1177/1524838000001004003.

Barnett, O. W. (2001). Why battered women do not leave, Part 2:

External inhibiting factors—Social support and internal inhibit-

ing factors. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 2(1), 3–35. doi:10.1177/

1524838001002001001.

Bauer, M. W. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M.

W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text

image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 131–151). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781849209731.n8.

Benson, M. L., & Fox, G. L. (2004). When violence hits home: How

economics and neighborhood play a role. Research in brief.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of

Justice. doi:10.1037/e308402005-001.

Bliss, M. J., Ogley-Oliver, E., Jackson, E., Harp, S., & Kaslow, N. J.

(2008). African American women’s readiness to change abusive

relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 23(3), 161–171.

doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9138-3.

Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Inter-

sections of race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 275–285. doi:10.1111/j.1752-

0606.1999.tb00248.x.

Bruckman, A. (2002). Ethical guidelines for research online.

Retreived from: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/*ab/ethics on Jan-

uary 7, 2015.

Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. A., Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002).

Intimate partner abuse and mental health the role of social

support and other protective factors. Violence Against Women,

8(6), 720–745. doi:10.1177/10778010222183251.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide

through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cho, J. Y. & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded

theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differ-

ences. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1–20. Retrieved from: http://

www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf

Crowley, B. P. & Delfico, J. F. (1996). Content analysis: A

methodology for structuring and analyzing written material.

United States General Accounting Office (GAO), Program

Evaluation and Methodology Division. Retrieved from: http://

www.gao.gov/assests/80/76281.pdf on January 13, 2015.

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), 21–30. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9338-0.Edwards, K. M., Dardis, C. M., Sylaska, K. M., & Gidycz, C. A.

(2015). Informal social reactions to college women’s disclosure

of intimate partner violence associations with psychological and

relational variables. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1),

25–44. doi:10.1177/0886260514532524.

Elliott, P. (1996). Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence. In

C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley (Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian

domestic partnerships (pp. 1–8). New York: Haworth Press.

Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative

research on internet communities. BMJ, 323, 1103–1105. doi:10.

1136/bmj/323/7321.1103.

Garcia-Monroe, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C.

H. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings

from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and

domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260–1269. doi:10.1016/

s0140-6736(06)69523-8.

Goodwin, S. N., Chandler, D., & Meisel, J. (2003). Violence against

women: The role of welfare reform. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Justice. doi:10.1037/e531652006-001.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content

analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures, and measures

to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2),

105–112. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Bates, L. (1997a). A brief

review of the research on husband violence Part III: Sociode-

mographic factors, relationship factors, and differing conse-

quences of husband and wife violence. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 2(3), 285–307. doi:10.1016/s1359-1789(96)00017-1.

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997b). A brief

review of the literature on husband violence. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 2, 179–213. doi:10.1016/s1359-1789(96)

00016-x.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to

qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15,

1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate

terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence.

Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Jory, B. (2004). The intimate justice scale: An instrument to screen

for psychological abuse and physical violence in clinical

practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(1),

29–44. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2004.tb01220.x.

Keach, S. (2014, December 2). Instagram now has more users than

Twitter. Trusted Reviews. Retrieved from: http://www.trustedre

views.com/news/instagram-now-has-more-users-than-twitter on

January 4, 2015.

Kelly, U. A. (2009). ‘‘I’m a mother first’’: The influence of mothering

in the decision-making processes of battered immigrant Latino

women. Research in Nursing & Health, 32(3), 286–297. doi:10.

1002/nur.20327.

Khaw, L., & Hardesty, J. L. (2007). Theorizing the process of leaving:

Turning points and trajectories in the stages of change. Family

Relations, 56(4), 413–425. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.

00470.x.

Khaw, L. B. L., & Hardesty, J. L. (2009). Leaving an abusive partner:

Exploring boundary ambiguity using the stages of change model.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1(1), 38–53. doi:10.1111/j.

1756-2589.2009.00004.x.

Kim, J., & Gray, K. A. (2008). Leave or stay? Battered women’s

decision after intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 23(10), 1465–1482. doi:10.1177/0886260508314307.

Koepsell, J. K., Kernic, M. A., & Holt, V. L. (2006). Factors that

influence battered women to leave their abusive relationships.

Violence and Victims, 21(2), 131–147. doi:10.1891/

088667006780644299.

Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002).

Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in

nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behav-

ior, 34, 224–230. doi:10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3.

Kress, V. E., Protivnak, J. J., & Sadlak, L. (2008). Counseling clients

involved with violent intimate partners: The mental health

counselor’s role in promoting client safety. Journal of Mental

Health Counseling, 30(3), 200–210. doi:10.17744/mehc.30.

3e0r87734721l6016.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., & Rolhing, M.

(2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors

following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence

and Victims, 15, 73–90.

Lesser, B. (1990). Attachment and situational factors influencing

battered women’s return to their mates following a shelter

program. In K. Pottharst (Ed.), Research explorations in adult

attachment (pp. 81–128). New York: Peter Lang.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative

Social Research, I(2). Retrieved from: http://217.160.35.246/fqs-

texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.pdf

Merchant, L. V., & Whiting, J. B. (2014). Discovering compassion for

victims of domestic violence. Clinical Supervision Activities for

Increasing Competence and Self-Awareness (pp. 255–262).

Merchant, L. V., & Whiting, J. B. (2015). Challenges and retention of

domestic violence shelter advocates: A grounded theory. Journal

of Family Violence. doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9685y.

Merritt-Gray, M., & Wuest, J. (1995). Counteracting abuse and

breaking free: The process of leaving evealed through women’s

voices. Health Care for Women International, 16, 399–412.

doi:10.1080/07399339509516194.

Miller, A. J., Bobner, R. F., & Zarski, J. J. (2000). Sexual identity

development: A base for work with same sex couple partner

abuse. Contemporary Family Therapy, 22, 189–200. doi:10.

1023/A:1007729819595.

Moss, V. A., Pitula, C. R., Campbell, J. C., & Halstead, L. (1997).

The experience of terminating an abusive relationship from an

Anglo and African American perspective: A qualitative descrip-

tive study. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 18, 433–454. doi:10.

3109/01612849709009423.

Petersen, R., Moracco, K. E., Goldstein, K. M., & Clark, K. A.

(2005). Moving beyond disclosure: Women’s perspectives on

barriers and motivators to seeking assistance for intimate partner

violence. Women and Health, 40(3), 63–76. doi:10.1300/

j013v40n03_05.

Rhodes, K. V., Cerulli, C., Dichter, M. E., Kothari, C. L., & Barg, F.

K. (2010). ‘‘I didn’t want to put them through that’’: The

influence of children on victim decision-making in intimate

partner violence cases. Journal of Family Violence, 25(5),

485–493. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9310-z.

Scheffer Lindgren, M., & Renck, B. (2008). Intimate partner violence

and the leaving process: Interviews with abused women.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and

Well-being, 3(2), 113–124. doi:10.1080/17482620801945805.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Short, L. M., McMahon, P. M., Chervin, D. D., Shelley, G. A., Lezin,

N., Sloop, K. S., & Dawkins, N. (2000). Survivors’ identification

of protective factors and early warning signs for intimate partner

violence. Violence Against Women, 6(3), 272–285. doi:10.1177/

10778010022181840.

Sleutel, M. R. (1998). Women’s experiences of abuse: A review of

qualitative research. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 19,

525–539. doi:10.1080/016128498248827.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg,

K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission

of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 62(3), 640–654. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x.

Swanberg, J. E., & Logan, T. K. (2005). Domestic violence and

employment: A qualitative study. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 10(1), 3–17. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.3.

Whitehead, L. (2007). Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-

mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of

the literature. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 782–791. doi:10.

1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.005.

Whiting, J. B., Oka, M., & Fife, S. T. (2012a). Appraisal distortions

and intimate partner violence: Gender, power, and interaction.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. doi:10.1111/j.1752-

0606.2011.00285.x.

Whiting, J. B., Smith, D. B., Oka, M., & Karakurt, G. (2012b). Safety

in intimate partnerships: The role of appraisals and threat.

Journal of Family Violence, 27(4), 313–320. doi:10.1007/

s10896-012-9423-7.

Williams, J. (2000). Factors related to women’s stages of terminating

violent intimate relationships. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana

University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(3-B),

1333.

Contemp Fam Ther

123