“Can someone just ever for one moment assume I could be a victim?” An exploratory analysis investigating male victims of intimate partner violence experiences of help-seeking.

This thesis explores the help-seeking experiences of male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) prior to and during the Coronavirus pandemic, the supporting experiences of practitioners supporting male victims during the Coronavirus pandemic, and also assesses how traditional stereotypes influences society's judgements of incidents of partner violence and their decision making to intervene in incidents of intimate partner. In study 1, male survivors of partner abuse were invited to participate in a mixed-method questionnaire about their experiences of abuse and help-seeking. The questionnaire also highlighted the barriers that prevented them from help-seeking. Results suggest that prescriptive and rigid stereotypes inform support organisation's descriptions of typical partner violence incidents, and typical perpetrator and victim characteristics, resulting in support organisations disbelieving men’s experiences and male victims experiencing discrimination. Furthermore, these same stereotypes inform men themselves, meaning that some male victims do not perceive their experiences as abusive nor see themselves as a victim of IPV. Study 2 consisted of two sub�studies that acted as a comparative whole study. Study 2a similarly explored men's help�seeking experiences, but, during the unexpected Coronavirus pandemic. This study explored two comparisons: a) the help-seeking experiences of men during the pandemic and prior to the pandemic, and b) a comparison to the experiences that practitioners reported. Study 2b explored the support challenges and opportunities that practitioners supporting male victims during the Coronavirus pandemic reported. For male victims, results suggest that the lockdown and stay�at-home messages did influence their decisions to report their abusive experiences. As some men were not sure of available support prior to the pandemic, during the pandemic they were still unaware, meaning that the pandemic did not influence their help-seeking. For practitioners, an increase in demand from male victims presented challenges as face-to-face support was restricted or stopped completely. However, results also showed that several support opportunities presented themselves for organisations during the pandemic-related changes (such as video call appointments) which will continue to be implemented in the future. Finally, study 3 explored ‘bystanders’ judgments towards an audio recording of a simulated partner violence incident alternating by perpetrator and victim sex. This study also explored if these judgments influenced their decision-making to intervene in IPV incidents. The findings determined that stereotypes do extend to and influence society’s perceptions of IPV and this also impacts intervention. It is concluded that whilst exposure of men’s victimisation has increased, gender stereotypes, continue to impact men’s own recognition of abuse, society's recognition of men as victims and support organisation's response to male victims. The final chapter of this thesis summarises the findings and details the implications of this research

But, who is the victim here? Exploring judgments toward hypothetical bidirectional domestic violence scenarios

Gendered models of abuse describe intimate partner violence (IPV) as unilaterally perpetrated by dominant, aggressive men towards vulnerable women. This unidirectional conceptualization has contributed to a “domestic violence stereotype” which, alongside broader attitudes regarding gender, influences attitudes towards ‘non-typical’ victim and perpetrator groups (e.g., male victims, female perpetrators, those within same-sex relationships), and has significant outcomes for help-seeking decision-making, as well as responses from service providers and the criminal justice system. Whilst prevalence data and research suggest bidirectional violence is in fact the most common pattern (e.g., see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012), there is still little known about how the stereotypes and attitudes described above manifest in scenarios where both parties occupy ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ labels. The present pilot study therefore asked 178 undergraduate students to allocate ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’ labels, and make judgments of severity, resolution and justice outcomes, towards hypothetical opposite-sex IPV scenarios varying on the proportion of abuse perpetrated by each party, and type of violence. Results showed that participants were reluctant to label men as ‘victims’, and women as ‘perpetrators’, across scenarios. They were also less likely to recommend that the man should call the police. These exploratory results therefore suggest that powerful stereotypes about IPV and gender may serve to influence perceptions of bidirectional violence and point to a need to study this issue in more detail in order to elucidate the most appropriate way to begin to address these issues