The following common situational factors tend to contribute to the risk of domestic abuse, and tend to be elements that victims report. Some of these aspects, we already have talked about in this blog:
Advertisements
When individuals are experiencing the close monitoring that comes with coercive control, there is a higher likelihood of other forms of domestic abuse occurring such as physical and economic abuse.
When individuals experience adverse family circumstances where elements of financial problems, unemployment, alcohol or substance use disorder are present, there is a higher likelihood of domestic abuse occurring.
When individuals are connected to adversecultural traditionssuch as female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriage, or honour-based abuse; there is a higher likelihood for other forms of domestic abuse to take place. The more patriarchal the culture, the more risks there are.
When individuals are connected to adverse community circumstances such as community aggression, violence, fear of others, a distrust of authority figures (e.g. police), poor housing, low socio-economic status, low education levels, and poor access to support services and facilities; there is a higher likelihood of domestic abuse occurring and individuals might have no option to turn to in the case of domestic abuse taking place.
When there are individuals who are traumatised and display behaviour that challenges such as risky behaviour, this might lead to an escalation of domestic abuse at home and other interpersonal conflict. Sadly, the risk is also increased by these situational factors.
When there are people who have financial constraints, they are more likely to stay stuck in an abusive environment or relationship, and more likely to depend on a perpetrator. Therefore, financial problems increase the likelihood of domestic abuse occurring.
When there areindividuals who are isolated from their social networks, they become more vulnerable, suggestible, and the risk of domestic abuse increases.
DID YOU KNOW?
When a perpetrator has a history of being domestically abusive, sadistic, and/or controlling; there is a potential for recidivism to occur. This is why since 2014, victims have a right to make a request to the police for a disclosure of any history of domestic abuse from their partner. This is to prevent the perpetrator from reoffending by giving potential victims a heads up about what could happen in their relationship, as it is known that perpetrators of domestic violence rarely change. According to the Home Office (2022), ‘The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS), also known as “Clare’s Law” enables the police to disclose information to a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse about their partner’s or ex-partner’s previous abusive or violent offending’. This was implemented in 2014 across all police forces in England and Wales after 36 year old Clare Wood was murdered in 2009 (BBC News, 2014). Clare was strangled and set on fire by her obsessive exboyfriend George Appleton at Salford, and it was concluded that she received no support from the local authorities even though George had a history of violence against women (VAW; BBC News, 2011).
According to Lincoln College (2022), autism as a word was first used to describe those who suffered from schizophrenia and who were also ‘withdrawn and self-absorbed’. In 1943, the word was first used to describe a condition of its own and individuals seemed perplexing to clinicians and were scrutinised heavily (Kanner, 1943); followed by the creation of Asperger’s disease in 1944. Later in the 1950s, it was believed that autism was a result of developmental trauma, and mothers of autistic children were heavily criticised as ‘refrigerator mothers’, indicating that they had no emotional warmth.
Eventually, during the 60s and 70s there were changes initiated by parents coming together (and forming the National Autistic Society), and by scientists recognising the disease as biological. This recognition led to segregation schools being implemented for autistic children before a genetic link was discovered in 1974. Yet, it was not until 1979 that a psychological model called ‘the triad of impairments’ was proposed which highlighted difficulties in social interaction, communication, and imagination skills. Then, in 1980 the DSM first recognised Autism Spectrum Disorder, and in 1989 the diagnostic criteria for Aspergers was created before being recognised in 1994. From there on there were national scientific and governmental initiatives to improve practice on understanding and working with autism. Finally, since 2009 World Autism Day has been celebrated.
Currently, there are still people who think that autism happens only to children, or that it is not a disability. Furthermore, only a minority of people understand that autism has no cure. This shows that even though there have been a lot of developments in the history of autism, many misconceptions still persist.
Theories
Initially, it was believed that autism was a form of schizophrenia. Furthermore, the way clinicians used to relate to autistic individuals was very derogatory and subjugating throughout history. Individuals with autism were labelled as ‘mentally retarded’, ‘idiotic’, ‘feeble-minded’, ‘slow or backwards’, or ‘autistic schizoid’ (Lincoln College, 2022). Now individuals are known to have a neurodevelopmental condition which they live with, and which has unique individual needs and no cure. Moreover, autism was considered to be a matter of moral degeneration until the genetic link was discovered and its biological construct was explored.
Kanner (1943) cited in Lincoln College (2022) was the first to propose that autism was a condition of itself and that it was not schizophrenia. This was a major breakthrough. Later on, Aspergers (1944) cited in Lincoln College (2022) proposed that ‘autistic psychopathy’ was the cluster of symptoms now known as ‘Asperger’s syndrome’. He believed that these individuals could not change because autism had no cure. He identified symptoms such as ‘lack of empathy’, and poor ability to make friends, among others. This was another breakthrough. However, autism is not the same as psychopathy, and this should be emphasised.
Moreover, Lincoln College (2022) also states that Wing’s and Gould’s (1979) theory was the first one to mention Aspergers syndrome in a research paper challenging Kanner’s theory and they introduced the model of the ‘triad of impairments’ (social interaction, communication, and imagination). Furthermore, Baron-Cohen et al. (1980) proposed the theory of mind (ToM) theory indicating that individuals with autism struggled to understand the mental states of others. It was stated that this impairment affected most or all aspects of the individual’s life.
Another theory was the ‘extreme male brain theory’ which states that autistic individuals have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone than the average population. This might explain why most autistic individuals are male. Furthermore, Baron-Cohen also proposed the ‘empathising-systemising theory’ which states that autistic individuals can only be empathic by imitating the behaviours of others without really understanding the subjective states of mind of others. This is because autistic individuals are more systematic than empathetic and adapt based on organisational, structural, normative, and routine schemas. This might explain why these individuals have interpersonal difficulties. Finally, the ‘autism spectrum condition’ theory states that individuals with autism have a life-long condition which can vary based on where they are in the spectrum which can range from interpersonal difficulties to verbal communication difficulties (Lincoln College, 2022).
Treatments & Interventions
Electroshock therapy was often used to treat autism in the past and treatments heavily relied on the use of medication. Autistic individuals were placed in asylums and separated from their families during treatment even though a cure does not exist. Nowadays, treatment takes place in the community most of the time, medication is only used where necessary, and psychotherapy is offered in order to help build coping and distress tolerance skills. Furthermore, in the past autistic individuals were segregated from society and placed in special schools. This is now known to have detrimental effects. Hence why nowadays autistic individuals are integrated into mainstream schools with extra support for their needs. Finally, in the past autistic individuals had little or no autonomy and were passive receivers of interventions; whereas now person-centred approaches are the norm, and individuals are encouraged to be autonomous and to live meaningful lives (Lincoln College, 2022) even though the mental health industry still has a lot to improve when it comes to co-production of care plans in general.
Furthermore, Lincoln College (2022) states that in the past autism was treated with medication on a trial and error basis, sometimes having dangerous and now-illicit substances administered such as LSD. Of course, this was harmful. Moreover, aversion therapy was used to operationally condition unwanted responses using punishment as the reinforcing method. Individuals were slapped on the wrist, splashed with cold water, and given electric shocks every time they displayed unwanted behaviours. This was done with the intention of extinguishing such behaviours, and was inhumane. Nowadays, this would be classed as unethical and degrading.
Needless to say, in the past individuals were excessively put through electro-convulsive therapies which consisted of electrocuting the individual’s head in order to forcefully and drastically alter the biological make-up of the brain. This practice is known to induce seizures, memory loss, and other effects. Sadly, this type of torture is still used as treatment in many countries, including the UK. There are several human rights movements such as the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (n.d.) which have made documentaries advocating against this form of therapy due to its many harmful effects. However, among the positive services offered to autistic individuals nowadays are community care (i.e. ensuring individuals are not hospitalised), speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, family therapy, behavioural therapy, medication, parent education, psychosocial treatments, and counselling (Lincoln College, 2022).
A perpetrator can isolate a victim from family and friends in order to have control over her mind. He may do this to ensure that the victim receives no external support from her network, and is therefore more suggestible and vulnerable to his tactics. Even if the perpetrator is unreliable in many ways, he wants the victim to feel that she needs him, and that she has to depend on him. Victims affected by this form of coercive control often gradually lose touch with their networks as the perpetrator’s demands for time and attention increase. This perpetrator wants to jail his victim, and will use manipulative techniques to make the victim feel guilty for not meeting his needs. This jailer wants to take over the victim’s life and wants the victim to leave her studies and/or job. The isolated victim loses touch with herself, and experiences low levels of self-esteem and confidence. Eventually, the victim can also lose all ability to make her own decisions, and will do as the perpetrator wants. Due to these interpersonal experiences of coercive abuse, the victim might develop social anxiety and might become further alienated into the perpetrator’s world. Therefore, isolation is one of the many risk factors for domestic abuse.
So what other risk factors are there? Even though domestic abuse can happen to anyone, protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are also risk factors when it comes to domestic abuse. All these characteristics can increase the the likelihood of isolation, and can place victims at serious risk. Depending on the intersectionality of characteristics, some people might be more at risk of being abused than others. For instance, the evidence suggests that women are more at risk of being domestically abused than men, and that transgender and non-binary individuals also experience experience higher rates of domestic abuse. Therefore, it can be said that gender is a risk factor.
Furthermore, having mental health problems makes individuals more vulnerable and suggestible. Perpetrators of domestic violence look to exploit a victim’s vulnerabilities, and will prey on those who are either depressed or anxious. Individuals affected by this type of abuse tend to become isolated as a result of coercive control, and might find it more difficult to access support. Therefore, it can be said that mental illness is a risk factor.
Moreover, many perpetrators use religious beliefs as an excuse to engage in domestic abuse. For example, the perpetrator might tell the victim that the Bible says that women should be submissive to men, or that Dharma requires constant hedonism and sexual exploitation (e.g. cult leaders). Whatever the beliefs, perpetrators can sometimes make it difficult for the victims to reclaim their subjectivity, and will subjugate the victims based on these beliefs. The victim might also have different beliefs to her perpetrator, and this might escalate the abuse. Therefore, religion is a risk factor.
Also, a lot of perpetrators are homophobic and will abuse anyone who deviates from heterosexuality, at times even using punishment against the LGBTQ+ victim. The evidence shows that LGBTQ+ individuals experience higher rates of abuse due to their vulnerabilities, with bisexual women being the most affected group. Therefore, sexual orientation is a risk factor.
What’s more, many perpetrators abuse those whose age means they are more vulnerable, and indefensible, such as children and elderly people. These predators may get children or young people to commit acts to which they cannot give consent to as a result of immaturity (e.g. child sexual abuse). Therefore, age is a risk factor.
Furthermore, when people are ill or disabled, they are more vulnerable to harm. Perpetrators can at times exploit this vulnerability. The victim might feel like they are a burden to the perpetrator and might find it difficult to leave due to dependencies (e.g. financial factors). Therefore, disability is a risk factor when it comes to domestic abuse, and victims are more likely to experience such abuse for a prolonged period of time.
Finally, perpetrators at times exploit the vulnerabilities of those with a different ethnicity. For instance, if a person’s immigration status is uncertain, they might stay in a relationship out of fear of losing their visa. Also, those who do not speak English might find it harder to communicate their ordeals. Moreover, some cultures practise disturbing traditions such as female genital mutilation (FGM) and women with these cultural connections are more likely to experience abuse, including forced marriage and honour-based abuse. When it comes to forced marriage, children from specific cultures are more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse as a result of forced child marriage. Therefore, ethnicity is a major risk factor when it comes to domestic abuse.
In conclusion, the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 can each be risk factors to potential domestic abuse, and it is important now more than ever that these characteristics are taken into account when safeguarding human beings. Furthermore, isolation is a major risk factor and a common trait which intersects with protected characteristics of identity.
This blog post will educate the reader about the signs of domestic abuse, and how to identify it in every day life. It also touches on the specific symptoms and indicators of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour-based abuse, and digital domestic abuse; as well as who is most at risk from experiencing these.
Physical Abuse
Individuals affected by physical violence present with recurrent physical injuries such as black eyes, bruises, split lips, marks on the neck, or sprained wrists. Moreover, the explanations given for these injuries might be inconsistent, and might be obviously a cover-up for something else. Finally, they might also wince when making motor movements as if in pain and trying to avoid pressure on a specific part of the body. However, it must be noted that perpetrators tend to be wary of where they leave marks, so as to avoid getting caught. So in many cases, physical abuse is hidden from the public eye and the victim is manipulated into keeping things secret. Physical signs of domestic abuse might not always be visible because the perpetrator might be ensuring that they leave no evidence that could incriminate them. This might mean that they will attack the victim in specific hidden places such as the head, the stomach, or breasts, among other places. Furthermore, they might have manipulated the victim to hide the marks, or to keep silent; and the victim might actually be using clothing, make-up, and accessories to actively cover the injury.
Emotional & Psychological Abuse
Individuals affected by emotional abuse present with symptoms of agitation and anxiety, chronic tiredness and insomnia, substance or alcohol use disorder, submissiveness (e.g. apologising all of the time), anhedonia, low self-esteem, low self-confidence, fear or wariness, depression, and/or suicidal ideation. Whilst these symptoms might not always be caused by domestic abuse, these are commonly experienced by people who are in abusive relationships. Therefore, it is important to take into account these indicators when safeguarding adults from potential abuse which might be hidden. Emotional signs of domestic abuse are inherently invisible and can only be detected by observation. If the victim does not have a support network who knows them well, it might be more difficult for anyone to notice any differences in behaviour. Furthermore, not everyone is equipped with the knowledge to correctly identify signs of emotional abuse. Moreover, victims might actually avoid disclosing anything, especially if the perpetrator has manipulated them to keep things to themselves through blame and/or threats.
Individuals affected by domestic abuse present with behavioural markers that could reveal their ordeal such as drastic behaviour or personality changes, unjustified self-isolation, being unable to attend scheduled meetings, avoidance of social gatherings, the sudden reluctance to engage in activities once enjoyed, and/or secretive behaviours. Furthermore, the individual might appear anxious and/or fearful, and their behaviour might seem extremely ‘well-behaved’ when around their perpetrator. These individuals may try to cover up the abuse they are being put through by giving excuses that are unrelated to what is actually happening. Behavioural signs of domestic abuse are difficult to pinpoint if the victim is not known to the witness very well, and therefore the witness cannot notice a change in usual behaviour. This means that unless someone notices the situation, a bystander intervention is unlikely, especially when the victim makes excuses for apparent unusual incidents which no one can recognise as an inconsistency.
Coercive Control
Individuals affected by coercive control present with signs and indicators such as asking their perpetrator for permission to socialise with others, receiving numerous texts and/or calls from their perpetrator, having no money or access to it, having no car and being picked up by their perpetrator all the time, and/or needing to be home at specific times. These individuals might also keep these patterns secret, and might actually feel shame related to their ordeal. Signs of coercive control are often quite hidden from everyday life because the victim might appear to be respectful rather than fearful of her perpetrator. Others might not pick up on the abusive flood of texts and/or calls, or might not understand that all of these communications come from the perpetrator. Furthermore, victims might feel embarrassed to disclose their financial situation and/or dependencies, and might avoid answering truthfully when questioned about details.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
Women who have been genitally mutilated present with difficulty walking, sitting, or standing; they show signs of being in pain, and may spend longer in the toilet than usual. They might be anxious, depressed, and/or might be self-isolating without a justification. They might present with drastic changes of behaviour and personality, may engage in truancy at school/college/university, might become absent from work and/or might withdraw from social activities. Furthermore, the Home Office has a list of countries flagged as ‘risky’ when it comes to female genital mutilation. These are Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Eritrea, Yemen, Kurdistan, and Indonesia. Women and girls at risk of female genital mutilation are those who speak about special ceremonies or rituals about womanhood in their culture, those who say that they are going on holiday outside the UK, those who say that a ‘special’ relative is coming to visit them, and those have family members who have been already mutilated. This means that when women and girls present with any of the above indicators, and especially when they have connections to any of the blacklisted countries, they should be safeguarded through bystander intervention.
Forced Marriage
Forced marriage happens here in the UK and also abroad. Sometimes only the woman is forced, and other times both parties are forced. Individuals affected by forced marriage present with truancy or absence from work, fearfulness and anxiety about holidays, failure to return to occupational life after a holiday, not being allowed to study or work, having excessive parental control, depression or isolation, and/or attempts to escape their ordeal at home. Furthermore, those at risk of being forced into marriage include those who have connections to those who have already been forced to marry, and those whose culture promotes early marriage. Countries known to have child marriage include Nigeria, Central African Republic, Chad, Bangladesh, Mali, South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mozambique and India (Reid, 2018); as well as Pakistan (Ijaz, 2018).
Honour-based Abuse
In some cultures, the family or community might attempt to protect or defend their shared values through abusive means and/or threats of abusive means such as harassment, assault, imprisonment, murder and rape. This is what is known as honour-based abuse and it is directly linked to beliefs, and attitudes. Individuals affected by this type of abuse present with drastic changes in behaviour or personality, anxiety, demotivation, poor performance, excessive control by others, self-isolation which cannot be justified, confrontational and argumentative behaviours, truancy or absence from work, attempts to escape their ordeal, self-harm, depression, substance or alcohol use disorders, suicidal ideation, and/or actual bodily harm (ABH). Furthermore, individuals at risk of honour-based abuse include those who have relatives who have been forced into early marriage, and those who come from cultures where honour-based abuse is perceived as normal. Countries flagged as risky when it comes to this type of abuse include Turkey, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, Africa, the Middle East, South and Eastern Europe, and traveller communities. This means that people from these cultures are particularly at risk of being abused.
Digital Domestic Abuse
Digital domestic abuse entails harassment, bullying, and/or stalking through an online platform, and/or the restriction of someone from accessing technology. Individuals affected by digital domestic abuse present with an excessive number of texts/calls, appear visibly upset or distressed after texts/calls, online attacks against their integrity, and online embarrassing media involving them. Furthermore, individuals who are being coercively controlled through technology present with a monitored access to social media, emails, and/or the internet by their perpetrators, signs that others have access to their personal digital accounts, a controlled access to technology by the perpetrators, a recurrent pattern of asking for permission from their perpetrator before connecting digitally with the people in their lives, an excessive guardedness about what is said in emails or other digital platforms, and/or a recurrent pattern of borrowing other people’s technology for access to the internet. Moreover, an individual can be both abused digitally, and also face to face, with punishments, reprimands and other negative consequences used by the perpetrator to intimidate the victim into obeying.
De facto and de jure social injustices are an expression of the id quo. These impulses have a detrimental effect on women’s daily lives, making it a lot more difficult for them to enjoy their human rights. This document has shared data particles of knowledge about current injustices occurring to ‘mad’ and ‘intersectional’ women in the UK, the psychological impact of these injustices (e.g. Borderline Personality Disorder), and the legal framework of international law, which the UK is subject to. De jure and de facto injustices exacerbate mental health problems, and lead to the introjection of maladaptive behaviours, and can corrupt the individual superego. Furthermore, UN Women (2016) recommends that all countries take on board the Istanbul Convention, and the UK is a country member of the UN Security Council. The UK’s Domestic Abuse Act 2021 does not fully cover all the criteria necessary for the prevention and protection of women’s rights, as well as the prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women. Similarly, the Equality Act 2010 only protects some of the many characteristics that elicit discrimination against human beings, and the word ‘dignity’ does not appear once in the Human Rights Act 1998. This seemingly innocuous semantic exception is a malpraxis. All these technical legislative failures lead to very costly consequences for the least advantaged in the status quo. The facts and figures have shown that women in the mental health sector are the most affected group, out of which patients with BPD tend to struggle the most with daily attitudinal obstacles, intersectional discrimination, and de facto impediments.
When I began this journey in Forensic Psychology, I did not expect to learn as much as I have. The main tenet of this career consists in understanding psychopathy, and psychopathology.
It does make me question authoritarianism and the ways in which it can manifest. For instance, Milgram and Adorno et al. studied the psychology of obedience under pressure, and how following orders led to the holocaust. An aspect that has been questioned little is how scarcity or the fear of scarcity has led to similar phenomena due to how people have been conditioned to see money as an enabler of everyday behaviour. For instance, when Milgram conducted his obedience experiments during the 60s, he monetarily rewarded his participants for taking part in the studies. Modern psychologists have attempted to re-examine the dynamics at Yale’s laboratory and what might have led the participants to show that they were capable of being sadistic under such conditions. An example is Gibson’s (2013) work which meticulously examines the prods given by the experimenter. In a way, Gibson seeked to understand how the orders and requests given by the authority figure contributed to the decision-making processes of the participants. However, I have not come across much research highlighting the role of the monetary incentive in everyday behaviour; or how being given a monetary incentive places a subconscious obligation on individuals to comply with requests, even if such requests at times make them feel uncomfortable.
The c/s/x movement, also known as ‘the psychiatric survivors movement‘ (Wikipedia, n.d.) explores how a large number of individuals report feeling or having felt dehumanised by the mental health system. For the unstigmatised person, it is often more common to assume that all these people expressing dissatisfaction with the system are crazy, than to understand the nature of what it means to respect a person’s dignity and human rights. It is quite a complex situation, because it is unclear what reinforces and keeps some mental health settings from actively listening to their patients’ concerns.
According to Turner (2015), signal detection theory (SDT) “describes processes whereby information that is important to the perceiver (known as the ‘signal’) is distinguished from other information that is unimportant and potentially distracting (known as the ‘noise’). It is my hypothesis that some of the inherently dehumanising behaviours occurring in the mental health system happen as a result of the hyper-normalisation of object-relations with patients. As I mentioned on my post ‘Investigating the neuropsychopathologyof prejudice‘, people can at times perceive those with stereotyped and stigmatised characteristics as non-human objects. This would of course increase the chance of mental health settings staff processing signals coming from clients as background noise, rather than as worth-listening-to human signals. Such established conscious and unconscious behaviours leading to the dehumanisation of many clients are reinforced through monetary incentives, and through an intragroup, mob-like co-validation of such unconscious biases. Like Eichmann, many live their lives constantly affirming to themselves that they were just following procedures and orders, or just doing their job; and therefore they believe it is not their responsibility to reflect on how clients are impacted by this. But the signals coming from mental health patients often stand in stark contrast to the common belief that these dehumanising, and at times non-empathic methods are appropriate, or even de facto acceptable.
I do think everyone deserves to be paid for their labour, and that having access to a basic form of income is an important foundation in any society; and I also think that mental health settings need to be encouraged or trained appropriately to detect clients’ signals as more than just background noise (i.e. as more than non-human objects signals) in order to reduce risk outcomes. The situation is problematic, persistent, and pervasive with these manifestations of authoritarianism in mental health settings. It would indeed be arrogant to assume that all the patients/clients expressing dissatisfaction with the service are wrong, or to culturally pathologise reasonable dissent. It would also be irresponsible and de jure unacceptable to fail to take steps towards alleviating feelings of ‘being dehumanised’ in civil society, especially if such feelings of dehumanisation have the potential to lead to never events, such as suicide.
Turner, J. (2015) ‘Making sense of the world’, in Turner, J. and Barker, M. J. (eds) Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 7-45.
This is a short video answering some questions in relation to how to cope with the intensity of the coronavirus pandemic by focusing on psychological survival and wellbeing at home.
