See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241643528

Why women stay: A theoretical examination of rational choice and moral

reasoning in the context of intimate partner violence

Article  in  Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology · July 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0004865812443677

CITATIONS READS

70 3,856

1 author:

Silke Meyer
Monash University (Australia)
55 PUBLICATIONS   577 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International collaborations using Canadian Social Survey Data View project

Family Engagement Strategy - Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Silke Meyer on 02 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
Why women stay: A theoretical 45(2) 179–193
! The Author(s) 2012
examination of rational choice Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
and moral reasoning in the DOI: 10.1177/0004865812443677
anj.sagepub.com
context of intimate partner
violence
Silke Meyer
University of Queensland, Australia

Abstract
Public attitudes towards intimate partner violence (IPV) have shifted from viewing IPV as a
tolerable, private matter to viewing it as a matter of public concern that should be dealt with
as a crime. Despite this major shift in social attitudes towards IPV over the last three decades,
there seems to be a lack of understanding of why many women stay, at least initially, when
facing severe forms of IPV. Using data from face-to-face interviews conducted with 29 women
in Southeast Queensland who experienced severe forms of IPV over an extended period of
time, this paper explores the rationale behind the (initial) decision to stay with an abusive
partner. While rational decision making has predominantly been seen as a male trait, this
paper criticizes this underlying assumption, using a feminist framework of moral reasoning.
Findings presented in this paper identify the rationale behind victims’ decisions to stay and
offer an advanced understanding of moral reasoning through a gendered lens in the context of
IPV. Understanding why women stay, at least initially, is the first crucial step in ensuring
adequate support for women on their journey towards the ultimate goal of a violence-free
life.

Keywords
domestic violence, intimate partner violence, leaving, moral reasoning, rational choice, staying

Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious and widespread phenomenon affecting many
women in Australia and worldwide (Hague and Mullender, 2006; Hutchinson and
Weeks, 2004; World Health Organization (WHO), 2005). Findings from international
victim surveys show that IPV affects one in three adult women in most industrialised
nations, is a leading cause of injuries to women of reproductive age (Johnson and Bunge,

Corresponding author:
Silke Meyer, University of Queensland, Institute for Social Science Research, St Lucia Campus, Bldg 31B, R 110,
Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.
Email: s.meyer@uq.edu.au

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

180 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

2001; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Mouzos and Makkai, 2004), and is associated with 60
per cent of homicides involving a female victim (Shackelford and Mouzos, 2005;
Virueda and Payne, 2010). These occurrences attract ongoing media attention (Barette
Meyering, 2010; Bentley, 2011; McInnes and Power, 2008) and have moved IPV and the
highly vulnerable status of its predominantly female victims back into the key focus of
governmental priorities for the next decade (Australian Government, 2009). Following
the North American example, Australia recently saw the emergence of ‘Domestic and
Family Violence Death Review’ units in a number of Australian States and Territories
and a revision of the current Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act from 2003
(Barette Meyering, 2010; Bentley, 2011; Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Service
(CRDVS), 2009). Despite this strategic shift in governmental focus and decades of
prior research on the causes and consequences of IPV, it is still a phenomenon not
fully understood, especially by the general public (Meyer, 2010). Formal and informal
sources of support approached by women experiencing frequent and often severe forms
of IPV frequently raise the question of why the victim ‘doesn’t just leave’ (Anderson
et al., 2003: 151). The decision to stay is seen as passive, naive, irrational and, where
children are involved, further as irresponsible, especially by informal and general formal
support sources that lack the understanding of the complex nature of domestic violence
(Anderson and Saunders, 2003; Koepsell et al., 2006). As a result, these sources often fail
to provide ongoing support once they perceive their initial support as ‘unsuccessful’
where the victim remains with or returns to the abusive partner (Brown, 1997; Liang
et al., 2005; Moe, 2007).
While the women’s movement has achieved a change in public attitudes towards IPV
from being a tolerable private matter to being a matter of public concern that should be
dealt with in a criminal sense (Buzawa and Buzawa, 1990; Douglas, 2008), there appears
to be an underlying attitude that only those deciding to leave an abusive partner are
worthy of being supported (McMullan et al., 2010). Society as a whole seems to struggle
with the idea that there may be valid reasons why women choose to stay with an abusive
partner, at least temporarily, and that these have been carefully assessed by those
exposed to the abuse on a regular basis (Anderson and Saunders, 2003; Stanko,
1997). This idea seems to be even harder to grasp where IPV involves severe and
often life-threatening forms of abuse (Anderson et al., 2003). When listening to the
voices of those affected by IPV, it becomes clear that a variety of factors play into
victims’ decisions to stay, at least temporarily (Anderson and Saunders, 2003; Fugate
et al., 2005). These factors include socio-structural as well as individual factors and
follow a pattern predominantly oriented towards harm minimisation for self and
others (Anderson and Saunders, 2003). In this context, harm is not to be understood
as solely physical harm or injury but further includes considerations around emotional
well-being and future financial stability.
While past research has predominantly focused on identifying the factors that
predict victims’ decision to leave in a descriptive manner (see e.g. Ellsberg et al.,
2001; Koepsell et al., 2006), few have examined the decision to leave or stay in a
framework of rational choice (see e.g. Davis, 2002; Moe, 2007). Overall, the body of
research on victims’ responses to IPV is shaped by studies aiming to understand how,
why and when women leave. While research evidence suggests that leaving the abusive
partner is often the only way of regaining safety (Brown, 1997) it is only one step in

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 181

the complex decision-making process of women affected by IPV. To ensure that

victims are eventually adequately supported and empowered to leave, it is import-
ant to ensure that their initial decisions when affected by IPV are adequately
understood.
This paper therefore seeks to develop an understanding of why women stay and how
this decision is rationalised. Using a feminist framework of rational choice and moral
reasoning, this paper advances traditional psychology- and economics-based rational
choice models (England, 1989) and offers a new framework of viewing and under-
standing victims’ responses to IPV. First, I will discuss some competing theoretical
views on female rationalisation and moral reasoning and introduce a framework in
which women’s moral reasoning follows a pattern of rational choice based on an indi-
vidual cost–benefit analysis. Next, findings from qualitative face-to-face interviews with
victims of frequent and severe forms of IPV are used to further support a framework of
female rational choice informed by the goal of harm minimisation. Findings are used to
advance traditional models of rational choice theory in the context of IPV and to gen-
erate a better public understanding of why women stay.

Background
Rational choice theory has a longstanding tradition in areas of psychology, economics
and political science (England and Kilbourne, 1990). Traditional approaches to rational
choice processes, informed by Kohlberg’s moral stage model (Kohlberg, 1984), focus on
the selfishness and rationality of the active decision-maker as two of the key components
guiding rational choices and individual cost–benefit analyses. Kohlberg (1984) argued
that rational choices are based on moral judgement and reasoning – a feature that is
allegedly less developed in women (Friedman, 1985). As such, rational decision-making
has traditionally been regarded as a male feature, informed by the separated self of the
male decision-maker who aims to maximise his personal benefits (England, 1989). These
claims around the gender gap in moral reasoning and rational decision-making have
received great academic attention throughout the 1980s, with some studies replicating
Kohlberg’s approach (see e.g. Baumrind, 1986) and others criticising the gender bias it
promotes (see e.g. Walker, 1984, 1986). Initial, substantive criticism was voiced by Carol
Gilligan (1982) who put forward a new approach to understanding female rationality by
arguing that moral reasoning in women was different rather than deficient. Gilligan
(1982) argued that while male moral reasoning is informed by orientations of justice
and entitlement to benefits for oneself, female moral reasoning is guided by the moral
orientation towards relationship maintenance and care for others. While this further
supports the absence of the selfish component seen as crucial in traditional rational
choice models, it suggests that female decision-making is nevertheless guided by a
cost–benefit analysis. Costs and benefits are simply assessed on a broader, less selfish
scale, taking into account the costs and benefits for individuals close to the rational
decision-maker (England and Kilbourne, 1990; Gilligan, 1982). This paper builds on
Gilligan’s concepts of moral reasoning in the context of relational responsibility to
develop an understanding of victims’ decision to stay when experiencing severe forms
of IPV. Given the gendered nature of this phenomenon, its theoretical examination
requires a feminist framework that allows an identification of factors associated with

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

182 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

victims’ decisions to stay, and how these relate to the concept of moral reasoning and
relational responsibility.
Findings from previous studies suggest that few women terminate an intimate rela-
tionship as soon as it turns abusive. The same body of research further reveals that those
who leave return multiple times to the abusive partner before terminating the relation-
ship permanently, thus indicating that most women affected by IPV stay, at least tem-
porarily (Ellsberg et al., 2001; Fugate et al., 2005; Stark, 2007).
While earlier work on victims’ responses to IPV often described these women as
passive for continuing to endure the abuse, more contemporary research portrays
them as thoughtful and active actors rather than passive victims in the process of
enduring and overcoming victimisation (Akers and Kaukinen, 2009; Kim and Gray,
2008; Liang et al., 2005). Thus, it seems appropriate to apply a rational choice frame-
work in which we can examine women’s responses to IPV as informed decisions made to
the best of their knowledge (Hechter and Kanazawa, 1997). According to sociological
rational choice models, this knowledge can involve an actual or perceived awareness of
any efforts or risks involved in disclosing the abuse and leaving the abusive partner as
well as perceived benefits in staying with the abusive partner; if only temporarily. Either
decision is usually informed by a clear intention or desired outcome (Hechter and
Kanazawa, 1997; Kiser and Hechter, 1998), which is generally the desire to stop the
abuse, eliminate fear and minimise harm to themselves and in many cases their depend-
ent children (Akers and Kaukinen, 2009; Hart, 1993; Hoyle and Sanders, 2000; Lempert,
1997). Leading a violence-free life is a benefit many outsiders believe outweighs any
potential costs involved in leaving the abuser. Those affected by IPV in their everyday
lives are, however, aware of their risk of retaliatory victimisation should they decide to
leave (Anderson et al., 2003; Logan and Walker, 2004; Wilson et al., 1995) and the fact
that interventions are not always effective in stopping the abuse post separation (Fleury
et al., 2000; Klein, 1996; Logan et al., 2006; Schmidt and Sherman, 1996). Unless these
women are convinced that the termination of the abusive relationship will offer perman-
ent relief from their violent experiences, the risk of retaliatory violence against them or
their children often outweighs the benefits of any attempts to leave (Douglas and Walsh,
2011; Felson et al., 2002; Hart, 1993; Hirschel and Hutchinson, 2003).
If examined in a rational choice framework this indicates that the decision to remain
in an abusive relationships is, in many cases, based on a cost–benefit analysis that goes
beyond selfishness and entitlement and further considers the impact of one’s individual
decisions on dependent others, for example children. For the purpose of this paper, this
claim, originally put forward by Gilligan (1982), is supported and illustrated through the
examples of the influence of the presence of children and financial dependence on vic-
tims’ decisions to stay.

Method
This paper uses data from in-depth interviews with victims of IPV (N ¼ 29), conducted in
Southeast Queensland,1 to examine victims’ responses to IPV in the situational context
of moral reasoning and individual risk assessment.2 Participating women were
approached using an agency they were or had recently been in contact with as a gate-
keeper. Gatekeeping agencies included four regional Domestic Violence (hereafter

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 183

referred to as DV) walk-in services (n ¼ 13; 44.8%), three (family) counselling services
(n ¼ 9; 31.0%), and three women’s refuges (n ¼ 7; 24.1%). Service providers were located
within the greater Brisbane area, and the Sunshine and Gold Coast regions. Due the type
of gatekeepers approached for the recruitment of suitable participants,3 findings pre-
sented in this paper are based on the experiences of women who had separated from their
partners, at least temporarily, and were receiving specialised support at the time of the
interview. All of the victims accessed through the specialised services mentioned above
had experienced what part of the IPV literature classifies as ‘intimate’ or ‘patriarchal
terrorism’ (see e.g. Johnson, 1995: 284–285). Findings from this study are therefore
limited to victims who shared experiences of severe forms of abuse and control, asso-
ciated with a greater range of barriers and risk factors involved when contemplating
leave-taking decisions than victims of so-called situational couple violence for example
(see also Leone et al., 2007; Logan and Walker, 2004; Stark, 2007).
Participants had to meet a number of selection criteria, including being female and at
least 18 years old. Further criteria included the ability to meet with the interviewer on the
service provider’s premises at a mutually suitable time and date, having experienced IPV
(emotional, physical, and/or sexual) in their most recent intimate relationship and being
separated (at least temporarily) from the abusive partner.4 Service providers were
encouraged to include immigrant and ethnic minority women in their group of selected
participants as long as the participants had sufficient English language skills to tell their
story. While some services were able to identify eligible participants from immigrant
backgrounds, no Indigenous women were selected for participation.5
A total of 34 face-to-face interviews had originally been scheduled between August
2008 and February 2009. Five victims cancelled one or more of the scheduled interviews
and were unable to participate before data collection concluded. All interviews were
semi-structured, allowing victims to provide a narrative of their experiences.
Information was collected about victims’ individual characteristics and situational cir-
cumstances, including the nature and development of their most recent intimate rela-
tionship, their experiences of IPV (including verbal, emotional, physical and sexual
abuse) in this relationship and their decision to stay or leave at different points through-
out the abusive relationship. Information was collected about the outcomes and conse-
quences of a range of informal and formal help-seeking decisions6 and temporary and
permanent leave-taking decisions. Probing questions were used to ensure women
addressed all of these themes throughout their narratives. The average interview
lasted 53 minutes, ranging between 35 and 88 minutes.
The methodological approach of this study raises some limitations to the generalis-
ability of findings discussed hereafter. While the qualitative nature of the examined data
allowed in-depth insight into the situational circumstances and cognitive decision-
making processes of victims, the heterogeneous nature of the small sample does not
allow the generalisation of findings to the broader victim population. The absence of
Indigenous women from the study sample further limits the findings to the experiences of
non-Indigenous and partly the experiences of ethnic minority immigrant women. In
addition, findings are based on the experiences of victims of so-called patriarchal or
intimate terrorism and therefore reflect victims’ responses when experiencing severe and
often life-threatening forms of IPV, marked by a high level of coercive control. Overall,
findings seem, however, generalisable to this particular population since they reflect the

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

184 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

proactive and strategic survival strategies of victims found in other studies on patriarchal
terrorism (Johnson, 1995; Leone et al., 2007).

Analysis
All interviews were audio-recorded and afterwards transcribed by a professional tran-
scription agency. After checking the transcripts for transcription errors, meaning was
constructed into the data using three different steps of analytic techniques. First, a line-
by-line microanalysis was applied to identify broader common themes and experiences.
Second, open coding was used to identify relevant concepts and categories relating to
individual and situational factors associated with victims’ experiences of and responses
to abuse. Third, axial coding was used to identify the complexity of independent vari-
ables and their association with different outcome variables (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

Sample
The women interviewed for this study were diverse in age, marital status, relationship
duration, educational attainment and employment status as shown in Table 1. The mean
age of participants was 38 years (SD ¼ 11.3) at the time of data collection, ranging from
21 to 62 years. The majority of participants were Australian-born or had migrated from
New Zealand and Great Britain. Three participants were from South Africa, Malaysia
and the Philippines respectively. While most of the overseas-born victims had been living
in Australia for four years or more, one woman had moved as recently as 12 months ago
to be with her partner.
For the majority of participants (89.7%), experiences of IPV ranged at the severe end
of emotional and physical abuse. Physical abuse included pushing, shoving, throwing
something, punching, kicking, belting, burning, cutting or choking the victim, and the
use of weapons or weapon-like objects. In over one-third of the cases (37.9%) these
forms of abuse were accompanied by sexual abuse at a later stage throughout the abu-
sive relationship. Few victims (10.3%) reported no physical or sexual violence at any
stage throughout the relationship. These victims still experienced forms of emotional
abuse, including put-downs, threats of physical harm and the control of finances, social
interaction with family and friends, and decisions to engage in the workforce. A great
proportion of participants (70%) had repeatedly suffered physical injuries as a result of
some of the abusive incidents, including cuts and bruises, bone fractures (such as broken
ribs, wrists and noses), ruptured eardrums and dental injuries. Throughout the duration
of their relationships, the majority of victims had experienced an increase in the severity
and frequency of emotional, physical and sometimes sexual abuse. More than half of the
participants (55.2%) furthermore experienced attempts on their lives and/or threats of
being killed by their abusive partner.
Victims spent between six months and 36 years in their respective abusive relation-
ships, with a mean relationship duration of 9.7 years. At the time of the interview all
victims had terminated their abusive relationship, at least temporarily. Overall, an aver-
age of 2.05 years had lapsed since the women had separated from their most recent
abusive partner, with almost half of these women (48.3%) having separated within the
12 months prior to the interview. While not all separations may have been permanent at

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 185

Table 1. Characteristics of study participants

% n

Age
20–29 years 20.7 6
30–39 years 41.4 12
40–49 years 24.1 7
50–59 years 6.9 2
60–69 years 6.9 2
Nationality
Australian-born 72.4 21
NZ-born 6.9 2
UK-born 10.3 3
South African 3.4 1
Malaysian 3.4 1
Filipino 3.4 1
Marital status at time of interview
Never married to abuser 41.4 12
Separated 31.0 9
Divorced 24.1 7
Remarried 3.4 1
Children living with victim and abusive partner 89.7 26
Education at time of interview
Secondary education 55.2 16
Currently enrolled in tertiary education 10.3 3
Completed tertiary education 34.5 10
Employment status at time of interview
Full-time employed 13.8 4
Part-time employed 10.3 3
Unemployed 6.9 2
Volunteer work 6.9 2
Home duties 48.3 14
Student 10.3 3
Retired 3.4 1
Received some form of government benefits* 89.7 26
Contact with support sources on one or more occasion throughout
the abusive relationship (multiple responses possible)
Informal (family/friends) 86.2 25
Police 55.1 16
Judge/magistrate 48.3 14
Women’s shelter 44.5 13
Healthcare professional 55.2 16
DV Helpline/DV Walk-in service 31.0 9
Note: *Government benefits include unemployment and retirement benefits as well as child payments where he
abusive ex-partner refused to pay child support for mutual children.
Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015
186 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

the time of the interview, the majority of women (79.3%) had moved on and established
a new life without their abusive ex-partner.
The majority of participants (93.1%) reported having children. While five victims lost
custody of their children at some point during the abusive relationship, all but one
mother reported children living with her and her abusive partner for at least part of
the abusive relationship duration. None of the victims were pregnant at the time of the
interview. All but two victims who had children living with them at some stage through-
out the abusive relationship reported that their children had witnessed the abuse at least
some of the time.

Results
While all victims included in this study showed a diverse range of proactive help-seeking
decisions throughout their abusive relationships, the majority (72.4%) stayed with the
abusive partner for a prolonged period of time after the onset of abuse. Overall, 13
women (44.8%) further reported previous attempts to terminate the relationship but
returned to the abusive partner on one or more occasion. This observation along with
the relationship duration shown in Table 1 supports previous research findings suggest-
ing that most women stay, at least temporarily, when faced with the abusive behaviour
of an intimate partner (Kim and Gray, 2008; Stanko, 1997). All women were well aware
of the risks associated with leaving their abusive partner, including their children’s
safety, financial hardship, a lack of accommodation and the risk of fatal retaliatory
violence. As a result, these risks often outweighed the perceived benefits of terminating
the abusive relationship at different points throughout the abusive relationship and thus
led women to remain in the abusive relationship for an extended period of time. The
following sections provide some contextual information on the rationale behind the
decision to stay.

The role of children

The presence of children was one of the most commonly mentioned factors that
informed women’s decision to stay with their abusive partner. Overall, 18 women
(62%) reported that their initial decision to stay with or return to the abusive partner
was informed by their perceived inability to protect the children from the partner’s
threats of retaliatory abuse should she decide to leave. One victim described how she
returned to her abusive partner after having separated temporarily because the super-
vised visitations between her ex-partner and their mutual daughter were coming to end.
Rather than leaving her daughter with him unsupervised during scheduled visitations she
decided to return to him in order to be around to protect her children:

. . . he had threatened to kill me. So I had left him. He had supervised visitation with our
daughter . . . [which] was coming to an end . . . I didn’t go back to him because I loved him,
I went back to him because I didn’t want him to have access to my child without me
being there. So I figured if I was in that situation at least I could protect her to some
degree. (I5; 25/10/3)7

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 187

While the above described decision is informed by a perceived risk towards her chil-
dren, many other women had partners who would clearly articulate what they would do
to the mutual children, should the mother decide to separate, as illustrated by the fol-
lowing examples:

He used to threaten me all the time. He used to say stuff like ‘if you tell anyone or if you
leave, I’m going to kill our son’. That’s the stuff he used to say and you know he was quite
capable of doing that stuff. (I20; 28/11/2)

I just felt like I couldn’t talk to anyone . . . [he said] if I was to tell the doctor or anyone
about his violence towards me that he would kill our daughter before he killed me and
would make me unrecognisable. (I11; 19/5/1)

Other women reported staying with their abuser for an extended period of time to
keep the family together and to ensure that the children remain in a familiar environ-
ment, as captured by the following quote:

I suppose it’s very hard because when you have a house and furniture and it’s your chil-
dren’s home, it’s very hard to pack up and leave. The home is a secure place. It might be
violent but still, that’s their bedroom. (I27; 28/15/4)

The following scenario illustrates that factors influencing victims’ decisions to stay are
not only diverse but also multilayered and complex. The statement was made by the
same woman who initially returned to her abusive partner to protect the children when
the supervised contacts between him and the children were coming to an end. This
illustrates that factors informing the decision to stay initially may also inform the deci-
sion to leave eventually:

I took the kids and went to a motel . . . I knew the state of mind he was in. Sure enough he
came back. He smashed his way in and killed our guinea pigs . . . he couldn’t get to us so he
killed the pets. (I5; 25/10/3)

While this scenario indicates that factors may shift from being predictors of staying to
being predictors of leaving an abusive partner, it further supports England’s (1989) and
Gilligan’s (1982) concept of moral reasoning guided by relational responsibility. The
desire to minimise the risk of harm for dependent others eventually informed both the
decision to return initially and the decision to leave eventually.
Overall, findings presented for the role of children lend consistent support to
Gilligan’s (1982) argument that female rationalisation is guided by moral reasoning
that considers relational responsibility. When contemplating their options, victims of
IPV went beyond what was best for them and made decisions informed by what they
believed to be in their children’s best interest at that point in time. Thus, these women
initially remained in or returned to households they described as highly violent and
dangerous for themselves because they believed this decisions afforded their children
the security and protection they needed.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

188 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

The role of financial dependence

Another salient factor that often led women to stay with their abusive partner was the
role of financial dependence, also identified as a relevant factor in studies examining
victims’ leave-taking decisions (Anderson et al., 2003; Davis, 2002; Kim and Gray,
2008). Twelve women (41.4%) identified financial dependence as an initial key factor
that informed their decision to stay. Once women left, an even greater proportion
(89.7%) realised they had to depend on government benefits without the support of
their ex-partner. One victim described how her financial dependence contributed to
her decision to stay with her abusive partner for a further five years from the time she
initially contemplated leaving him because she felt unable to start over again with her
10-year old son at that point. It is important to note that this woman’s earlier decision to
stay was further informed by her husband’s threat to kill the mutual son, should she
decide to leave. This highlights the complexity of factors that guide victims’ moral rea-
soning around staying and lead to prolonged experiences of abuse:

I think when we went over to the caravan park I probably should have gotten out then . . . but
I didn’t have any money . . . So what I used to do was I used to start to sneak some money
away. So I did that for five years. I was slowly sneaking money away . . . (I20; 28/11/2)

The majority of victims who were interviewed were aware that leaving the abuser
often meant walking out with nothing but the few belongings they were able to pack for
themselves and their children when the opportunity arose. For many victims this was the
only way out once they decided to leave. Still, three of the women interviewed for this
study described how they stayed initially to strategically plan their escape and ensure
they would be able to take some of their belongings:

We were living at my mum’s place at that time . . . All my belongings were in storage and I
knew [the children and I] could stay at my mum’s . . . I knew I could never leave him if he
had the kids or all of my possessions. He would either throw me out or he’d say ‘you can’t
have your children you can’t have your possessions, you’re not going to be able to start a
new life without your children or your possessions’. So now I had his nuts in a vice. I filed
for the domestic violence order [and] I threw him out. That’s what I did. It was sneaky and it
was nasty and I know that; but I won. (I15; 23/6.5/3)

Well when I left we had a business, truck, house, everything. I knew if I left I wouldn’t get
anything. So I waited till he was at work and I packed the whole house up on my own, put it
on the back of the truck, put it in a storage shed. I had to make a safety plan, ’cause he
wouldn’t let me have anything . . . I’d seen a solicitor about it for my rights, and she said ‘oh
look, you’re better off taking what you can’. So I did. (I22; 23/7/3)

. . . a week before I left I did some research. I rang my legal people, I rang DV Connect . . .
The Saturday was when the cricket was on in Brisbane . . . They were catching a train to
Brisbane so I had a couple of hours to get our stuff and get out . . . So I rang my friend and
said, right, come and help me move . . . he had a trailer . . . I got as much stuff as I could in an
hour and a half. (I24; 33/2/1)

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 189

In all three cases, women spent several months planning their strategic escape to ensure
they were able to start over again with their children. The unwillingness to give up
everything these women had worked for in a materialistic sense may even indicate a
certain level of selfishness as promoted by traditional rational choice theories (England
and Kilbourne, 1990). More importantly, these examples highlight the rationale behind
victims’ decisions to stay until they are in a position to afford safe and stable living
arrangements for themselves and their children. The recurring role of children in
women’s cost–benefit assessment further supports Gilligan’s conceptualisation of
female rationalisation as different, not deficient, because the experiences described by
women in this study clearly point towards moral reasoning rather than irrational fear or
actions. Research examining the risk of homelessness and housing instabilities for
women affected by IPV (Wilcox, 2000) reveals that the risk of financial hardship and
homelessness is particularly imminent for victims with dependent children (Wilcox,
2000), thus identifying the perceived risk of financial instability as an important factor
for women to consider.
The presented excerpts from face-to-face interviews with women affected by severe
forms of IPV reveal the strategic planning required throughout the journey towards the
eventual goal of freedom from abuse for themselves and their dependent children. Thus,
victims’ responses to IPV need to be understood as morally reasoned decisions informed
by relational responsibility.

Conclusion
Findings discussed in this paper identify victims’ (initial) decisions to stay with or return
to an abusive partner as future-oriented rationally informed choices around harm mini-
misation for themselves and dependent others. Women’s moral reasoning throughout
this decision-making process was illustrated in the examples of the role of children and
the role of financial dependence. The presence of children proved to be a salient factor
that guided the moral reasoning of most women with dependent children. While the
presence of children encouraged some women to leave eventually, it first and foremost
informed the decision to stay in an attempt to minimise perceived risk and maximise
perceived security for children. While the same women later felt that the benefits of
staying no longer outweighed the risks of leaving, the decision was informed by the
cost–benefit analysis around leaving an abusive partner who either used threats towards
the children’s well-being to intimidate the victim or who at the same time of being an
abusive partner also represented a father figure to the children and the breadwinner of
the family.
Family finances and the role of financial dependence was another crucial factor that
was considered carefully and informed victims’ decisions to stay, at least temporarily.
While most victims were aware of the availability of short-term crisis accommodation,
they often felt unable to establish an independent future lifestyle and support their
children when the abuse first unfolded. This often led them to stay initially until they
were either able to save some money or gain access to mutual finances through strategic
planning of an exit strategy. While most prior research on the role of financial depend-
ence has used this factor as a demographic predictor variable in victims’ leave-taking
decisions (Akers and Kaukinen, 2009; Coker et al., 2000), findings from this study

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

190 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

provide contextual information around the logistics of victims’ strategic attempts to

minimise financial hardship, and their willingness to accept the costs of ongoing violence
in an attempt to achieve this.
Overall, findings discussed throughout this paper contribute to an advanced under-
standing of female moral reasoning in the context of IPV. Women’s decisions to stay
with or return to an abusive partner were informed by a variety of factors, which high-
lights the importance of understanding the complexity of influences on victims’ decisions
to stay rather than disregarding this decision as an irrational or irresponsible choice.
While past research reveals that separation tends to be the only option to stop the abuse
permanently for most women (Brown, 1997), it is important to firstly understand why
women stay. Without understanding the factors that inform women’s moral reasoning
that lead them to believe that staying is often the safest and most strategic option for the
time being, social responses to women affected by IPV are most likely going to remain
inadequate. It is therefore important to move away from traditional models of rational
choice and the alleged deficiencies in women’s moral reasoning perpetuated by earlier
work on female rationality (Kohlberg, 1984; Walker, 1986) towards a gendered under-
standing of moral reasoning (England and Kilbourne, 1990; Gilligan, 1982). This is
particularly important for external informal and formal support sources when being
approached for initial support, since past research has linked negative and judgemental
reactions towards victims’ disclosure of and responses to IPV to prolonged experiences
of victimisation (Beaulaurier et al., 2007). On the other hand, supportive and under-
standing informal and formal attitudes and reactions to victims’ disclosure of IPV have
been associated with shortened experiences of abuse. The first step in supporting women
to leave therefore lies in generating a broader public understanding of why women stay.
Unless victims feel sufficiently supported and protected once they contemplate the risks
and benefits of staying versus leaving, staying with the abusive partner is likely to seem a
safer option for many women; at least temporarily.

Notes
1. Southeast Queensland covers 22,890 square metres with an estimated population of 2.8 million
people. Study participants were residing at the time in one of the following regions: Gold Coast,
Sunshine Coast, Caboolture and the greater Brisbane metropolitan region.
2. This study received ethical clearance from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC) prior to the commencement of the data collection. Informed consent
was acquired in writing prior to all interviews.
3. Service providers identified suitable participants based on their perception that these women
were ‘emotionally stable enough to talk about their experiences to a researcher’. Potential
participants received a written summary of the study’s scope, aim and duration from their
relevant service provider and were informed that interviews would be conducted over a six-
month period. After each interview, participants were able to see their case worker/counsellor
at the relevant service provider for debriefing. For safety reasons, all interviews were conducted
on the premises of the relevant service providers.
4. This requirement was established by the Griffith University HREC and the gatekeepers
approached for this study to minimise risk of retributive violence towards the victim for sharing
her experiences with a researcher.
5. The absence of Indigenous participants is attributed to the following factors: The Indigenous
shelters which were contacted for the purpose of this study decided against participation due to

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 191

the ‘mainstream’ focus of the study; other shelters and some walk-in services were currently in
contact with Indigenous service users who either did not fulfil the selection criteria or decided
against participation themselves; the majority of service providers had no Indigenous women
amongst their service users during the data collection period.
6. Findings on the nature, extent and predictors of specific types of help-seeking have been pub-
lished elsewhere (see Meyer, 2010).
7. The information provided in brackets at the end of each direct quote refers to the interview
number, the victim’s age at relationship onset/the relationship duration in years/and the
number of children who resided with the victim and the abusive partner at least part of the time.

References
Akers C and Kaukinen C (2009) The police reporting behavior of intimate partner violence vic-
tims. Journal of Family Violence 24(3): 159–171.
Anderson DK and Saunders DG (2003) Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of
predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
4(2): 163–191.
Anderson MA, Gillig PM, Sitaker M, McCloskey K, Malloy K and Grigsby N (2003) Why
doesn’t she just leave? A descriptive study of victim reported impediments to her safety.
Journal of Family Violence 18(3): 151–155.
Australian Government (2009) Time For Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to
Reduce Violence against Women and Children, 2009–2021. Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Barette Meyering I (2010) Domestic homicide reviews: Recent developments across Australia.
Newsletter 39, The University of New South Wales: Australian Domestic & Family Violence
Clearinghouse, Available at: http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/
newsletter_39.pdf (accessed 18 June 2011).
Baumrind D (1986) Sex differences in moral reasoning: Response to Walker’s (1984) conclusion
that there are none. Child Development 57(2): 511–521.
Beaulaurier RL, Seff LR, Newman FL and Dunlop B (2007) External barriers to help seeking for
older women who experience intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence 22(8):
747–755.
Bentley A (2011) One in four murders down to domestic violence. Brisbane Times. Available at:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/one-in-four-murders-down-to-domestic-violence-
20110522-1eyyx.html (accessed 18 June 2011).
Brown J (1997) Working toward freedom from violence – the process of change in battered
women. Violence Against Women 3(1): 5–26.
Buzawa ES and Buzawa CG (1990) Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Cairns Regional Domestic Violence Service (CRDVS) (2009) Domestic violence kills.
Newsletter, Issue 9, April 2009. Available at: http://www.dvcairns.org/Resources/newsletters/
Newletter%20April%2009.pdf (accessed 18 June 2011).
Coker AL, Derrick C, Lumpkin JL, Aldrich TE and Oldendick R (2000) Help-seeking for intimate
partner violence and forced sex in South Carolina. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
19(4): 316–320.
Davis R (2002) Leave-taking experiences in the lives of abused women. Clinical Nursing Research
11(3): 285–305.
Douglas H (2008) The criminal law’s response to domestic violence. Sydney Law Review 30(3):
439–469.
Douglas H and Walsh T (2011) Mothers, domestic violence and child protection. Violence Against
Women 17(3): 489–508.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

192 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2)

Ellsberg MC, Winkvist A, Peña R and Stenlund H (2001) Women’s strategic responses to violence
in Nicaragua. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 55(8): 547–555.
England P (1989) A feminist critique of rational-choice theories: Implications for sociology. The
American Sociologist 20(1): 14–28.
England P and Kilbourne BS (1990) Feminist critiques of the separative model of self:
Implications for rational choice theory. Rationality and Society 2(2): 156–171.
Felson RB, Messner SF, Hoskin AW and Deane G (2002) Reasons for reporting and not reporting
domestic violence to the police. Criminology 40(3): 617–648.
Fleury RE, Sullivan CM and Bybee DI (2000) When ending the relationship does not end the
violence: Women’s experiences of violence by former partners. Violence Against Women 6(12):
1363–1383.
Friedman M (1985) Abraham, Socrates, and Heinz: Where are the Women? In: Harding CB (ed.)
Moral Dilemmas: Philosophical and Psychological Issues in the Development of Moral
Reasoning. Chicago, IL: Precedent, pp. 25–41.
Fugate M, Landis L, Riordan K, Naureckas S and Engel B (2005) Barriers to domestic violence
help seeking. Violence Against Women 11(3): 290–310.
Gilligan C (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hague G and Mullender A (2006) ‘Who listens? The voices of domestic violence survivors in
service provision in the United Kingdom’. Violence Against Women 12(6): 568–587.
Hart B (1993) Battered women and the criminal justice system. American Behavioral Scientist
36(5): 624–638.
Hechter M and Kanazawa S (1997) Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of
Sociology 23: 191–214.
Hirschel D and Hutchinson IW (2003) The voices of domestic violence victims: Predictors of
victim preferences for arrest and the relationship between preference for arrest and revictimiza-
tion. Crime & Delinquency 49(2): 313–336.
Hoyle C and Sanders A (2000) Police response to domestic violence: From victim choice to victim
empowerment. British Journal of Criminology 40(1): 14–36.
Hutchinson GS and Weeks W (2004) Living conditions of women who experience violence from their
partners: Norway and Australia comparisons. Australian Journal of Social Issues 39(4): 393–407.
Johnson MP (1995) Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence
against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(2): 283–294.
Johnson H and Bunge VP (2001) Prevalence and consequences of spousal assault in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Criminology 43(1): 27–44.
Kim J and Gray KA (2008) Leave or stay? Battered women’s decision after intimate partner
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23(10): 1465–1482.
Kiser E and Hechter M (1998) The debate on historical sociology: Rational choice theory and its
critics. The American Journal of Sociology 104(3): 785–816.
Klein AR (1996) Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers: Why restraining
orders don’t work. In: Buzawa ES and Buzawa CG (eds) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders
Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 192–213.
Koepsell JK, Kernic MA and Holt VL (2006) Factors that influence battered women to leave their
abusive relationships. Violence and Victims 21(2): 131–147.
Kohlberg L (1984) The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral
Stages, 1st edn. San Francisco: Harper Row.
Lempert LB (1997) The other side of help: Negative effects in the help-seeking processes of abused
women. Qualitative Sociology 20(2): 289–309.
Leone JM, Johnson MP and Cohan CL (2007) Victim help seeking: Differences between intimate
terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations 56(5): 427–439.

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

Meyer 193

Liang B, Goodman L, Tummala-Narra P and Weintraub S (2005) A theoretical framework for

understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. American
Journal of Community Psychology 36(1/2): 71–84.
Logan TK, Shannon L, Cole J and Walker R (2006) The impact of differential patterns of physical
violence and stalking on mental health and help-seeking among women with protective orders.
Violence Against Women 12(9): 866–886.
Logan TK and Walker R (2004) Separation as a risk factor for victims of intimate partner
violence: Beyond lethality and injury: A response to Campbell. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 19(12): 1478–1486.
McInnes E and Power C (2008) Representing the dead: Media reports of domestic homicide. Paper
presented at the International Domestic Homicide Conference (organised by the Australian
Institute of Criminology (AIC)) Gold Coast, Australia, 2–5 December 2008.
McMullan EC, Carlan PE and Nored LS (2010) Future law enforcement officers and social
workers: Perceptions of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25(8): 1367–1387.
Meyer S (2010) Responding to intimate partner violence victimisation: Effective options for help-
seeking. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice Series, No. 389, Canberra, Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Mirrlees-Black C (1999) Domestic Violence: Findings from a New British Crime Survey Self-com-
pletion Questionnaire. London: Great Britain Home Office.
Moe AM (2007) Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women’s help seeking. Violence
Against Women 13(7): 676–699.
Mouzos J and Makkai T (2004) Women’s experiences of male violence: Findings from the
Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS).
Research and Public Policy Series, No. 56. Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology
(AIC).
Schmidt JD and Sherman LW (1996) Does arrest deter domestic violence? In: Buzawa ES and
Buzawa CG (eds) Do Arrest and Restraining Orders Work?. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, pp. 326–345.
Shackelford TK and Mouzos J (2005) Partner killing by men in cohabitating and marital rela-
tionships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20(10): 1310–1324.
Stanko EA (1997) Should I stay or should I go? Some thoughts on the variants of intimate
violence. Violence Against Women 3(6): 629–635.
Stark E (2007) Coercivce Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Strauss AL and Corbin JM (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Virueda M and Payne J (2010) Homicide in Australia: 2007–08 National Homicide Monitoring
Program Annual Report. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Walker L (1984) Sex differences in the development of moral reasoning: A critical review. Child
Development 55(3): 677–691.
Walker L (1986) Sex differences in the development of moral reasoning: A rejoinder to Baumrind.
Child Development 57(2): 522–526.
Wilcox P (2000) Lone motherhood: The impact on living standards of leaving a violent relation-
ship. Social Policy & Administration 32(2): 176–190.
Wilson M, Johnson H and Daly M (1995) Lethal and nonlethal violence against women. Canadian
Journal of Criminology 37(3): 331–361.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2005) WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and
Domestic Violence against Women – Initial Results on Prevalence, Health Outcomes and
Women’s Responses. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com at UQ Library on September 19, 2015

View publication stats