Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
DOI 10.1007/s10464-009-9232-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Domestic Violence Survivors’
Experiences with Their Informal Social Networks
Jennifer L. Trotter Æ Nicole E. Allen
Published online: 31 March 2009

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Informal social networks play a critical role in
buffering the negative effects of stressful life events. For
women experiencing the stress of a violent relationship,
family and friends are among the first sources of support
sought; however, reactions to the abuse by family and
friends are not uniformly perceived as helpful by survivors.
The current study takes a qualitative approach to examin-
ing the range of possible reactions survivors may encounter
from their social networks regarding the abuse. Special
attention is given to negative and mixed reactions, as they
have previously been under-examined in the literature.
Findings suggest that survivors (N = 45) regularly expe-
rience negative and mixed reactions. Emergent themes
suggest that both positive and negative reactions to abuse
could be understood in four broad arenas: safety, emotional
availability, input, and aid. However, positive and negative
reactions emerged as distinct constructs within each arena;
mixed reactions took multiple forms including being within
person and within network.
Keywords Social support
Domestic violence

Qualitative methods
Social reactions

Informal social support
Introduction
The field of community psychology has a long tradition of
examining the role of natural support networks in the
J. L. Trotter
N. E. Allen (&)
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street,
Champaign, IL 61820, USA
e-mail: allenne@uiuc.edu
promotion of well-being. The resultant body of work sug-
gests that social support plays a critical role in mitigating
the effects of negative life events (e.g., natural disasters,
health problems) and numerous studies have provided
evidence of a positive correlation between support and
well-being (for reviews see Barrera 2000; Cohen and Wills
1985). However, it is also clear that social reactions to
negative life events are not uniformly positive and can have
a negative impact on those who have experienced trauma
(e.g., Goodkind et al. 2003; Ullman 1999). The current
study explores the nature of social reactions to survivors of
domestic violence, with an emphasis on identifying the
range of possible responses from network members
including both positive, negative, and mixed reactions.
This inquiry is particularly important considering that,
while research demonstrates the buffering role social sup-
port plays in response to domestic violence (e.g., Goodman
et al. 2005; Meadows et al. 2005; Trotter et al. 2004), few
studies have attended to the frequency and nature of neg-
ative reactions survivors may experience from social
network members.
Previous research highlights the difficulties surrounding
the study of the construct of ‘‘social support,’’ due to its
designation as a multifaceted or meta-concept (Barrera
2000). As a meta-concept, social support is composed of
several distinct concepts; subsequently, it can be assessed
in a variety of ways, including an analysis of the support
network, the actual helping behaviors enacted by those in
the network, or the individual’s subjective or cognitive
appraisal of support (Barrera 1981, 2000). Considering the
individual’s subjective appraisal, support can be further
categorized into subtypes (e.g., esteem, informational,
instrumental; Cohen and Wills 1985). A final challenge in
assessing social support is the limited exploration of the
range of diverse reactions present in social relationships
123
222
(e.g., Rook 1984, 1998; Uchino et al. 2004). The word
‘‘support’’ connotes images of encouragement and care,
suggesting that responses from network members are uni-
formly positive (Barrera 2000; Campbell et al. 2001) and
limiting the examination of a wide-range of social reac-
tions, including those perceived as negative (Sandler and
Barrera 1984; Rook 1984).
Failing to attend to negative network reactions is par-
ticularly problematic given that research indicates that
negative experiences with others, while fewer in number,
are often more salient and have a greater impact on indi-
viduals (Rook 1984, 1998; Goodkind et al. 2003; Ullman
1999). For example, in the sexual assault field, negative
reactions from the network are strongly related to increased
psychological symptomatology, delayed recovery, and
poorer perceived physical health in rape survivors
(Campbell et al. 2001; Ullman 1999). In addition, negative
reactions from the network have been shown to result in
increased levels of depression in college students (Flett
et al. 1997) and older adults residing in the community
(Rook 2001), lower self esteem in college students (Lakey
et al. 1994); and heightened levels of depression, anxiety,
hostility, and somatization among women seeking abor-
tions (Major et al. 1997). Taken together, these findings
highlight the need to examine negative network reactions
as a distinct social construct. Separating positive and
negative network reactions allows for an investigation of
the unique explanatory power each possesses to aid in
understanding an individual’s adjustment or well-being
(Ingram et al. 2001; Uchino et al. 2004; Ullman 1999).
However, to date, the range of possible negative social
reactions has not been adequately explored in the field of
domestic violence.
Clearly, survivors’ social networks can play a critical
role in promoting their safety and well-being (Bowker
1984; Gondolf 1988; Rose et al. 2000; Tan et al. 1995).
Research in the domestic violence literature suggests that
survivors actively seek assistance from informal social
networks (i.e., friends and family) to help cope with or
extricate themselves from the abuse (Bowker 1984;
El-Bassel et al. 2001; Gondolf 1988; Rose et al. 2000; Tan
et al. 1995) and that they frequently turn to such informal
help sources before seeking formal sources of help
(e.g.,shelter or police; Bowker 1984; Rose et al. 2000). For
example, Bowker (1984) established that as abuse contin-
ues over time, survivors seek increasingly more assistance
from family and friends to meet a variety of needs (e.g.,
emotional support, financial assistance, material aid). Sur-
vivors rated family members as fairly successful at
providing support in 77% of the incidents where they
sought assistance; similarly, survivors indicated their
friends’ help was fairly successful in 81% of incidents
where they sought assistance. Similarly, Rose et al. (2000)
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
demonstrated that survivors primarily sought emotional
support from informal sources, particularly girlfriends and
mothers (Rose et al. 2000). Again, a majority of the sur-
vivors in the study rated friends to be 75–100% helpful,
when asked to quantify their support on a scale from 0 to
100%.
Despite these positive findings for the role of informal
network members, it is also true that some abused women
rated the help obtained from their family and friends as
inadequate (Bowker 1984; Rose et al. 2000; Tan et al.
1995) and were unhappy with the quantity and quality of
support received (El-Bassel et al. 2001). For example,
Bowker (1984) notes that while the majority of survivors
were fairly satisfied with the help they received, in 14% of
the incidents with family and 9% of incidents with friends,
these network members were rated as fairly unsuccessful in
their attempts to provide assistance. Along the same lines,
El-Bassel et al. (2001) documented the dissatisfaction
survivors in methodone treatment experienced when
seeking assistance from family and friends, citing dis-
pleasure with the types of advice offered, pressure to leave
their abusive partner before they were ready, and their
family’s failure to sympathesize with their suffering. While
these studies establish some dissatisfaction with support
from the network, they typically do not address the various
ways in which social support was perceived as inadequate.
Further, with the exception of El-Bassel and colleagues’
research, only the degree of support was assessed in these
studies. Negative social reactions, as a distinct construct,
were not specifically explored. In fact, only one study to
date has explicitly examined the effects of negative reac-
tions on survivors’ well-being (i.e., Goodkind et al. 2003).
Goodkind et al. (2003) found that even survivors who
endorsed receiving high levels of emotional support
reported negative reactions from their network. Further,
they found that after controlling for severity of abuse and
the presence of positive support, negative reactions were
strongly related to lower perceived quality of life. How-
ever, in this study, negative reactions were examined
quantitatively via four items: ‘‘seemed uncomfortable
talking about it;’’ ‘‘became annoyed when you did not
accept their advice;’’ ‘‘saw less of you;’’ and ‘‘tried to
change the subject.’’ Thus, while this study clearly illus-
trates the importance of examining negative social
reactions to domestic violence, it does not illuminate the
full range of ways in which such negative reactions might
occur.
Given our limited knowledge about the nature and range
of experiences survivors may encounter while interacting
with their social networks, the current study used a quali-
tative approach to examine this phenomenon. Qualitative
methods allowed us to examine the richness and variety of
social network reactions from the survivor’s perspective,
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
without imposing a priori categories on their experiences.
This is consistent with Liang and colleagues’ (2005) recent
call to increase the use of qualitative methods to elucidate
the process of helpseeking undertaken by survivors (Liang
et al. 2005). Other scholars have likewise articulated the
critical role qualitative methods can play in exploring a
construct which has limited empirical support. Schwandt
(2001) cautions against the early use of preset categories or
ratings to inquire about a phenomenon—especially when
an incomplete understanding of that phenomenon exists—
as these predetermined categories function to ‘‘close
down’’ the inquiry process rather than work to uncover the
complexity of the construct under study.
The current study was guided by the following questions:
What characterizes the range of reactions survivors expe-
rience from their informal social networks? This included
an examination of the extent to which various reactions
were present, with particular attention paid to positive,
negative, and mixed reactions (i.e., a combination of posi-
tive and negative reactions experienced across the network
and/or within a particular network member) and an expli-
cation of emergent themes regarding the ways in which
such positive, negative and mixed reactions occurred.
Method
Participants
The sample was composed of 48 women who had experi-
enced domestic violence within the past year and had
sought help from at least one community agency (e.g.,
police, local DV shelter) in a county in central Illinois.
Fifty-two percent (n = 25) of women in the study were
Black/African American, 42% (n = 20) were White/Cau-
casian, and 6% (n = 3) were White/Native American.
They had an average age of 35 years (SD = 11 years,
range 17–70). Almost a third (33%, n = 16) of the women
in the study reported attending ‘‘some college,’’ while 25%
(n = 12) of the participants had not completed high school.
Fifty-four percent of women (n = 26) were employed at
the time of the first interview. The average monthly income
was $10591 (SD = $852; range $53–$4000); with a med-
ian monthly income of approximately $800—this income
supported an average of two people (SD = 1.3; range 1–7).
Forty-three women included in the study had children; of
these women, they had on average of two children each
(SD = 1.19; range 0–5). Twenty-four women had full or
joint custody of their children, seven had no custody, and
four had varying custody arrangements for different
1 2
One participant was excluded from the analysis and treated as an
outlier because she reported no income.
223
children.2 Seventy-five percent of the participants (n = 36)
had ended their relationship with their abusive partners,
15% (n = 7) were continuing their relationship, 8%
(n = 4) described their relationship status as ‘‘uncertain,’’
and the relationship status of one participant was missing.
The average length of relationships with the abuser was
approximately 7 years (SD = 8.5; range 0.17–50). See
Table 1 for detailed demographic information.
Procedure
This study was part of a larger research project investi-
gating survivors’ experiences with local community
resources (e.g., police, churches, social service agencies).
Participants were recruited from a variety of sites that
provide assistance to survivors of domestic violence, as
well as from fliers posted at several locations women are
likely to frequent in the community. To be eligible to
participate in the larger study, survivors had to have
experienced abuse (i.e., emotional, physical, and/or sexual)
with an intimate partner or ex-partner within the year prior
to their start-date on the project and they had to have had
contact with at least one local community agency, at any
point in time, in the county where the study took place. Of
the survivors participating in the study, 40% (n = 19) were
recruited from the local domestic violence shelter, while
60% (n = 29) came from other sources in the community.
Participants were interviewed within 2 weeks of their
initial screening using a semistructured interview. The
interviews took 2–3 hours to complete and women were
paid $15 for their time. Interviews were conducted by the
authors and three other female graduate students, all of
whom were briefed on the administration procedures of the
interview.
Interview Protocol
Using a modified version of The Adult’s Social Support
Questionnaire (Bogat et al. 1983), participants were asked to
first list all people who provide them with support across a
variety of domains (e.g., practical assistance, advice and
information, emotional support). After the list had been
generated and the relationship between the participant and
supporter clarified, women were asked to provide a response
to an open-ended, introductory statement: ‘‘Tell me about
your family and friends’ reactions to your partner’s abuse.’’
This question was followed by a series of questions asking
survivors’ to discuss both helpful and unhelpful responses
they experienced. Unclear or incomplete answers were fur-
ther probed with additional questions. These questions and
One participant was unsure about her custody arrangement and
seven participants had adult children.
123
224 Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231

Table 1 Demographic information for study participants (N = 48) two were missing the social support section due to pre-
N %
mature termination of the interview, and one was unable to
be analyzed due to an audiotape malfunction.
Ethnicity The method of content analysis was employed to ana-
Black/African American 25 52 lyze the data, utilizing both deductive and inductive coding
White/Caucasian 20 42 (Berg 1995, 2004). Deductive codes were kept to a mini-
White/Native American 3 6 mum to reduce false assumptions, because little was known
Education a priori about how survivors’ broadly experienced reac-
Less than high school graduate 12 25 tions from those in their network. However, three
High school diploma/GED 3 6.3 deductive codes were set prior to the start of coding;
Some trade school 2 4.2 positive, negative and mixed reactions. To ensure that
Trade school certificate 7 14.6 inquiry into various network reactions was kept broad, and
Some college 16 33.3 to elaborate on the ways these three types of reactions were
Associate’s degree 6 12.5 manifest, ‘‘open coding’’ was utilized to create inductive
Bachelor’s degree 2 4.2 categories grounded in the data that would illuminate
Employment themes that emerged from the data (Corbin and Strauss
Employed in 4 months prior to 1st interview 34 70.8 1990). An initial coding framework was composed by the
Unemployed in 4 months prior to 1st interview 14 29.2 first author, after reading a sample of the transcripts and
Employed at time of 1st interview 26 54 identifying common social reactions present in multiple
Unemployed at time of 1st interview 22 46 interviews. As coding progressed, new codes were gener-
Relationship statusa ated as a result of new information that emerged as
Continuing 7 14.6 interviews were analyzed; such codes were retroactively
Ending/ended 36 75.0 applied to earlier transcripts to ensure that all transcripts
Status uncertain 4 8.3 were analyzed using the same set of codes. At the con-
Relationship to assailant
clusion of the coding process, themes were sought by
Married 4 8.5
looking for overarching patterns in the coded data. A theme
was considered to be present if it was supported by at least
Married but separated 12 25.5
three examples (i.e., text entries) from different partici-
Divorced 4 8.5
pants (Berg 1995, 2004). Finally, to organize and create a
Girlfriend/boyfriend 2 4.3
visual display of the major themes that emerged, a ‘‘con-
Ex-girlfriend/ex-boyfriend 22 46.8
struct table’’ was created (Miles and Huberman 1994). This
Dating, but not girl/boyfriend 1 2.1
table was used to clarify the concept of interest (i.e., social
Friends 1 2.1
reactions), by breaking it down into its salient components
Child’s father 1 2.1
(i.e., positive and negative reactions). Such a table is an
Mean (SD) Range effective way for the reader to quickly absorb the large
Age (years) 35.35 (11.07) 17–70
amount of information generated during qualitative data
Monthly income (US dollars)b $1,059 (852) $53–$4000
analysis.
In an effort to enhance the credibility of the data analysis
Number of people income supports 2.3 (1.3) 1–7
process, and the resulting reliability and validity of the
Number of children 2.24 (1.19) 0–5
interpretations, three quality control procedures were uti-
Length of relationship (years) 7.3 (8.5) 0.17–50
lized. First, as codes were being developed and as themes
a
One participant was missing data on her relationship status were identified in the qualitative data, they were extensively
b
One participant had no income and was treated as an outlier and discussed and further refined in research meetings with
deleted from the final analysis other members of the research team. Thus, the structure
used to represent the data in the construct table was
the probes that followed were not confined to the initial list of developed collaboratively with project team members.
network members. Second, the method of ‘‘constant comparisons’’ was used, in
which, ‘‘as an incident [was] noted, it [was] compared
Data Analysis against other incidents for similarities and differences’’
(Corbin and Strauss 1990, p. 9). That is, categories or codes
The tape-recorded interviews were transcribed, and for the were consistently refined by either broadening or collapsing
purposes of analysis, data from 45 of the 48 transcripts their definitions, based on what the data indicated. The use
were used. Of the three interviews dropped from analysis, of this method helped guard against researcher bias by

123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
constantly challenging the evolving conceptualization of
the coding framework. In addition, this method helped to
achieve greater precision (by grouping only like phenomena
together) and consistency (by always grouping the same
phenomena together), both of which have important
implications for establishing validity (Corbin and Strauss
1990). The final method used to enhance the quality of the
analysis process was the search for ‘‘negative cases’’ (i.e.,
cases that do not fit within the definitions offered). Such
cases require the researcher to discard or reformulate the
working definition to take into account contrary or contra-
dictory evidence (Berg 1995). In the current study, no
negative cases were found, suggesting that the method of
constant comparison was an effective way of ensuring that
the categories being utilized were reflective of the data.
Results
Types of Reactions
While the three broad categories of possible reactions were
set a priori (i.e., positive, negative or mixed), the opera-
tionalization of these three constructs was based on the
survivors’ perceptions of their interactions with their net-
works. For example, network members’ actions were
categorized as a ‘‘positive reaction’’ in our dataset if they
were described as being positive by the survivor, either
explicitly, or implicitly within the context of the interview.
This coding process revealed that 22% of women in the
study reported network reactions that were categorized as
exclusively positive, while the majority (78%) of women
described receiving mixed reactions from their networks.
No participants in this study reported network reactions that
were categorized in a solely negative manner; all partici-
pants were able to identify at least one person in their social
network who provided them with some type of support.
The Nature of Reactions from the Network
To further illuminate the kinds of reactions that fit into each
type (i.e., positive, negative, and mixed), prominent themes
were identified using open coding (see Table 2). Interest-
ingly, both positive and negative reactions could be
understood using the same four organizing themes: safety,
emotional support, input and aid (e.g., under ‘‘safety,’’ both
safety enhancing and safety diminishing reactions from the
network are described). For each theme listed, a brief
description is offered, followed by two examples (in quotes)
that illustrate the theme. Also, the frequency of entries
under each theme is provided (in brackets) to give a sense of
its magnitude. For example, tangible aid (e.g., providing
resources like housing, childcare, transportation) is
225
understood as being critically important in helping women
better cope with or leave an abusive relationship. In our
study, 28 women described positive reactions from family
and/or friends where tangible aid was provided when nee-
ded or requested. However, for 16 women, tangible
assistance from their informal network was either refused
by an individual(s) or this person(s) failed to provide
assistance that was needed or requested.
Table 2 highlights the nature of women’s experiences,
in their own words, of interacting with family and friends
around the abuse. For example, women in our study
reported receiving emotional support (e.g., listening to
concerns, validating feelings) from family and friends, a
common type of support discussed in the social support
literature that has implications for serving as a protective
factor when stress is present (see Cohen and Wills 1985).
However, they also encountered negative reactions from
family and friends, where they were blamed for the abuse,
had their feelings minimized, and/or experienced network
members ‘‘distancing’’ themselves from the situation—all
of which likely had the effect of increasing feelings of
stress. Moreover, another theme of interest in the construct
table is input received from family and friends. Some
participants interpreted advice or information provided as
helpful (e.g., suggesting needed resources), while others
perceived network members to be critical of their deci-
sions, feeling that members were frequently telling them
what ‘‘should’’ be done to rectify a situation (e.g., ‘‘if you
would have listened this would not have happened’’).
Table 2 also highlights the importance of family and
friends in helping to keep the survivor safe through direct
and indirect means. For example, direct interventions such
as calling the police or facilitating a safe escape were
viewed as positive by 28 survivors. Surprisingly, family
and friends also jeopardized women’s safety in this study,
whether they intended to or not, by doing such things as
encouraging them to stay in severely violent relationships
or divulging their location to the assailant. These positive
and negative reactions provide a glimpse into the com-
plexity of social relationships with others; however, they
characterized only a part of women’s experiences. Survi-
vors’ experiences with the network could also be
understood by looking at how these positive and negative
reactions co-occurred in ‘‘mixed reactions.’’
As can be seen from the table, women’s experiences
with family and friends were varied; the form that the
mixed relationship took was also varied. For some survi-
vors, it was the same informal network member who was
listed as having both positive and negative reactions to the
abuse (i.e., within person), as is highlighted under the
‘‘aid’’ theme in the quotes for participant 37. This woman
reported that her cousin Bob was, at first, very supportive
of her efforts to leave her husband, offering a place to stay
123
 Table 2 Positive and negative social reactions received from the informal network
Safety
123
Positive Individual(s) enhance safety via
reactions indirect support (e.g.,
encouraging to leave) or direct
intervention (e.g., calling
police) [28]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘Especially my sister, Lori, she
really encouraged me, trying to
get me to get out…‘You have to
just give up and get out of there.
There’s too many other guys out
there (41).’’’
(2) ‘‘[His family] would help to
escape. They would come out,
and one time, his sisters, they
came, and kicked in the door
because he was holding me and
the kids at bay, with a
gun…(12)’’
Negative reactions Individual(s) jeopardize safety
indirectly (e.g., encouragement
to stay) or directly (e.g., telling
assailant her location) [11]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘Well, you know basically,
[my] family, it was like, ‘You’re
a fool! You need this man, you
go back to him…(12)’’’
(2) ‘‘…a lot of my friends were
back-biting…they told where I
was. Then with my mother and
my family…there is a lot of
abuse I experienced because my
moms told my abusers [my
location]…‘Thanks to you, this
black eye because you told them
where I was (20).’’’
All names are pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of the study participants
Brackets indicate the number of participants who reported incidents that could be categorized under the respective themes. Parentheses indicate the identification number
Emotional availability
Individual(s) provide emotional
support (e.g., listening to
concerns; validating feelings)
[32]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘The friends that have been the
most supportive, I go over there
once a week. And they’re
always willing to kind of take
the burden like if I’m having a
bad day…I come over and
vent…they were always just
there to listen (25).’’
(2) ‘‘…the moral support does
mean a lot…being there for me,
you know, when I need to talk to
‘em…they’d call me right
back…(03)’’
Individual(s) not emotionally
available; blame the survivor for
her abuse, distance themselves,
or minimize the impact of abuse
[23]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘My mom, she um, she kinda
pushed me away. Because she
felt like it was my fault, like I
needed to do something…I did
not stay strong on my word, and
so she kinda felt like, sorry, you
keep letting [the abuse] happen
(04).’’
(2) ‘‘I guess having my parents
doubt me was probably the
worst thing in the world. They
just did not believe it was
happening at all. ‘Well we do
not see any bruises we do not
see any markings or anything
like that, so (26).’’’
Input
Individual(s) provide advice or
information the survivor
perceives as helpful or effective
(e.g., how to find needed
resources) [17]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘And um, my aunt, you know,
she was like…telling me…be
careful because there’s
something that’s not right with
him, and I’m afraid it’s gonna
become physical, and she was
right (42).’’
(2) ‘‘… I’m fortunate that my
mother is a social worker and
knows all these places that I can
go for help…my mom was
always telling me, like different
options (24).’’
Individual(s) are critical of
survivor’s choices; tell her what
she ‘‘should’’ do [15]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘And his step-father like, ‘he’s
not good for you. You know,
you leave him, do not deal with
him. He’s not shit. And that
negative from his step-father
used to make me love him more
(19).’’
(2) ‘‘…they sort of get this attitude
that you just pick up and
leave…you hear them day in
and day out, ‘Well if you had
done this, this would not have
happened to you. Or if you had
listened to me in the beginning,
this would not have happened to
you (09).’’’
226
Aid
Individual(s) provided survivor
with practical forms of aide
(e.g., housing, transportation,
childcare, financial help) [28]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘I spent the night with the kids,
at his house because I said, ‘I
scared to death of goin’ home. I
do not want to go home. Bob
says, ‘you can stay here (37).’’’
(2) ‘‘I was in a situation and I
called Mary at like 2 o’clock in
the morning and I was like,
‘come and pick me up,’ and she
got outta her bed and she came
and got me (49).’’
Individual(s) refuse or fail to
provide the practical assistance
requested (e.g., childcare, help
leaving the relationship) [16]
Examples:
(1) ‘‘…he [Bob] came to me
one day and said, ‘I do not
wanna watch your kids no more,
and here they are (37).’’’
(2) ‘‘My family…it was never
‘You can come and stay with
me’…it was never…‘We’re not
gonna stop until he goes to jail.’
It was always…‘I do not
‘preciate what he did,’
but…they never went to
extremes to be a supportive
family and say ‘Look, you not
gonna hit her no more (49).’’’
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
and help with her children; however, Bob retracted the
assistance over time.
In addition to the within person type, where a single
individual is characterized by the survivor as having both
positive and negative reactions, the relationship with those
in the network may also be characterized by one network
member or group of members responding positively while
another member or members respond negatively (i.e.,
across network). Table 2 illustrates two examples of this
type of mixed reaction occurring across the network. In the
first example under the ‘‘safety’’ theme, one survivor
(participant 12) recounts how her assailant’s family would
come to her rescue, even in the midst of a potentially lethal
situation, while her own family encouraged her to stay in
the severely violent relationship. In the second example,
under the ‘‘aid’’ theme (participant 49), one woman dis-
cusses her friend’s willingness to get out of bed at 2:00
a.m. to provide transportation, but her family’s failure to
provide the type of help or the response she needed. In all
of these examples, as well as in other cases in the study,
women experienced varied reactions from network mem-
bers including both positive and negative responses in
different combinations (e.g., negative and positive reac-
tions within a single individual, across the network, and
within an individual and across the network). This type of
framework has not yet been utilized in the domestic vio-
lence field to make sense of how survivors’ family and
friends differentially respond to the abuse.
Discussion
The current study has elucidated the various types of
reactions survivors experience while interfacing with their
informal social networks, as well as how these reactions
manifest in complex social relationships. Three conclu-
sions can be drawn as a result of this study. First, negative
and mixed reactions are common in survivors’ informal
social networks. Second, social reactions from the survi-
vor’s network are best characterized as multidimensional in
nature. Third, the existing terminology of ‘‘social support’’
is insufficient to capture survivors’ experiences interacting
with their family and friends around the abuse.
Negative and Mixed Reactions are Common
Liang et al. (2005) called for an increased study of the
negative reactions that survivors’ of domestic violence
experience, as they hypothesized these reactions may have
implications for helpseeking. Likewise, Uchino et al. (2004)
recently called attention to the need to simultaneously
consider positive and negative reactions, suggesting that
such mixed reactions ‘‘have not received sufficient
227
conceptual or methodological attention in prior literature’’
(Uchino et al. 2004, p. 126). The current study reinforces
these calls by demonstrating that not only are negative and
mixed reactions occurring for domestic violence survivors,
but they are occurring with some regularity in survivors’
networks, as evidenced by the finding that 78% of survivors
categorized their network reactions as ‘‘mixed.’’ In addi-
tion, findings from the current study highlighted the
complexity inherent within the construct of mixed reac-
tions, suggesting that the form these take can be manifested
in three ways: (1) within an individual (i.e., ‘‘conflicted
support’’ where the same individual responds both posi-
tively and negatively); (2) across the network (i.e., one
person or a group of people respond positively, while one or
more others respond negatively); and (3) both within an
individual and across the network. The current study pro-
vides a foundation for how to conceptualize the types of
reactions that are occurring within the survivor’s network in
future research.
Social Reactions are Multidimensional in Nature
The current study echoes findings from the broader litera-
ture on social support that reactions from survivors’
informal networks need to be understood using a multidi-
mensional framework. Our findings indicate that positive
and negative reactions are distinct constructs for survivors
of domestic violence and failure to separate them risks
ignoring their unique contributions to survivors’ lives
(Campbell et al. 2001; Ullman 1999). For example, past
domestic violence research has explained how different
levels of support (i.e., positive reactions) can enhance
survivors’ safety, but there is little discussion of how
negative reactions from family and friends (e.g., disclosing
a woman’s location) jeopardize survivors’ safety. This kind
of negative reaction cannot be understood along the com-
monly used continuum of low support to high support: an
act which increases a woman’s danger is different from the
reduced safety which might result from a lack of social
support. Regarding social reactions to domestic violence,
this study takes a first step in considering both the rewards
and costs inherent in all human relationships (Rook 1984).
Existing Terminology is Insufficient
Relatedly, the current study concludes that the existing
terminology utilized to understand domestic violence sur-
vivors’ perceptions of their interactions with their informal
network is insufficient to capture the complexity of the
reactions received. This study finds the use of term ‘‘social
support’’ to be a misnomer when applied too broadly to
survivors’ experiences. Past research on sexual assault has
criticized the broad use of the term ‘‘social support,’’ noting
123
228
that what is often termed ‘‘social support’’ is some combi-
nation of positive and negative reactions (Ullman 1999).
The findings from this study punctuate the importance of
applying the term ‘‘social support’’ only to those experi-
ences perceived as positive by the survivor. Replacing the
discussion of ‘‘social support’’ in the domestic violence
literature with ‘‘social reactions’’ would be a more accurate
portrayal of survivors’ experiences and would allow for
continued attention to negative reactions from network
members.
Limitations and Future Directions
While this study significantly enhances our understanding
of types of responses survivors receive from their informal
networks around the abuse suffered, there are three specific
limitations to be noted. First, we defined social support at
the outset of the questioning in a positive way (i.e.,
‘‘practical assistance, emotional support, and advice or
information’’). It is likely that this definition resulted in a
positive priming effect, which in turn led to an underesti-
mation of the pervasiveness of negative reactions. It is
possible that without this initial prime, even more women
would have identified members of their social network who
engaged in negative reactions to abuse, and that some would
have identified only negative interactions with those in their
networks. Despite the possibility of underestimating nega-
tive reactions occurring in the sample, the social support
section included explicit questions about how family and
friends were both helpful and unhelpful. Interviewers were
instructed to probe equally for both types of responses, in an
effort to generate a balanced picture of positive and nega-
tive responses that were occurring in survivors’ lives.
Moreover, in coding the data, information about negative
responses that occurred at any point during the interview,
not just those that occurred in the social support section,
were included in the final analyses. As a result, the coding
process was able to capture many negative reactions sur-
vivors discussed. Future research interested in attempting to
uncover the complexity of positive, negative, and mixed
reactions would be better served by avoiding an initial
definition and posing a more general question (e.g., Tell me
about your experiences interacting with family and friends
around the abuse experienced) to elicit women’s experi-
ences with their networks.
Second, while this study can point to the presence of
mixed reactions from network members, it provides limited
information regarding the specific nature of such reactions.
For example, mixed reactions could be tied to specific
individuals in some cases, but there is insufficient detail to
determine whether these individuals engaged in positive
and negative reactions at the same time, how often such
reactions occurred, and the degree to which one type of
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
reaction was dominant for a given network member. Along
the same lines, at times during the interview about half of
survivors spoke in generalities about whole groups of
people (e.g., ‘‘my family’’). Future research should attend
to when, how, and how often mixed reactions occur from
specific people to better characterize this apparently com-
mon phenomenon.
Third, in this study we did not specifically link negative
reactions with mental health outcomes or the survivor’s
quality of life. Therefore, we cannot speak with any cer-
tainty about the effects of negative reactions on mental
health or well-being. However, negative reactions from
family and friends are likely to have significant implica-
tions for survivors’ mental health and well-being. A study
by Campbell et al. (2001) indicated that survivors of sexual
assault were better off receiving no support from their
informal network than experiencing negative reactions.
This finding and others like it (e.g., Ullman 1996), speak to
how profoundly these reactions can impact women. It may
be the case that negative reactions from family and friends
help to explain in part the heightened level of depression
and anxiety noted in the literature among survivors of
domestic violence (Campbell et al. 1997; Campbell and
Lewandowski 1997). Even though the purpose of our study
was not to address a connection between possible responses
and outcomes, additional research is needed to explore the
link between negative reactions and their impact on
domestic violence survivors’ physical and psychological
health and overall well-being.
Fourth, a large minority (i.e. 40%) of our sample came
from a domestic violence shelter. It is possible that there
is something qualitatively different about this group, as
compared to women who continue residing in the commu-
nity. It may be that women utilizing shelters experienced
more negative responses from family and friends that led to
them being in shelter, as compared to women in the com-
munity. The inclusion of women staying at the shelter in
this sample may limit generalizability. However, the current
study improves upon recruitment practices noted in past
research, given that the majority of our sample is still
residing in the community, and that those in the shelter still
have some contact with family and friends outside the
shelter. Future research should aim to study separately
women who are staying in shelter and those who are living
in the community, in an effort to better understand possible
differences in responses from the informal network between
these groups.
In addition to the limitations noted, future research is
needed in the domestic violence field to explore the finding
in our study that the same event (e.g., encouraging the
survivor to leave the relationship) can be perceived
positively by some women and negatively by others. The
difficulty of coding one response as having the same
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
impact across all survivors has been well documented in
the sexual assault literature. For example, Ullman (1996)
found that some women viewed being told to ‘‘go on with
their life’’ after a rape as helpful, while others viewed this
response as unhelpful. We do not view these seeming
‘‘inconsistencies’’ as a problem with our coding or defini-
tions; instead it speaks to complexity of women’s lives and
the need to continue to study this issue of survivors per-
ceptions of how well the network member’s reaction fits
with what women want or need, and how these needs may
change over time. Perhaps some women view the sugges-
tion to end the relationship as helpful only after they have
seriously contemplated leaving, while others who have not
contemplated leaving view such comments as intrusive and
unwelcome. Beginning to better understand how relation-
ships with networks members change over time and how
their reactions match with what the survivor wants or needs
at a given point will help elucidate the complexity of
survivors’ perceptions of ‘‘support.’’
In addition, it is not surprising that survivors’ family
members and friends would respond in both positive and
negative ways to the abuse, considering there are many
pervasive societal myths that encourage victim blaming
(e.g., women should just leave abusers). It may be the case
that these myths influence family and friends’ responses to
the survivor. However, it is possible that other factors are at
play (e.g., family or friends have inadequate knowledge of
how to respond effectively, they become overwhelmed by
the abuse; e.g., Coyne et al. 1988). Future research should
explore not only the full range of reactions that family
and friends provide, but also what shapes or motivates
their responses. Moreover, when considering the range of
responses present, it is critical to further investigate the
response of salient, individual network members to specific
events. Given the construction of the current study, we
could not address this issue fully, but such an approach will
help elucidate in a more nuanced way how social reactions
manifest in the network.
Finally, while movement has been made over the last
few years to better understand how differences such as
ethnicity and class shape women’s experiences of abuse,
much work remains to be done. Although ethnic differ-
ences were not salient in our data, and most of our sample
was considered low SES, future research in the domestic
violence field needs to explore the ways in which ethnicity
and SES influence social networks. For example, Pugliesi
and Shook (1998) found ethnic minority groups (i.e.
African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American),
in comparison to European Americans, reported fewer
network members and less frequent contact with these
members. Fewer personal ties and less frequent interactions
with these individuals may have significant implications
for survivors of domestic violence. Further study of
229
differences in the availability and utilization of support
among various groups of battered women is warranted.
Implications for Responding to Domestic Violence
Despite the limitations just mentioned, this research has
significant implications for interventions designed to assist
survivors of domestic violence. There is significant dis-
cussion about a coordinated community response to
domestic violence, where the goal is, in part, to mobilize
the woman’s own network to help her become safer (e.g.,
Pence and Shepard 1999). However, this study indicates
that before we embark on this mobilizing effort, it is
imperative to first address the woman’s network for the
presence of positive, negative, and mixed reactions and the
form these reactions take (i.e., within an individual, across
the network, or both). The family, friends and acquain-
tances that comprise the network may require education
and support about how they can be most helpful. This may
serve to bolster the helping capacity of this network and
reduce the incidence of ‘‘helping’’ that is actually placing
women at greater risk.
It is also critical, however, to recognize that for some
women, their natural support network may be inadequate to
meet their needs and promote their safety. Thus, we should
not rely solely on such networks to provide support. In fact,
the widespread nature of mixed reactions survivors received
in this study punctuates the need to create more compre-
hensive advocacy programs for survivors (e.g., Sullivan
2000). These programs, working from an empowerment,
survivor-centered approach, would provide a neutral third
party—who is removed from the dynamics of the network—
to provide both support and services. Advocacy programs
such as this do exist (e.g., Sullivan and Bybee 1999) and have
been shown to be effective over the long-term; however,
they are not regularly implemented in communities in need
of services for battered women. It is critical to expand the
dissemination and use of such programs.
Conclusion
Informal helpers continue to play an important role in
assisting women living with or attempting to end the abuse.
However, as the social reactions literature underscores,
reactions from the informal network are complex, con-
sisting of both positive and negative reactions. This study
shows that negative and mixed reactions from family and
friends are not rare occurrences in the lives of survivors.
Moreover, it highlights that separating the assessment of
positive and negative reactions lends support to the notion
that ‘‘social support’’ is a multifaceted construct that cannot
be understood by collapsing positive and negative reactions
123
230
into a single construct. In conclusion, this study under-
scores the need for more precision in how we study social
reactions survivors receive from their network, with careful
attention being paid to the language we use to describe
these experiences.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the domestic
violence survivors who graciously shared their stories. This study was
made possible in part with funding from the University of Illinois
Research Board. The authors wish to thank Elaine Shpungin, Amy
Lehrner, Amanda Reid, Kelly Watt, Megan Radek, and Sarah Ullman
for their thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.
References
Barrera, M. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant
adolescents: Assessment issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social
networks and social support (pp. 69–96). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Barrera, M. (2000). Social support research in community psychol-
ogy. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of
community psychology (pp. 215–245). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Berg, B. L. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social
sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social
sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bogat, G. A., Chin, R., Sabbath, W., & Schwartz, C. (1983). The
adult’s social support questionnaire (technical report 2). East
Lansing: Michigan State University.
Bowker, L. H. (1984). Coping with wife abuse: Personal and social
networks. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their
families: Intervention strategies and treatment programs
(pp. 168–191). New York: Springer.
Campbell, R., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., Wasco, S. M., & Barnes, H. E.
(2001). Social reactions to rape victims: Healing and hurtful
effects on psychological and physical health outcomes. Violence
& Victims, 16(3), 287–302.
Campbell, J. C., Kub, J., Belknap, R. A., & Templin, T. N. (1997).
Predictors of depression in battered women. Violence Against
Women, 3(3), 271–293.
Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical
health effects of intimate partner violence on women and
children. Anger, Aggression, and Violence, 20(2), 353–374.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the
buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Proce-
dures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,
13(1), 3–21.
Coyne, J. C., Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1988). The other
side of support: Emotional overinvolvement and miscarried
helping. In B. Gottlieb (Ed.), Support from the social network
(pp. 305–330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Rajah, V., & Frye, V. (2001). Social
support among women in methadone treatment who experience
partner violence. Violence Against Women, 7(3), 246–274.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Garshowitz, M., & Martin, T. R. (1997).
Personality, negative social interactions, and depressive symp-
toms. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29(1), 28–37.
Gondolf, E. (1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to
learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Goodkind, J. R., Gillum, T. L., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M.
(2003). The impact of family and friends’ reactions on the well-
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
being of women with abusive partners. Violence Against Women,
9(3), 347–373.
Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005).
Women’s resources and use of strategies of risk and protective
factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11(3),
311–336.
Ingram, K. M., Betz, N. E., Mindes, E. J., Schmitt, M. M., & Smith,
N. G. (2001). Unsupportive responses from others concerning a
stressful life event: Development of the unsupportive social
interactions inventory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 20(2), 173–207.
Lakey, B., Tardiff, T. A., & Drew, J. B. (1994). Negative social
interactions: Assessment and relations to social support, cogni-
tion, and psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 13(1), 42–62.
Liang, B., Goodman, L., Tummala-Narra, P., & Weintraub, S. (2005).
A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking pro-
cesses among survivors of intimate partner violence. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1/2), 71–84.
Major, B., Zubek, J. M., Cooper, M. L., & Cozzarelli, C. (1997).
Mixed messages: Implications of social conflict and social
support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful
life event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6),
1349–1363.
Meadows, L. A., Kaslow, N. J., Thompson, M. P., & Jurkovic, G. J.
(2005). Protective factors against sucide attempt risk among
African American women experiencing intimate partner violence.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1/2), 109–122.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pence, E. L., & Shepard, M. F. (1999). An introduction: Developing a
coordinated community response. In M. F. Shepard & E. L.
Pence (Eds.), Coordinating community responses to domestic
violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 3–24). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pugliesi, K., & Shook, S. L. (1998). Gender, ethnicity, and network
characteristics: Variation in social support resources. Sex Roles,
38(3.4), 215–238.
Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46(5), 1097–1108.
Rook, K. S. (1998). Investigating the positive and negative sides of
personal relationships: Through a lens darkly? In B. H. Spitzberg
& W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships
(pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rook, K. S. (2001). Emotional health and positive versus negative
social exchanges: A daily diary analysis. Applied Developmental
Science, 5(2), 86–97.
Rose, L. E., Campbell, J., & Kub, J. (2000). The role of social support
and family relationships in women’s responses to battering.
Health Care for Women International, 21, 27–39.
Sandler, I. N., & Barrera, M. (1984). Toward a multimethod approach
to assessing the effects of social support. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 12(1), 37–52.
Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, C. M. (2000). A model for effectively advocating for
women with abusive partners. In J. P. Vincent & E. N. Jouriles
(Eds.), Domestic violence: Guidelines for research informed
practice (pp. 126–143). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. (1999). Reducing violence using
community based advocacy for women with abusive partners.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 43–53.
Tan, C., Basta, J., Sullivan, C. M., & Davidson, W. S. (1995). The role of
social support in the lives of women exiting domestic violence
shelters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(4), 437–451.
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 43:221–231
Trotter, J. L., Bogat, G. A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2004). Risk and
protective factors for pregnant women experiencing psycholog-
ical abuse. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 4(2), 53–70.
Uchino, B. N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. W., & Bloor, L. (2004).
Heterogeneity in social networks: A comparison of different
models linking relationships to psychological distress. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(2), 123–139.
231
Ullman, S. E. (1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-
blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 20, 505–526.
Ullman, S. E. (1999). Social support and recovery from sexual
assault: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 343–358.
123