Staying or Leaving: The Dialectics of Reconstructing Couple Relationships Following Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

The current discourse in the field of intimate partner violence is based mostly on the expectation that violence terminates the relationship and the partners separate to reconstruct their lives. This expectation is based on an either/or paradigm, which appears problematic given the reality of couples struggling with staying or leaving. This article examined the meanings couples attributed to remaining in their marital relationship following intimate partner violence and the efforts invested in rehabilitating the relationship. The study is based on 24 interviews with 12 couples who stayed together and had been free of physical violence for at least one year. Each partner was interviewed separately, which allowed them the freedom to develop their narrative. Descriptive phenomenological analysis revealed three key stages of the decision-making process: (a) a separation and reassessment stage, when personal identities were reexamined and a decision was made to attempt to reconstruct the marriage; (b) a new contract for the relationship was negotiated based on taking responsibility and undergoing mutually agreed-upon individual changes through therapy; and (c) resumption of living together, implementing and evaluating the contract negotiated about the joint life. The process is not linear and involves contradictions and paradoxes. The discussion conceptualizes staying together as a dialectic process between opposing forces: fear vs. hope, connectedness vs. individuality, and couple identity (“we-ness”) vs. the need for selfhood. The issue of the legitimacy of couples with IPV history to live together needs to be considered. Intervention must balance between empowering the couple by providing choices and examining possible risks arising from the process

Keywords

intimate partner violence staying together couple relationships

Introduction

The issue of couples who stay together following intimate partner violence (IPV) is sensitive and politically charged. One illustration of the difficulties involved is the choice of terminology concerning the parties involved. The literature is divided between those with a feminist orientation, where gender relations are embedded in the power and control perspective and those with a family conflict orientation, focusing on the dynamics of interpersonal relationships and the contribution of each partner to the conflict (Geffner, 2016; Nicolaidis, et al., 2009) The choice of terminology reflects the common use in the professional literature (IPV “survivors and perpetrators”) which reflects the etic theoretical perspective. This is opposed to the emic perspective reflecting the view of the interviewees, who emphasized the joint contribution of the partners to the violence.

The present article describes and analyzes relationship dynamics between heterosexual married couples who decided to remain together despite the violence perpetrated by the men.

A brief history of IPV intervention

Literature Review

IPV Interventions

Most common treatments of IPV have been designed to separately treat either survivors or perpetrators. Various reasons supporting gender segregation were suggested, including a history of abuse, risk of recidivism, survivor’s fear, and power relations between men and women. For example, according to the “power and control wheel” of the Duluth model, the goal of treatment is to replace the behaviors on the power and control wheel with those on the equality wheel by reeducating men and replacing their maladaptive attitudes (Boxhall & Birch, 2022). Cognitive behavioral techniques have also been used to modify dysfunctional cognitions and emotions and provide learning skills to prevent future violent behavior (Ager, 2020; Cotti et al., 2020).

Research pointed to the high level of dropout of batterers in intervention groups. A meta-analysis of the effect of IPV intervention, mostly in the format of group therapy, on recidivism has produced inconclusive results. Evaluations found small and inconclusive results when assessing intervention, comparing treatment groups with non-treatment controls (Babcock et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2021; Eckhardt et al., 2013). Questions about standards of effectiveness remain unanswered.

A meta-analysis of interventions for female victims/survivors of IPV revealed more encouraging results concerning the reduction of the negative effects of violence, PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression, and improved stress management, self-esteem, social support, and safety. Mixed results were found regarding self-efficacy, quality of life, and recurring violence in women’s life (Eckhardt et al., 2013; Karakurt et al., 2022). It is important to distinguish between the types of abusers who come into treatment—those who are mandated by the court to do so, and those who come voluntarily and show readiness to change (e.g., Voith et al., 2020; Wong & Bouchard, 2020). Researchers (e.g., Voith et al., 2020; Wong & Bouchard, 2020] suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all intervention and that it is questionable whether gender separation should be mandatory in treatment under all circumstances. We must ask whether it is ethical to prevent couple therapy when the couple wants it and the risk is low (e.g., Hurless & Cottone, 2018; Margolin & Burman, 1993; Stith & McCollum, 2011).

The Controversy Overstaying in the IPV Relationships

The controversy surrounding reasons for staying in relationships or returning to their partners implies a fundamental social expectation of women to leave their abusive partners (Bell et al., 2007). Women are often blamed if they do not do so (Eckstein, 2011), and their decision is often interpreted as a misguided perception by the abused, attesting to the weakening or loss of their capacity for self-determination (O’Leary, 2008). Women’s motivations are framed negatively, including fear, shame, lack of practical, economic, and cognitive resources, and psychopathologies such as low self-esteem and learned helplessness (e. g. Loke et al., 2012; Moulding et al. 2021). As Ben-Ari et al. (2003) found, however, the dichotomy between entrapment and choice is false, and abused women may experience both entrapment and choice independent of each other, whether they stay or leave. This is evident in some research (Eckstein, 2011; Heron et al., 2022) pointing out the investment in marriage, pregnancy, parenting, and the wish to keep the family together, hope for the future, and love. These emotions may interact with economic dependence, isolation, religious and cultural beliefs, fear of loneliness, and shame. The combination of the above reasons may become entrapping and liberating at the same time.

Men are perceived as seeking to preserve patriarchal power, control, and the suppression of women (Dutton, 2010; George & Stith, 2014; Mills, 2008). A systematic review of the few studies on staying, focusing on heterosexual battering batterers found that their personal and social reasons for the decision to stay were similar to those of heterosexual women, including parenting considerations (concern for the children and fear of losing contact), commitment to the relationship, psychological dependence, guilt, family pressure, fear of not being believed, and threats of suicide by their partner (Machado & Farinha, 2023). Positive emotions such as love, hope for the future, understanding of the partner, and joint parenthood were ignored. The probable outcome is that intervention focused only on negative relational dynamics (Keilholtz & Spencer, 2022; Kim & Gray, 2008; Meyer, 2012). It has been noted that most of the literature on IPV is ideologically charged (e.g. hegemonic masculinity) (e.g., Dutton, 2010).

The Pros and Cons of Couple Therapy

IPV research tends to marginalize the couples that remain together despite the violence and attempt to reconstruct their joint lives through couple therapy. Objections to couple therapy focus on several concerns (e.g. Stith & McCollum, 2011), including whether treatment endangers the women victims; whether they are coerced into agreeing to treatment because of a looming threat to their safety, which reinforces the power imbalance; whether they can raise sensitive topics without fear of more violence; and whether they are prepared to take the risk of being forced to share responsibility for the violence. Overall, the concern has been voiced that given such considerations, women risk being prevented from authentic participation (Mills, 2008; Stith & McCollum, 2009, 2011; Vall et al., 2018). Some states in the United States prohibit couple therapy for IPV (Stith & McCollum, 2011). Research indicates that one-third of couples who were denied couple therapy sought and participated in such intervention (DeBoer et al., 2012).

Contrary to the prevailing negative attitude of practitioners and researchers toward couple therapy, some professionals claim that it is suitable for mild-to-moderate violence that is not motivated by power and a desire for control, provided that it can be implemented while ensuring the victims’ safety (Antunes-Alves & Stefano, 2014; DeBoer et al., 2012; Horowitz et al., 2009; Kahn et al., 2015; Mendez et al., 2014; Rouleau et al., 2019). The limited research available has shown that conjoint treatment does not significantly increase the risk to the participating women and has the potential to be beneficial in reducing violence, increasing men’s accountability, and enhancing communication, problem-solving skills, and marital satisfaction. This was found to be true for couples who experienced situational violence but wished to stay together (Hurless & Cottone, 2018; Karakurt et al., 2016; Keilholtz & Spencer, 2022; Stith & McCollum, 2011).

Research must account for the complexities of understanding the dynamics and intent of partners who choose to stay together. This dynamic involves openness to accepting women’s self-determined choices and deconstructing myths and stereotypes about battering men. It also requires accepting that some men are motivated to change and rebuild their relationships (Lombard, 2013). This paper describes and analyzes the processes involved in partners’ decision to stay together. It presents a phase-by-phase conceptualization of the change that couples undergo in building a violence-free relationship.

The theoretical approach underlying the present study is relational dialectics. The central premise of the theory is that meaning emerges from dualism between two opposing poles seemingly contradicting one another, leading to dialectical tensions (Baxter, 2004a, 2004b, 2011). The emphasis in relational dialectics is on dyadic data as a foundation for understanding relationships (Halliwell, 2015). This theoretical approach helps explain the dilemma between staying and leaving, contradictory feelings, motivations, and behaviors grounded in such marital relations (Baxter, 2010).

Methods

The study indents the interpretive phenomenological approach (IPA) (Smith et al., 2010), an idiographic method involving simultaneous inquiry and focus on the subjective and intersubjective realities of the participants’ experiences. Additionally, the research team was committed for years to recognize the dichotomous roles of perpetrator males and victimized women. However, years of practice and research pointed out the complexities arising from the interpersonal dynamics and the need to account for this, as an added dimension in understanding the phenomena.

Participants

The study was based on a purposive sample (Patton, 2002) of 12 heterosexual couples (24 participants) recruited through the Center for Family Violence and Family Therapy Intervention in Northern Israel. Inclusion criteria were: (a) married couples; (b) the man’s violence toward the woman was known and reported to the police or social services; (c) couples were engaged in individual therapy, couple therapy, or both; and (d) the couple had been living together for at least one year following an IPV-related separation and there was no reported physical violence in the preceding year. Duration of marriage ranged between 6 and 36 years, with a mean duration of 17 years. Couples had between one and four children aged three months to 34 years. All participants were both ethnically and religiously Jewish. The age of the female participants ranged between 31 and 57, with a mean age of 42 years, and of the male participants aged between 33 and 72, with a mean age of 46 years.

Data Collection

Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Roulston, 2010), in which respondents could share the subjective meanings attributed to the phenomenon under study (Josselson, 2013). The second author, a social worker with ample experience in family therapy and IPV, conducted the interviews because of her expertise in working with couples who experienced IPV. To minimize the effect of the interviewer on the data collected, one interviewer conducted all the interviews. Data were analyzed by the three members of the research team allowing for heterogeneous and joint interpretations in the analysis. Before the interview, a short sociodemographic questionnaire was administered to respondents. The interview guide included the following topics: the process of deciding to stay in the relationship; the motives behind the process; and changes that occurred at the personal, couple, and family levels following the decision to stay together.

Partners were interviewed separately, a decision based on several considerations related mostly to the privacy of the information and risk management (Eisikovits & Koren, 2010; Love et al., 2021). In this way, partners could voice their viewpoints and raise sensitive issues without fear. Moreover, confidentiality encouraged interviewees to discuss subjects that they might not have mentioned otherwise. At the early stage of the interview, participants were asked whether they could report any form of abuse during the year preceding the interview. They all confirmed the absence of abuse, which was an inclusion criterion in the study. The interviews lasted 90-120 minutes and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The excerpts used in this article were translated into English and translated back into Hebrew by an experienced translator who is a native speaker of English and fluent in Hebrew.

Data Analysis

We used the six phases proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2022) to conduct the thematic analysis of the interviews. In Phase 1, we read the transcripts several times to familiarize ourselves with the material of the interviews through immersion. We also identified preliminary meanings and patterns regarding staying together. In Phase 2, we generated initial codes that allowed organizing the data. We conducted the primary coding independently and later compared the codes, identifying points of convergence, divergence, and complementarity, and defined a final coding guide. The identified codes included emotions (positive and negative) pointing to gains and losses throughout the relationship; landmark events (e.g., calling the police, going to court); boundaries and separation; connection and reconnection; identity (personal and couple); and intervention and therapy. In Phase 3, searching for themes, we coded the relevant data and consolidated themes (e.g., positive vs. negative considerations consolidated in the concept of balancing). In Phase 4, refining the themes, we reviewed and refined the themes by applying a hybrid inductive/deductive analysis that added our interpretive patterns to the themes identified (e.g., interpreting the dialogue between the partners regarding leaving or staying). In Phase 5, conceptualizing the themes together, we integrated the interpretations of] the various stages involved in the process: building a separate identity and reevaluating the relationship; creating a joint contract based on reevaluating the couple’s identity; and reconnecting and rebuilding the relationship. In Phase 6, writing up the results, we produced a coherent narrative reflecting the dialectics of the partners’ versions of the process leading to the reestablishment of the relationship.

Rigor

The merit of a qualitative study is judged by its trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We provided context with lengthy descriptions that reflected our understanding of the participants’ subjective meanings and offered rich, thick descriptions (Lieblich et al., 1998). Additional credibility has been achieved by presenting rich excerpts followed by their analysis, allowing readers to compare our interpretations with their own (Maxwell, 2005). The value of the excerpts lies in bridging the abstractions we consolidated into core themes and the couples’ concrete decisions concerning staying together.

To ensure inter-coder reliability, we conducted separate thematic content analyses and resolved disagreements and discrepancies in coding by discussing, jointly reviewing, and reflecting on the original statements. The few units on which we were unable to reach a consensus were left out of the study. The thematic analysis process was continued until saturation was reached (Charmaz, 2006), after which two additional interviews were conducted to confirm the saturation of the data (Guest et al., 2006).

Ethics

The study was approved by the University of Haifa Ethics Review Board. To obtain informed consent from the participants and gain their trust, the interviewer provided a detailed written explanation of the research aims, a statement of the participants’ rights, including the right to stop the interview at any stage, and a guarantee of confidentiality (Patton, 2002). Most importantly, the interviewees were assured that their responses would not be shared with their partners or their social workers. At the beginning of the interview, we made sure that the women and the men knew what legal and therapeutic services were available to them, should violence recur. When writing the article, we paid special attention to safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of the informants. All names used in the article are pseudonyms, excluding texts which would make the interviewee more recognizable. At the same time, we strove to elicit the interviewees’ authentic voices (Peled & Leichtentritt, 2002). We avoided perceiving either partner’s decision to stay in the relationship as a departure from normative expectations and behaviors or reflecting any kind of pathological relationship.

Conducting such a study raises many critical dilemmas, such as self-determination vs. victimhood vs. paternalism, as well as gender issues and issues regarding perceptions of personal responsibility vs. interactionism. The underlying assumption of this paper was the participants’ unequivocal rejection of violence and a perception of the need to assume responsibility for it. IPV is a complex phenomenon involving contradictory emotions such as love, hate, shame, anger, guilt, and escalatory feelings on both sides, together with needs such as intimacy, mutuality in parenthood, and economic partnership. Finally, provided that violence has been eliminated, we believe that both partners have a choice to live together or separately and that our role as researchers and practitioners is to empower them in this choice rather than judge it as good or bad.

Results

The results categories emerged from the data inductively. For most men and women, the process of deciding whether they want to stay in the relationship or leave was triggered by obtaining a restraining order or calling the police. Based on the interviews, we identified three stages of the process: (a) building a separate identity and reevaluating the relationship; (b) creating a joint contract after reevaluating couple’s identity, if the couple affirmed their choice to share a violence-free life; and (c) reconnecting with we-ness in a relationship based on what they had agreed to in the previous stage. Each stage is illustrated by a quotation that is representative of the stage we described and aims to clarify and illustrate the concepts identified by the researchers. Additional quotations from other couples substantiating the stages could be brought but were left out because of space limitations.

Building a Separate Identity and Reevaluating the Relationship

Each partner weighed the positive emotions and the wish to preserve the family together with the costs and losses experienced during separation, including the loss of family ties. When the women in the study perceived a positive change in the men’s motivation to change their previous behavior, this belief nurtured their hope to be able to resume the marital relationship. Rachel described her experience of freedom during the separation and her decision to resume the relationship:

He had a restraining order for a few months. We didn’t see each other, and we didn’t talk, and I was also very frightened and didn’t want anything. Some good things came out of our separation, a sense of independence. I knew that I was now responsible for my own life and my daughter’s life. . . Things started to move along, sorted out—work, making a living. I already had a boyfriend who treated me with a lot of respect. And I thought, at last, I’ve found happiness. . . I didn’t think about going back to him. . . And then I contacted him, and things started to roll along. . . It took, maybe, two weeks before I broke up with my boyfriend. I only thought that I loved him [the boyfriend] because of all the emotions and stress that I had gone through. Then I concluded that, in the end, I want to stay with my husband in spite of it all. . . I went back, first of all, because of love. . . and him showing signs that he understood what he did and wanted to change. Neither one of us really thought we would ever get back together. But we did, despite the million unresolved issues and the thousand and one problems that we knew we would have to deal with.

Rachel described how being completely cut off from her husband helped her become an independent individual. She felt empowered to build a new life, successfully making a living and building a new couple relationship. Paradoxically, it was the sense of independence and self-belief that caused Rachel to reevaluate her relationship with her new partner, ultimately reaffirming the strong emotional foundation that she shared with her husband and coming to appreciate his qualities anew. Equipped with the freedom to choose, she made her choice to reconstruct the relationships on her emotional and value-based foundations. Rachel’s sense of reality seems to go hand in hand with her hope for change in the relationship.

Moses, Rachel’s husband, described his motives behind the decision to reunite:

She filed a complaint with the police against me. There was an open file against me followed by a trial. I was hurt by it, but I went back to her despite the hurt because I understood that I had made a mistake. I know my wife, and I was sure it wasn’t something she planned to hurt me. . . I went back to her out of love. That’s the first thing. I still loved her. I was sure we would be able to continue and that it would be difficult, and I said we’ve been through lots of difficult things in life, so we’ll get through this too. . . I also saw that we were in the same frame of mind, not opposites—looking at life in a similar way. . . Another reason is our daughter. If we didn’t have the child, I might have said that although I love her, let’s stop here, but the child was there, and I wanted to be involved in raising her.

The hiatus enabled Moses to reflect on the relationship and overcome the conflict between separating and rejoining. Moses felt hurt and insulted by the complaint, but at the same time was motivated to take responsibility for his violence. In the interview, Moses acknowledged the intensity of his anger and how it had blinded him from seeing his wife clearly. He succeeded in distinguishing her acts of hostility, such as calling the police, from how she perceived him without the hostility. The separation and reflection made him increasingly aware of what was meaningful for him and what he stood to lose. This reinforced his motivation to reevaluate and reframe his past actions and wish for a common future. Moses expressed several hopeful themes: love for Rachel; the optimistic belief that the two of them can overcome the crisis and revive the relationship; the meaning of fatherhood and the wish to be part of his daughter’s life. These commonalities served as a bridge between the partners and helped them reconstruct their lives from a position of potential mutuality, without ignoring the problems that needed to be addressed.

Creating a Joint Contract: Rebuilding Couple Identity

In light of their past experiences, the partners who chose to stay together developed a dialogue based on their inner thoughts and feelings as they surfaced in the first stage. This reflects the willingness to develop an intersubjective meaning of their joint couple narrative (we-ness).

In the following excerpts, Sara and David clarified the conditions needed for getting back together, which later defined the balance between their new self-identity and the couple’s identity.

Sara: We talked about the conditions for getting back together. I said to him: “Listen, if you ever want another chance with me, you must come to therapy. I got professional help with family violence—you must go there, and I won’t take no for an answer.” And he thought about it and said: “I want to come.” And then he started going to individual sessions followed by couple therapy. . . I knew I could set the boundary right there, and that he would accept it. This is why I knew it was possible to move ahead and that things could be made right. It’s about feelings, a kind of intuition. I wasn’t sure. That’s why I didn’t go back right away. . . It was a process of a few months in therapy, preparing to go back to living together. . . I said to David: “I’m willing to try, but only under some conditions.” We made a written agreement, before going back, about how often I go to my mother’s, how often we go to his parents. That’s what bothers him. . . We still have that agreement. We kept it.

David: At some point, after a very long time that we hadn’t been together, there was a meeting in a café, things were said that really made the change. She said, “Listen, I made a mistake. I understand the mistake I made. It was I who did the tugging, the towing, the leading. You dragged along and each one of us needs to take responsibility.” I started to make the change, and that meant we went to therapy. The moment she said to me: “Listen, I’m going to understand my mistakes so that in my next relationship I won’t make those same mistakes,” and as soon as she showed me that she wanted to make changes, I said to her: “Let’s do the repair together—I’ll go and fix myself, you fix yourself—and after that, we’ll fix things together.” M. [the social worker] led the whole process. And a few months later, we decided to get back together. It was a long process. Going back to fix our relationship seemed almost impossible. But it is possible, once both sides are willing, and you understand what that willingness means. . .

These excerpts illustrate how both partners explored and tested each other’s willingness to repair their relationship. Based on a changed contract that clarified the issues and conditions in need of change, they both envisioned a new couple identity as the direction in which they wanted to move. It was associated with a recognition of the emotional needs that validated the process by the partner. The self-awareness that Sara gained during the separation helped her strengthen her determination to set clear conditions that were not part of their previous relationship. This transformed the couple’s identity by setting renewed boundaries to a changed content: stopping the violence and participating in therapy, which was seen as a test of the willingness to change and of the willingness to respect her as a significant other. Sara also dictated the rhythm of change by deciding that she and her husband would resume their relationship gradually. This was expected to allow the time needed to rebuild mutual trust. On one hand, Sara hoped and believed that she could trust her husband; on the other, his promises alone were not enough, and during his therapy, which lasted several months, she placed his behavior to the test. By insisting that David meet her conditions, Sara signaled that she envisioned a changed power balance. Sara’s assertion of her demands reflects the emergence of a new contract based on the couple’s joint ability to resolve differences of opinion without risking returning to violence.

David also described a renewed contract that was reached by sharing feelings, needs, and desires, and meeting the other’s requests. David felt that Sara validated his vulnerability and eased his loneliness in feeling exclusive responsibility for the relationship. He felt that their intersubjectivity became the basis of trust and increased the possibility of getting back together. In David’s perception, Sara’s willingness to assume responsibility and her turning to therapy were proof that change was impending. Like Sara, David experienced a new vision of the couple, which in turn strengthened his willingness to invest the necessary effort to take responsibility and accomplish the change. At this point, the rehabilitation of the couplehood stemmed from the willingness of each side to include one’s partner in the development of the other’s vision of couplehood.

Reconnecting to We-ness

The stage of rebuilding the relationship was followed by constructing we-ness based on a positive joint future. Dana envisioned this as follows:

After ten months of not being together, and after what I had been through with him, it was terribly difficult to have him. I was very cold toward him, terribly distant. . . We went through a couple therapy process for a good few months. . . In therapy, we were given the right tools, and we used them, worked with them. . . because if you don’t, it doesn’t help at all. If I hadn’t had that therapy, there’s no chance I would’ve been back with Guy today. I was very angry. If I hadn’t let out all that anger about what he did to me, I wouldn’t have looked him in the eye at all. I can’t say today that I’m crazy about him like I was—after all, he did hurt me. But I believe in him and enjoy being with him. I wouldn’t have had another child if I hadn’t felt sure about us being back together. . . Now I can see that our relationship has a future. Today, I don’t want to lose him. I know that today he won’t hurt me or anyone. Today I can say that I’ve got myself a fantastic husband really, a great person and a good friend. I’m not sorry for one moment that I agreed to get back together. . . He takes to heart everything I tell him and really changes. I’ve been through a lot, and I’m happy and proud of my situation today. But there are still moments, flashbacks, of things that are hard to forget, things that I don’t think anyone is capable of completely cleaning off the slate and moving on afterwards.

Dana reflected on the complexity of reestablishing the relationship of we-ness: close relations that could embrace memories of the violent incidents and evoke feelings of vulnerability. She described a prudent and gradual change, testing along the way whether she experienced robust trust. Dana noted that therapy had been critical in creating a sense of security based on the honest emotional expression of ambivalences, contradictions, and paradoxes that were part and parcel of the process. This enabled her to contain the lingering threat from their previous joint history filled with anger and attendant emotions. In the subtext of the interview, Dana noted the importance of accepting mutual personal responsibility for deploying the means of building we-ness. This mutual willingness gave new meaning to the relationship and made it possible to restore trust in her husband and view him as a whole, including his positive qualities.

Dana’s husband, Guy, described the process of the emerging we-ness as follows:

There was a process here of getting back together under the same roof, and this process was not easy because there were a lot of fears, and the couple therapy helped us a lot. It was very complicated. We didn’t want to get back together just for the sake of saying we did it. If that would have been the case, things would have fallen apart very quickly. If you don’t have the right foundation to get back to, then it will fall apart again. You must do the therapy, to get to the root of things, to understand the gap. . . There’s no doubt that if I hadn’t had the treatment with T. [the social worker], we wouldn’t have gone back, it would have all been the same: shouting and fighting and arguing and inflated egos against each other. It’s always good when they’re with me—my wife and the children; they’re my best friends. . . But I never say to myself: “Listen, Guy, you’re one hundred percent, everything is perfect.” The risk is always there that something inside me will flip, that something inside her will flip. But I’m sure of my decision as of now.

Like Dana, Guy identified the therapy as critical in developing his self-awareness and ability to acknowledge others, accept the differences between them as separate entities, and put together the dialectics of a we-ness. With the help of the insights into their past that he had gained, Guy was able to discard the negative, rigid, and threatening image of his partner. He stopped viewing her as hostile and defensive and came to see her as a partner in a joint enterprise. Guy learned that to transform the relationship, he must reevaluate the risk to give way to negative emotions that could throw him off balance. This occurred simultaneously with searching for the common and uniting elements between the members of his family, which are based on a joint foundation and worldviews. Both partners experienced a transformation in their understanding of the past for the sake of a newly discovered we-ness.

Discussion

The present study focused on heterosexual couples that chose to rebuild their relationship after the man had abused his partner in the past. The results indicate that men and women together constructed the intersubjective processes leading back to a joint life. The study revealed unique complexities compared to other studies that addressed separately the experiences of partners who had separated following the abuse. We conceptualized our results from the perspective of relational dialectics theory (Baxter, 2004a, 2004b), which defines communication patterns between the self and the partner as the result of endemic polarizing dialectical tensions. The poles coexist interdependently, despite being seemingly antagonistic, negating, and contradictory (Almagor, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).

Dialectic theory was used because in our conceptualization it further deepens the understandings of the conflicts involved in choosing to return, in spite of past violence. Since returning to the relationship is problematic, the dialectical theory helps identify the contradictory tendencies along with the decision to stay together and as such adds another layer of interpretation to the findings. The first set of dialectics we identified between the partners was fear vs. hope for the future. Couples experienced fears that past behaviors, conflicts, and violence would return. Women were afraid of men’s controlling behaviors and abuse, and men were afraid of being trapped in conflicts and loss of control. Such contradictory emotions present dilemma to the couple concerning prioritizing between the seemingly contradictory voices (fear vs. hope). We found that fears were mixed with hope for the future, initiating the choice of rebuilding jointly a newly discovered we-ness that strengthened the relationship. Knobloch and Theiss (2010) discussed three types of uncertainty in couples: (a) toward the self, related to the question “How can I, as an individual, be certain of my feelings toward my partner?” (b) toward the partner, related to the question “How can I, as an individual, be certain of my partner’s feelings toward myself?”, and (c) overall relationship uncertainty, relating to the essence of the relationship and expressed in the question of “How can I be certain where the relationship is heading?” In this study, the couples’ growing sense of trust and faith in the other complemented the uncertainties without replacing them, eventually leading to a sense of confidence in the partners’ commitment to staying together.

The second fundamental set of dialectics was the we vs. me dilemma reflecting individual vs. relational needs. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) described this as the need to be intimate, which can coexist with the need to remain an individual despite the seemingly inherent contradiction. The process involved struggling to connect, construct mutuality, negotiate individual needs, and reevaluate hurt and losses. Separation helped the women transform the sense of threat to their internal self and their loss of autonomy into a clear sense of self. At the same time, therapy helped both the men and the women establish a clear self-identity that was not based on power but rather on the ability to see the other’s point of view and reinforce the sense that the other trusts you. Building autonomy led both partners to reexamine their independent selves and the self in the relationship. The women, bolstered by their newfound strength, became capable of expressing their needs and desires, as evidenced by their ability to draft contracts. At the same time, the literature notes that changes occurred in men’s understanding of their behaviors, mostly understood through therapy the damaging repercussions of abusive men’s and dysfunctional beliefs. This, in turn, is likely to catalyze their willingness to change (e.g., Dobash et al., 2000; Mendez et al., 2014). In this process, women and men reflect, each for oneself in the mirror of the other, on responsibility and making amends to achieve an understanding of problematic behaviors and life in general (Takano, 2017). This transpired into relational competencies between partners along with the awareness of the feelings of the other (Takano, 2017). The importance of personal acceptance of responsibility was confirmed by the female participants when they were asked to evaluate IPV couple therapy (Lechtenberg et al., 2015). In the present study, men valued their partners’ willingness to understand the needs and feelings of the other despite their previous acts of violence and inflicted suffering.

When applied to violent men and battered women, responsibility is a charged and sensitive construct. The couples interviewed ascribed parallel dimensions of the term “responsibility,” attributing particular responsibilities to each partner. Couples agreed that the violence was the man’s responsibility, but they negotiated different aspects of the emotional and family relationships associated with each partner. For example, the women emphasized their pain and suffering arising from the emotional abuse while men expressed their anger and disappointment arising from partner’s estrangement from his family of origin. By doing so, the horizon of responsibility was broadened and operationalized as a contract that clearly stated this responsibility as a joint mission. Additional positive effects of IPV couple therapy have been noted in the literature. Mendez et al. (2014) found that changes reported by such couples involved both partners assuming increased responsibility for their actions. Conflict resolution, which was also related to accepting personal responsibility, showing respect for the partner, and trying to improve communication, was successful in cases of mild-to-moderate IPV when the partners attended couple therapy (Horowitz et al., 2009). The present study illustrates that as part of the newly emerging dialectics among partners, and ability to implement agreements becomes a dominant component in the relationship.

In the final stage, the couples described repairing the relationships under conditions of safety, mutual trust, and a sense of recreating a unified meaning for their couplehood. This reflects a process of mutual negotiations surrounding the meaning of building trust, the purpose of change, and individual transformation (Takano, 2017). The process leads to constructing a narrative that integrates the past into the present, with a view toward the future. The dominant dynamic emerging from the present study was one of mutual acceptance and closeness in a way that neither blurred the boundaries of the self nor diminished the newly emerging we-ness of the participants. This process narrowed the distance between the poles. As noted in the literature, change occurs in couple relationships when the partners learn to evaluate each other’s strengths and recognize each other’s vulnerabilities, without becoming embroiled in self-destructive, defensive, or aggressive behavior (Aron & Nardone, 2012; Charny, 1992). The couples in this study reported reciprocity, and even when the level of relationship anxiety rose, they were able to remain committed to their adherence to a new vision of the couplehood.

Implications for Practice

Professionals working with IPV often face the issue of the legitimacy of the couple’s choice to live together, and they must take this option into account when planning the intervention. Relational dialectic theory may enable therapists to bracket their biases, which are widely supported by the generally accepted social discourse, whereby returning to couple relationships is not acceptable. Professionals must acknowledge that couples communicate and make independent decisions regarding living together or apart, and professionals are called upon to respect the couples’ self-determination. Professionals should be aware of the ethical obligation to avoid harming the relationship. Therefore, they should conduct ongoing risk assessments, taking into consideration couple dynamics, parenthood, and the couple’s life circumstances (Vall et al., 2018). Professionals intervening in IPV must develop a willingness to accept the ethical, clinical, and social aspects involved in repairing the relationship, with special emphasis on forgiveness, as a key issue in intervention. Forgiveness in IPV is controversial. As Crapolicchio (2021) stated, forgiveness by abused women of their partners can heal damaged relationships and improve mental health but it can also increase the risk of recurrent violence. This suggests that it is necessary to consider safety before encouraging forgiveness, particularly in the initial phase of separation. The study emphasized the need to reexamine what is taken for granted, (e.g. the only option is to break up the relationships). Such reflective examination involves legitimizing contradictory emotions such as fear vs. hope, trust vs. disbelief. This is likely to lead to reformulation of the dialectics of the relationships and needs to be performed on both the individual and the couple level. Options to stay or leave should become part and parcel of the dialectics process throughout the various stages of the intervention process.

Finally, a key contribution of the present study is the clarification of the three stages in the dialectic recovery process that liberates IPV intervention from the either/or paradigm and legitimizes the partners’ right to remain together despite previous violence.

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered. First, we must caution that qualitative studies do not claim generalizability, rather their heuristic value makes it possible to probe the deeper subjective and intersubjective themes underlying the dynamics of couples that decide to stay together and receive treatment for IPV. Second, the couples who participated in the study were in therapy, therefore the results may not necessarily apply to other couples who stay together, especially those who fall into a patriarchal or intimate terrorism category in the typology and are not currently in therapy. Note that although team research has many advantages, at times it produces disagreements regarding the identification and interpretation of codes and themes. The paper reflects the majority of themes on which there was agreement. The decision not to include codes or themes on which agreement could not be reached is a limitation of the study.

These limitations point to the need for additional quantitative and qualitative research with larger and carefully stratified purposive samples. Assuming that couples that stay together are not a homogeneous population, it is of interest to study couples that returned and subsequently left the relationship again, to learn how they account for this outcome. Another perspective that could contribute to understanding the complexity of the phenomenon is to explore the children’s perceptions regarding the dynamics of their parent’s relationship and how they were affected by it. Follow-up studies are also needed to ascertain long-term changes in couples that stay together.

In conclusion, we believe that the topic of couples remaining in the relationship following IPV is a complex one, charged with contradictions at the personal, interpersonal, and social levels. And either/or paradigm is not adequate for studying the process. Qualitative studies may help advance the understanding of the phenomenon from such a perspective.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Eli Buchbinder

Author Biographies

Eli Buchbinder, PhD, is associate professor at the School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Israel. He specializes in qualitative research on intimate partner violence. He has published numerous journal articles in this field. He is the coauthor (with Zvi Eisikovits) of “Locked in a Violent: Understanding and Intervening in Domestic Violence” (2000) Sage and coauthor (with Zvi Eisikovits) of “Existential social wor: Meaning-making in the face of distress” (2023) Routledge. Formerly, he has worked as a social worker in different social work institutions, including a public welfare agency, a children’s residential care facility, a family therapy unit, and a domestic intervention unit, and has served as a mental health officer in the army

Hany Asherovich, M.S.W, is a social worker, a certified marriage and family therapist and a supervisor in marriage and family therapy in Northern Israel. She is experienced in intervention with couples and families in crisis such as intimate violence. She worked in treatment centers for the prevention of intimate violence and was a manager of a Center for Family Violence for 4 years. She also instructed and supervised social workers and social work students in the field of family therapy and intimate partner violence. She is in private practice doing individual, couple, family therapy, parental guidance, and treatment of loss and bereavement.

Zvi Eisikovits, PhD, is professor emeritus of social welfare and criminology, former Dean of the Faculty of Welfare and Health Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, and former director of the Center for the Study of Society. He published around 135 articles and five books, mostly on the topics of intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and existentialism in practice.

References

Ager

R. D.

(2020). A qualitative study of intimate partner violence from a cognitive-behavioral perspective. Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(23–24), 5198–5227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719902

Almagor

(2011). The functional dialectic system approach to therapy for individuals, couples and families. University of Minnesota Press.

Antunes-Alves

De Stefano

(2014). Intimate partner violence: Making the case for joint couple treatment. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 22(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480713505056

Aron

A. P.

Nardone

(2012). Self and close relationships. In Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(Ed.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 520–541). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Babcock

J. C.

Gallagher

M. W.

Richardson

Godfrey

D. A.

Reeves

V. E.

D'Souza

. (2024). Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research. Clinical psychology review, 111, 102437.

Baxter

L. A.

(2004a). Relationships and dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00068.x

Baxter

L. A.

(2004b). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2004.9670130

Baxter

L. A.

(2010). The dialogue of marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2 (4), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756–2589.2010.00067.x

Baxter

L. A.

(2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Sage.

10.

Baxter

L. A.

Montgomery

B. M.

(1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.

11.

Bell

M. E.

Goodman

L. A.

Dutton

M. A.

(2007). The dynamics of staying and leaving: Implications for battered women's emotional well-being and experiences of violence at the end of the year. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9096-9

12.

Ben-Ari

Winstok

Eisikovits

(2003). Choice within entrapment and entrapment within choice: The challenge facing battered women who stay. Families in Society, 84(4), 539–546. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.132

13.

Boxhall

Birch

(2022). Domestic and family violence behaviour change programs: An examination of gendered and non-gendered frameworks. Journal of Community Safety & Well-Being, 7(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.240

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

15.

Braun

Clarke

(2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

16.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical through qualitative analysis. Sage.

17.

Charny

I. W.

(1992). Existential/dialectical marital therapy. Brunner.

18.

Cotti

Foster

Haley

M. R.

Rawski

S. L.

(2020). Duluth versus cognitive behavioral therapy: A natural field experiment on intimate partner violence diversion programs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(2), 384– 395. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000249

19.

Crapolicchio

Regalia

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Cinquegrana

(2021). The role of relational dependence, forgiveness and hope on the intention to return with an abusive partner. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(9), 2474–2493. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211011546

20.

DeBoer

K. M.

Rowe

L.S.

Frousakis

Dimidjian

Christensen

(2012). Couples excluded from a therapy trial due to intimate partner violence: Subsequent treatment-seeking and occurrence of IPV. Psychology of Violence, 2(1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026175

21.

Dobash

R.E.

Dobash

R.P.

Cavanagh

Lewis

(2000). Changing violent men. Sage.

22.

Dutton

D. G.

(2010). The gender paradigm and the architecture of antiscience. Partner Abuse, 1(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.1.5

23.

Eckstein

J. J.

(2011). Reasons for staying in intimately violent relationships: Comparisons of men and women and messages communicated to self and others. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9338-0

24.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Murphy

C. M.

Whitaker

D. J.

Sprunger

Dykstra

Woodard

(2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4(2), 196–231. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.196

25.

Eisikovits

Koren

(2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1642–1655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310376520

26.

Geffner

(2016). Partner aggression versus partner abuse terminology: Moving the field forward and resolving controversies. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 923–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9898-8

27.

George

Stith

S. M.

(2014). An updated feminist view of intimate partner violence. Family Process, 53(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12073

28.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Fields Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

29.

Halliwell

(2015) Extending rrelational dialectics ttheory: Exploring nnew avenues of rresearch, Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 67–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679172

30.

Heron

R. L.

Eisman

Browne

(2022). Why do female domestic violence victims remain in or leave abusive relationships? A qualitative study. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(5), 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.2019154

31.

Karakurt

Koç

Katta

Jones

Bolen

S. D.

(2022). Treatments for female victims of intimate partner violence: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 793021. https://doi.org/10.3389qfpsyq.2022.793021

32.

Horowitz

S. H.

Santiago

Pearson

LaRussa-Trott

(2009). Relational tools for working with mild-to-moderate couple violence: Patterns of unresolved conflict and pathways to resolution. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012992

33.

Hurless

Cottone

(2018). Considerations of conjoint couples therapy in cases of intimate violence. The Family Journal: Counselling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 26(3), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718795708

34.

Josselson

(2013). Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational inquiry. The Guilford Press.

35.

Kahn

S. V.

Epstein

N. B.

Kivlighan

D. M

Jr. (2015). Couple therapy for partner aggression Effects on individual and relational well-beings. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2014.966879

36.

Karakurt

Whiting

van Esch

Bolen

S. D.

Calabrese

J. R.

(2016). Couples therapy for intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 42(4), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12178

37.

Keilholtz

Spencer

C. M.

(2022). Couples therapy and intimate partner violence: Considerations, assessment, and treatments modalities. Practice Innovations, 7(2), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000176

38.

Kim

Gray

K. A.

(2008). Leave or stay? Battered women's decision after intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(10), 1465–1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314307

39.

Knobloch

L.K.

Theiss

J.A.

(2010). An actor-partner interdependence model of relational turbulence: Cognitions and emotions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(5), 595–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510368967

40.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

41.

Lechtenberg

Stith

Horst

Mendez

Minner

Dominguez

Hughes

McCollum

(2015). Gender differences in experiences with couples treatment for IPV. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1059-015-9328–8

42.

Lieblich

Tuval-Mashiach

Zilber

(1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. Sage.

43.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

44.

Loke

A. Y.

Wan

M. L. E.

Hayter

(2012). The lived experience of women victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(15–16), 2336–2346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04159.x

45.

Lombard

(2013). ‘What about the men?’ Understanding men’s experiences of domestic abuse within a gender-based model of violence. In Lombard

McMillan

(Eds.), Violence against women: Current theory and practice in domestic abuse, sexual violence and exploitation (pp. 177–193). Kingsley.

46.

Love

Henderson

Johnson

Stephens-Lewis

Gadd

Radcliffe

Gilchrist

(2021). The challenge of conducting qualitative research on “couples” in abusive intimate partner relationships involving substance use. Qualitative Health Research, 31(4), 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230975722

47.

Margolin

Burman

(1993). Wife abuse versus marital violence: Different terminologies, explanations, and solutions. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(1), 59–73.

48.

Machado

Farinha

(2023). Men’s perceptions of why they stay in intimate partner violent heterosexual relationships: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101876

49.

Maxwell

J.A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.

50.

Mendez

Horst

Stith

S. M.

McCollum

E. E.

(2014). Couples treatment for intimate partner violence: Clients’ reports of changes during therapy. Partner Abuse, 5(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946–6560.5.1.21

51.

Meyer

(2012). Why women stay: A theoretical examination of rational choice and moral reasoning in the context of intimate partner violence. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/000486581244367

52.

Mills

L. G.

(2008). Violent partners: A breakthrough plan for ending the cycle of abuse. Basic Books.

53.

Moulding

Franzway

Wendt

Zufferey

Chung

(2021). Rethinking women’s mental health after intimate partner violence. Violence against Women, 27(8), 1064–1090. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012209219

54.

Nicolaidis

Paranjape

(2009). Defining intimate partner violence: Controversies and implications. In Mitchell

Anglin

(Eds.), Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective (pp. 19–29). Oxford University Press.

55.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2008). Couple therapy and physical aggression. In Gurman

A. S.

(Ed.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 478–496). The Guilford Press.

56.

Patton

M.Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (third edition). Sage.

57.

Peled

Eisikovits

Enosh

Winstok

(2000). Choice and empowerment for battered women who stay: Toward a constructivist model. Social work, 45(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.1.9

58.

Peled

Leichtentritt

(2002). The ethics of qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 1(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001002617

59.

Rouleau

Barabe

Blow

(2019). Creating structure in a time of intense stress: Treating intimate partner violence. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 18(2),148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2018.1505573

60.

Roulston

(2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory & practice. London, UK: Sage.

61.

Smith

J.A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2010). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory method and research. Sage.

62.

Stith

S. M.

McCollum

E. E.

(2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In O'Leary

K. D.

Woodin

E. M.

(Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 233–250). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

63.

Stith

S. M.

McCollum

E. E.

(2011). Conjoint treatment of couples who have experienced who have experienced intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.012

64.

Takano

(2017). Co-constructing meaning: Women and men define taking responsibility and making amends. In Augusta-Scott

Scott

Tutty

L. M.

(Eds.), Innovations to Address intimate partner violence: Research and practice (pp. 93–107). Routledge.

65.

Vall

Paivinen

Holma

(2018). Results of the Jyvaskyla research project on couple therapy for intimate partner violence: Topics and strategies in successful processes. Journal of Family Therapy, 40(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–6427.12170

66.

Voith

L. A.

Logan–Greene

Strodthoff

Bender

A. E.

(2020). A paradigm shift in batterer intervention programming: A need to address unresolved trauma. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380187912

67.

Wong

J. S.

Bouchard

(2020). Reducing intimate partner violence: A pilot evaluation of an intervention program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(6), 354–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1767259