Preamble

Why is leaving not an option? Factors and mechanisms in the disengagement from intimate partner violence

CHEN Yalin¹,², GONG Zhe¹,³
(¹Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610068, China)
(²Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China)
(³Sichuan Key Laboratory of Psychology and Behavior of Discipline Inspection and Supervision, Chengdu 610068, China)

Abstract

To clarify the intricate pathways and internal mechanisms of exiting intimate partner violence (IPV), this study systematically examines the multi-level factors influencing IPV disengagement. By integrating the phase divisions of the transtheoretical model of change with the dynamic continuum framework of the psychosocial readiness model, we propose the Staged-Continuum Dynamic Interaction Model (SCDIM). The SCDIM synthesizes triggering mechanisms for phase transitions and the dynamic interplay between risk and protective factors during phase shifts, offering a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the complexity of IPV disengagement. This model addresses limitations of traditional models in explaining multi-factor interactions and nonlinear relationships between phases. Future research should validate the model's efficacy and applicability, while expanding its applications and empirical directions through interdisciplinary perspectives.

Keywords: Intimate Partner Violence, Intimate Relationships, Abusive Relationships, Domestic Violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to coercive violent behavior patterns within intimate relationships, encompassing physical, emotional, sexual, and psychological violence (Chan & Sachs, 2023; Storer et al., 2018; Young-Wolff & McCaw, 2019). As a major public health concern, IPV has garnered widespread scholarly attention due to its high prevalence and severe impacts on victims' physical and mental health, as well as adverse effects on child development (Tu & Zhang, 2024; Aguiar & Corrêa, 2022; Chan & Sachs, 2023; Moffitt, 2013; Smith et al., 2017; Stöckl & Sorenson, 2024; Storer et al., 2018). Research consistently demonstrates that IPV victims frequently experience disengagement barriers that trap them in abusive relationships, leading to escalating multidimensional costs for victims, families, and society (Barrios et al., 2021; Bridges et al., 2018; Cervantes & Sherman, 2021; O’Neal & Beckman, 2016; Storer et al., 2018). Consequently, elucidating the complex pathways and internal mechanisms of IPV disengagement holds significant theoretical and practical importance.

Researchers began examining IPV disengagement factors as early as the 1970s, identifying key variables such as abuse experiences, learned helplessness, fear of disengagement consequences, and sociocultural factors (Barnett & LaViolette, 1993; Dobash & Dobash, 1988; Schutte et al., 1988; Walker, 1977). However, this early research largely adopted fragmented approaches to IPV disengagement events, lacking systematic theoretical frameworks and focusing primarily on static attribution of risk factors. In 2003, Anderson and Saunders first conceptualized IPV disengagement as a dynamic process, distilling important predictors including violence characteristics, external resources, and psychosocial factors (Anderson & Saunders, 2003). Subsequently, researchers increasingly recognized the temporal continuity and path diversity of IPV disengagement processes (Enander & Holmberg, 2008; Khaw & Hardesty, 2007). Nevertheless, existing studies remain constrained by single-dimensional analyses at individual, relational, or societal levels, neglecting the nonlinear coupling effects of these factors (Barrios et al., 2021; Bates, 2020; Catallo et al., 2012; Cervantes & Sherman, 2021; Costanza Baldry & Cinquegrana, 2020; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013; Rai & Choi, 2018; Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013; Storer et al., 2018).

Furthermore, while researchers have employed mainstream models such as the transtheoretical model of change (TTM) and the psychosocial readiness model (PRM) to advance mechanistic explanations of IPV disengagement from stage-based or continuum perspectives, neither integrates the dynamic interplay of risk/protective factors, and single-perspective theoretical frameworks cannot accurately describe the complex pathways and mechanisms of IPV disengagement (Atiyat & Al Momani, 2022; Catallo et al., 2012; Cluss et al., 2006; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984; Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013; Storer et al., 2018). In reality, IPV disengagement constitutes a complex process characterized by both stage transitions and continuous evolution, with pathway formation mechanisms dynamically influenced by internal and external risk/protective factors. However, existing single-theory frameworks fail to construct interaction patterns among multi-level influencing factors or adequately address the unique roles of key factors at each stage, resulting in insufficient explanatory power for disengagement pathways and limited ability to reveal the complex trajectories and formation mechanisms IPV victims may experience. This underscores the urgent need to develop integrated theoretical models.

Accordingly, this paper first systematically reviews internal and external risk/protective factors influencing IPV disengagement and summarizes the explanatory limitations of traditional theoretical frameworks. Building upon this foundation, we innovatively integrate TTM's stage-transition mechanisms with PRM's dynamic equilibrium framework to propose the Staged-Continuum Dynamic Interaction Model (SCDIM) for IPV disengagement. This model elucidates the movement process of IPV disengagement, cross-stage pathways, interactions among pervasive influencing factors, and the mechanisms through which core factors operate at each stage. Finally, we discuss future directions for model validation and application prospects.

2 Main Influencing Factors of IPV Disengagement

The Sanctions and Sanctuary Framework posits that different cultures exhibit varying tolerance for IPV and support for victims (Counts et al., 1999; Koenig et al., 2006). Drawing from this perspective, we categorize IPV disengagement factors into risk and protective types based on valence. Risk factors contribute to stagnation, regression, and other adverse states in IPV disengagement, whereas protective factors facilitate victims' cognitive, emotional, and behavioral preparation for disengagement. Additionally, according to the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; McLeroy et al., 1988), individual development and behavior are influenced by multi-level environmental factors. This model provides a useful framework for explaining risk and protective factors for IPV disengagement at macro-systemic (societal), exo-systemic (community), micro-systemic (relational), and individual (victim) levels (Pinnewala, 2009; Sabri, 2014). Based on these perspectives, we identify and organize IPV disengagement factors into individual-level (victim) and environmental-level (including interpersonal relationships beyond the individual, organizational policies, sociocultural systems, and broader macro-level systems) risk and protective factors. The following sections outline the main influencing factors of IPV disengagement according to this classification.

2.1.1 Individual-Level Risk Factors

Special developmental stages. Research indicates that adolescents and older adults constitute primary at-risk groups for IPV entrapment (Band-Winterstein, 2015; Cheung et al., 2015; Feyissa et al., 2024; Pugh et al., 2018; Rizzo et al., 2020; Roberto & McCann, 2018). Adolescents may struggle to accurately identify psychological coercion in intimate relationships due to incomplete psychological development and limited knowledge or experience in handling unhealthy relationships, leading to entrapment in abusive relationships (Cervantes & Sherman, 2021; Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2022). For older adults, dual declines in physical health and social functioning impede IPV disengagement. For instance, chronic illnesses and excessive economic and emotional embeddedness within the family hinder older adults' willingness and ability to disengage from IPV (Roberto & McCann, 2018). Moreover, life course theory emphasizes that individual experiences and choices are jointly shaped by historical context, social structure, and personal agency. For example, older cohorts have generally been socialized to support male dominance, hold stronger traditional marital values prioritizing family integrity, and face constraints on personal agency due to longer-lasting intimate relationships and stronger emotional bonds, thereby encountering barriers to IPV disengagement (Hightower et al., 2013; Hing et al., 2021; Hutchison, 2010; Roberto & McCann, 2021). Evidently, the unique characteristics of these developmental stages create deficits in cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and social functioning, rendering adolescents and older adults particularly vulnerable to IPV entrapment.

Personal abuse history. Experiencing or witnessing abuse from childhood through adulthood increases vulnerability to IPV disengagement difficulties. According to the intergenerational transmission of violence theory (Kalmuss, 1984), childhood exposure to violence reduces individuals' ability to recognize abuse and increases abuse tolerance, normalizing violent behavior and perpetuating unhealthy relationships (Cervantes & Sherman, 2021; Childress et al., 2021). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to abusive relationships in adulthood further erodes self-esteem and sense of worth, diminishing victims' help-seeking capacity (Bates, 2020; Cohen et al., 2024; Storer et al., 2018).

IPV cognitive distortion. Extensive research demonstrates that individuals in violent intimate relationships frequently develop cognitive distortions regarding IPV, manifesting as lack of awareness or willingness to recognize IPV harm, inability or difficulty determining whether they are in an IPV relationship, and consequent failure to seek help or information. For example, individuals may believe they are not "typical" IPV victims due to "no physical abuse" or "low abuse frequency," or may harbor hope for partner reform and relationship improvement, potentially entering a state of "unrecognized victimization" and blindly remaining in abusive relationships (Azeez et al., 2024; Bates, 2020; Caridade et al., 2020; Storer et al., 2018). Such cognitive distortions not only prevent awareness of one's situation but also lead to lack of knowledge about and trust in help-seeking pathways, further resulting in IPV disengagement failure (Afrouz et al., 2020; Badenes-Sastre et al., 2023; Monterrosa, 2019; Shah et al., 2024).

More critically, lacking accurate IPV cognition and recognition may lead to misattribution of IPV experiences. For instance, victims may believe they caused the abuse and deserve punishment. According to the learned helplessness model (Walker, 1977), this belief in one's inability or unworthiness to terminate abuse further damages IPV victims' self-perceived capacity, such as inability to obtain support or recognition, or absence of reasons to leave (Estrellado & Loh, 2016). The resulting learned helplessness ultimately causes individuals to lose belief in their ability to disengage from IPV (Launius & Lindquist, 1988; Lipsky et al., 2006).

Excessive dependence on partner and family. Excessive partner dependence increases willingness to maintain abusive relationships, encompassing emotional, security, and sexual dependence (Taherkhani et al., 2019), manifested as relationship attachment in daily life and high expectations for relationship improvement (Cervantes & Sherman, 2021; Lahav, 2023; Taherkhani et al., 2019). High levels of partner dependence may restrict women's independence in sexual, economic, and safety domains, causing them to remain in abusive states long-term (Badenes-Sastre et al., 2024; Bates, 2020; Estrellado & Loh, 2016; Heron et al., 2022; Sandhu & Barrett, 2020; Tello & Suárez, 2020). Individuals with excessive family dependence may maintain a sense of responsibility for family care and reputation preservation within IPV relationships, which may further increase the psychological cost of IPV disengagement while worsening the existing unhealthy relationship (Badenes-Sastre et al., 2024; Bruton & Tyson, 2017; Childress et al., 2021; Estrellado & Loh, 2016; McKinley & Liddell, 2022). Additionally, researchers suggest that excessive dependence on partners and families promotes tendencies toward rationalizing cognitive reappraisal of abusive relationships, leading victims to believe that ending the relationship may signify failure to fulfill certain "obligations" as a partner or family member (Bridges et al., 2018; Caridade et al., 2020).

Fear of IPV disengagement consequences. Both genders may fear potential consequences of IPV disengagement and consequently remain in unhealthy relationships (Azeez et al., 2024; Bruton & Tyson, 2017; Childress et al., 2021). Women are more likely to remain due to fear of being unable to ensure their own and their family's safety or losing livelihood resources (B. Sabri et al., 2018). This process may be accompanied by divorcee identity panic, wherein women experience heightened shame regarding divorcee status, making them more susceptible to "entrapment due to fear" (Taherkhani et al., 2019). Men, conversely, more frequently cite threats of malicious accusations by partners or fear of losing custody rights as barriers to leaving (Bates, 2020; Taherkhani et al., 2019). This indicates gender differences in the focus and manifestation of fear, with women's fears centering on life and property safety while men's concerns primarily involve social relationship dimensions.

2.1.2 Environmental-Level Risk Factors

Cultural stigma. Cultural stigma refers to shame and disgrace associated with specific social groups or behaviors (e.g., divorce), encompassing IPV-specific stigma, shame regarding marital failure, traditional family values, and gender role norms as broader sociocultural factors (Rai & Choi, 2018). These factors may collectively form pervasive belief and value systems that constrain individuals and worsen IPV entrapment. According to the IPV stigmatization model, IPV cultural stigma easily leads individuals to internalize stigmatizing beliefs and develop expectations of post-disengagement stigmatization (e.g., fearing family criticism and lack of support for leaving a partner, dreading external blame and ridicule for abuse experiences), which hinders clear cognition of abusive behavior (i.e., "I am not the one at fault," "leaving is the only way to escape victim status") and ultimately inhibits IPV disengagement (Overstreet & Quinn, 2013). Additionally, shame regarding non-virgin status/marital failure may exist as a cultural stigma phenomenon, causing individuals to learn and internalize corresponding social expectations that impede IPV disengagement (Childress et al., 2021; Monterrosa, 2019; Storer et al., 2018). The negative effects of cultural stigma may also manifest through religious beliefs or traditional family values. For example, Catholic values emphasizing family integrity may create an orientation where "leaving the family is wrong." Similarly, traditional family gender role norms may require women to endure partner violence by enacting stereotypical behaviors (e.g., women expected to be submissive and sacrificial in marriage) while compelling men to deny abusive relationships to maintain masculinity (Afrouz et al., 2020; Bates, 2020; Childress et al., 2021; Estrellado & Loh, 2016; Rai & Choi, 2018; B. Sabri et al., 2018).

Social support deficits. Social support is defined as resources, coping strategies, or resource exchanges provided by others, primarily including instrumental (e.g., problem-solving assistance), tangible (e.g., material donations), informational (e.g., advice), and emotional (e.g., comfort) support (Schwarzer et al., 2004). Research demonstrates that lacking support from intimate groups within core social networks hinders victims' IPV disengagement. Specifically, both geographical distance (O’Neal & Beckman, 2016; B. Sabri et al., 2018; Sandhu & Barrett, 2020) and emotional estrangement may reduce individuals' willingness to disengage from IPV (Afrouz et al., 2020; Childress et al., 2021; Sandhu & Barrett, 2020). Additionally, non-intimate members outside core social relationships may deny victims' abuse experiences or refuse to provide help. For instance, church encouragement to forgive partners and social network pressure may lead individuals to develop beliefs that "leaving is betrayal" and "abuse is forgivable," causing IPV disengagement stagnation (Bates, 2020; Ferrer-Perez et al., 2020; Francis et al., 2017; Gracia et al., 2020; Storer et al., 2018). These findings indicate that low social support availability constitutes a significant barrier to IPV disengagement (Caridade et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2024).

Structural resource barriers. Structural resource barriers constrain individuals' ability to independently obtain basic livelihood security, primarily including lack of economic resources and legal protection. Research shows that economic constraints, housing shortages, and inaction by assistance agencies or unsupportive legal systems directly or indirectly create IPV disengagement difficulties (Afrouz et al., 2020; Estrellado & Loh, 2016; Murvartian et al., 2024; O’Neal & Beckman, 2016; Spencer et al., 2020; Taherkhani et al., 2019). For example, immigrants in certain regions often lack necessary language skills and social security in their location, making them more likely to fear deportation risks after IPV disengagement due to anti-immigration laws (Voolma, 2018). Simultaneously, immigrants' language barriers restrict help-seeking behaviors (O’Neal & Beckman, 2016), which may further reduce individuals' basic survival capabilities and create a vicious cycle.

2.2.1 Individual-Level Protective Factors

IPV cognitive clarity. IPV cognitive clarity encompasses accurate identification of abusive behavior, clear awareness of one's rights, and effective resource utilization capabilities. According to Empowerment Theory, clear cognition enables victims to more accurately assess their situation and promote recognition of abuse patterns and consequences. This cognitive clarity facilitates wiser decision-making and more effective action to disengage from abusive relationships (Sani & Pereira, 2020). The process of cognition and recognition acquires differentiated characteristics as IPV intensifies, with individuals potentially evolving from "recognizing the problem exists" to "recognizing the problem will persist," thereby facilitating subsequent IPV disengagement behaviors. For example, individuals may initially develop vague awareness of being in an abusive relationship due to external factors such as sudden events (e.g., severe abuse) or others' advice, and as abuse severity increases, they develop clearer cognition regarding the repetitive and persistent nature of partner abuse, eventually losing hope in the current intimate relationship and making the decision to leave. Research has found that meaning-making regarding the persistence of partner abuse—recognizing the continuity of abusive facts—constitutes a key factor promoting IPV disengagement (Sani & Pereira, 2020).

Positive psychological capital. Based on the resilience portfolio model (Grych et al., 2015), high-level comprehensive abilities (e.g., self-regulation, self-efficacy) better equip individuals to cope with negative events and achieve IPV disengagement. Extensive research indicates that individuals who can fully utilize interpersonal resources and internal strengths—such as meaning-making (the ability to find meaning in adversity) and self-regulation (the ability to maintain motivation and overcome obstacles when striving toward goals)—are more likely to achieve IPV disengagement (Fredrickson, 2004; Grych et al., 2015; Masten et al., 2004; Moffitt et al., 2011). Additionally, higher self-efficacy enhances individuals' sense of control when facing stressful events, enabling them to adopt more adaptive coping strategies to complete IPV disengagement (Masten et al., 2004). Moreover, increased self-efficacy facilitates advantageous assessment of leaving consequences, as high self-efficacy individuals are more likely to believe their economic conditions and basic safety will be adequately secured after leaving their partner, concluding that the benefits of leaving the unhealthy relationship outweigh the costs and ultimately making rational disengagement decisions. Furthermore, enhanced self-efficacy helps individuals break free from dependence on partners and family relationships, thereby promoting IPV disengagement (Estrellado & Loh, 2016).

Maternal identity. Although research suggests women may remain in abusive relationships to provide complete families for their children (Bruton & Tyson, 2017; Storer et al., 2018; Taherkhani et al., 2019), when partner violence endangers children's safety, maternal identity may promote IPV disengagement behaviors. For example, some women choose to disengage from abusive relationships to protect their children from domestic violence (Heron et al., 2022; Tello & Suárez, 2020). Moreover, Sani and Pereira (2020) conducted a qualitative study of 15 mothers who actively disengaged from IPV, finding that children's demands for their mother to leave the abusive relationship actively facilitated women's IPV disengagement process. In summary, while maternal identity may contribute to IPV entrapment to some degree, individuals may simultaneously decide to leave abusive relationships based on considerations of protecting children's best interests and safety (Ahmad-Stout et al., 2021; Sani & Carvalho, 2018; Sani & Pereira, 2020; Shah et al., 2024; Tello & Suárez, 2020), demonstrating the double-edged sword effect of maternal identity on IPV entrapment.

Specific attachment styles/emotional states. Certain attachment styles and emotional states may actively promote IPV disengagement. For example, research examining attachment style effects on IPV disengagement found that secure and dismissing attachment patterns serve as positive factors. This may occur because securely attached individuals possess high self-esteem and self-worth, making them less likely to remain in abusive relationships, while dismissing individuals invest less in intimate relationships, facilitating easier disengagement (Henderson et al., 1997). Conversely, preoccupied and fearful attachment patterns increase likelihood of IPV entrapment (Shurman & Rodriguez, 2006). Regarding emotional states, research indicates that lower levels of depression and hopelessness, along with increased anger, promote readiness to disengage from abusive relationships, as these emotional changes may signal victims' emotional termination of the relationship and anticipation of life free from abuse (Shurman & Rodriguez, 2006).

2.2.2 Environmental-Level Protective Factors

Adequate social support. Research demonstrates that obtaining family support or external recognition constitutes an important protective factor promoting disengagement from abusive relationships (Heron et al., 2022; Howell et al., 2018; Shah et al., 2024; Tello & Suárez, 2020; Zukauskiene et al., 2021). For example, support from family members helps victims overcome adverse effects of abuse experiences and enhances their self-regulation and adversity-overcoming capabilities (Sani & Pereira, 2020). Additionally, under certain circumstances, non-core interpersonal networks such as friends, community members, and extended family can serve as important protective resources for IPV disengagement (Grych et al., 2015; Sabri et al., 2018). Moreover, for women with children, children's understanding and support for their disengagement intentions also promote IPV disengagement (Sani & Pereira, 2020; Tello & Suárez, 2020).

Sufficient structural resources. Access to economic resources and legal protection constitutes key distal protective factors for IPV disengagement. Research indicates that individuals' and families' socioeconomic status positively correlates with mental health levels (Wickrama & Noh, 2009), suggesting that high-resource individuals possess greater material and psychological conditions for IPV disengagement. Meanwhile, support and assistance from professional protection agencies, shelters, police, and legal systems also serve as positive facilitators of disengagement from abusive relationships (Sabri et al., 2018). For example, the enactment and implementation of anti-IPV laws can help victims obtain corresponding assistance in judicial practice. Additionally, overcoming language barriers and better cultural adaptation facilitate IPV disengagement among immigrant populations (Sabri et al., 2018).

3 Classical Theoretical Frameworks of IPV Disengagement

IPV disengagement involves numerous influencing factors and complex internal mechanisms. Currently, the transtheoretical model of change (TTM; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984) and the psychosocial readiness model (PRM; Cluss et al., 2006) provide theoretical explanations for this process from individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural perspectives. TTM focuses on stage-based divisions of IPV disengagement, while PRM describes the IPV disengagement process and interactions between internal and external influencing factors from a continuous perspective.

3.1 Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM)

TTM is one of the most influential theories in health behavior change, typically used to describe different stages individuals experience when changing behaviors. Based on empirical data from long-term behavior tracking (e.g., smoking, weight loss) and relapse risk probability statistics, the model proposes that when attempting to change unhealthy or problematic behaviors, individuals progress through five stages: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997). The Precontemplation stage involves denial of problem behavior existence, with individuals not considering (within the next 6 months) taking measures to change their problematic behavior. In the Contemplation stage, individuals begin weighing pros and cons of behavior change and make decisions about whether to change (within the next 6 months). During Preparation, individuals initially overcome problematic behavior by changing habits, living environments, and cognitive beliefs (within the next 1 month). The Action stage involves implementing behavior change and shaping healthy behaviors through enhanced personal capabilities and external support acquisition (within the past 6 months). The Maintenance stage includes consolidating newly learned healthy behaviors (for over 6 months) and actively taking measures to prevent problematic behavior recurrence when encountering interference or obstacles (Larkin, 2008; Lenio, 2006; Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013). This five-stage process is typically cyclical, with individuals potentially experiencing multiple cycles of progression and regression before achieving successful change (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).

Currently, TTM is widely applied as a diagnostic framework in IPV research, helping researchers parse victims' unique psychological and behavioral trajectories during IPV disengagement and identify critical "turning points" marking stage transitions. For example, Lenio (2006) found that individuals in the Precontemplation stage generally "deny abuse existence" and "take no action," with the core issue (i.e., "turning point") for transitioning to Contemplation being "recognizing and acknowledging the abuse problem." Subsequent research further conceptualized IPV disengagement as a linear stage sequence based on the TTM framework and extracted stage-specific indicators (e.g., "plan formulation" in Preparation, "concrete action" in Action). However, Khaw and Hardesty (2007) discovered through qualitative interviews that IPV disengagement pathways may exhibit nonlinear characteristics: some victims "leap" directly from Contemplation to Action due to sudden violent incidents. Thus, while TTM provides a foundational stage framework for IPV disengagement research, its linear nature may not align with the real-world complexity of IPV disengagement processes.

In summary, current research based on TTM conceptualizes IPV disengagement as a cross-stage linear movement process, which helps reveal continuous transition mechanisms between stages and explore unique psychological and behavioral indicators at each stage. However, TTM ultimately represents a general behavior change framework that cannot precisely characterize key factors specific to each IPV disengagement stage, explain triggering mechanisms for discontinuous transitions, or address dynamic effects of cross-stage influencing factors (e.g., sudden changes in social support, crisis events). Additionally, TTM itself does not incorporate cross-stage influencing factors and their operational processes, which limits clarification of IPV disengagement mechanisms.

3.2 Psychosocial Readiness Model (PRM)

Cluss et al. (2006) proposed the psychosocial readiness model (PRM), positing that IPV victims' behavioral intentions exist in a constantly changing process wherein victims are influenced by dynamic balances between internal and external factors, moving toward either maintaining the status quo or changing behavior. The model focuses on three factors emerging from interview studies: awareness that partner behavior constitutes abuse, perceived support, and self-efficacy for overcoming difficulties. The three factors and their interrelationships can explain individuals' different positions in this process across time periods. PRM suggests that individuals' readiness for change is influenced by the balance of internal factors, with the direction of internal factor balance determining change likelihood. For example, when only one of three internal factors is strong (positive valence, moving toward change) while others are relatively weak (negative valence, moving toward status quo), behavioral change readiness decreases (overall negative valence). Specifically, even when individuals recognize partner abuse, if they do not perceive support from trusted others such as parents and friends and have low self-efficacy for achieving change, victims' behavioral states will continue trending toward maintaining the status quo. Conversely, when all internal factors are strong (overall positive valence, moving toward change), behavioral change readiness increases, ultimately facilitating IPV disengagement. Additionally, the model describes how external positive factors (e.g., friends, professional agency assistance, external attitudes) and negative factors (e.g., unemployment, lack of housing, economic factors) promote or hinder the change process.

In summary, the psychosocial readiness model (PRM) simultaneously considers dynamic balances between internal and external factors, addressing not only individuals' internal psychological states but also external environmental and social influences, thereby providing a more comprehensive framework for understanding IPV victims' behavior change processes. Moreover, PRM conceptualizes behavior change as a continuous rather than discrete process, which better aligns with IPV victims' complex real-life experiences. Behavior change is often not linear but influenced by multiple factors with nonlinear and non-sequential characteristics. Currently, this model has received empirical support in several studies (Chang et al., 2010; Tarzia et al., 2016). For example, Tarzia et al. (2016) emphasized PRM's importance in understanding and supporting victims' behavior change processes and developed an online intervention tool (I-DECIDE) for IPV victims based on this model, aiming to help victims conduct self-assessment and self-decision-making to enhance their safety and well-being.

3.3 Summary

Evidently, TTM and PRM each have distinct emphases and exhibit theoretical complementarity in explaining IPV disengagement processes. Specifically, TTM's stage-based model deconstructs behavior change processes through temporal sequences, with its core advantage being the provision of a diagnostic framework for stage-specific characteristics of IPV disengagement (e.g., psychological representation differences between Precontemplation and Contemplation). PRM, as a continuous model, reveals nonlinear developmental features of behavior change under internal-external factor interactions through a dynamic balance perspective. However, both models have limitations: First, regarding stage movement mechanisms, while TTM establishes a standardized stage classification system, its linear progression assumption struggles to explain the complexity of individual behavior change processes found in empirical research. For example, studies reveal that nearly 37% of victims exhibit nonlinear characteristics with multiple coexisting stages (Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013). Although PRM has received empirical support and is suitable for explaining reciprocal movements between stages, its descriptions of specific processing details during change are relatively general, making it difficult to identify concrete action processes of IPV disengagement or locate specific intervention targets. Second, regarding influencing factor pathways, while TTM can identify stage-specific factors (e.g., cognitive distortion in Precontemplation), it fails to elucidate synergistic effects of factors across stages. PRM, while explaining rapid changes in behavior readiness through dynamic balance mechanisms of internal/external protective/risk factors, cannot demonstrate the specific efficacy of each factor at different stages.

In reality, IPV disengagement is a complex process possessing both procedural stage characteristics and continuity in psychological and behavioral changes. Clear description of this process requires a comprehensive model that incorporates both stage characteristics and continuous movement between stages. As previously discussed, TTM's diagnostic function helps clarify victims' disengagement processes and identify their specific stages, while PRM's continuum concept helps explain dynamic fluctuations within and between stages (e.g., stage transitions and leap phenomena). Meanwhile, TTM's exploration of stage-specific influencing factors helps clarify movement mechanisms for stage transitions, while PRM's examination of pervasive influencing factors in IPV disengagement helps elucidate stage-sensitive patterns of intensity and operation for general influencing factors throughout the overall movement process. Furthermore, TTM conceptualizes IPV disengagement as a linear progressive stage process, while PRM portrays the complexity of psychological and behavioral changes during IPV disengagement from a continuous perspective. Thus, TTM and PRM are both indispensable for describing stage anchoring and continuous change, specific and general influencing factor mechanisms, and progressive versus cyclical disengagement movement pathways in IPV disengagement processes. Based on this, our study combines TTM's stage characteristics with PRM's continuity to propose the Staged-Continuum Dynamic Interaction Model (SCDIM) for IPV disengagement, enabling the model to possess both TTM's stage structural validity and PRM's dynamic explanatory power.

4 The Staged-Continuum Dynamic Interaction Model (SCDIM) of IPV Disengagement

4.1 Theoretical Proposal and Core Propositions

Building upon PRM's change continuity foundation, this paper elaborates on internal and external risk/protective factors affecting the disengagement process and integrates TTM's five-stage division of IPV disengagement (Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance) along with core issues requiring resolution for cross-stage movement (i.e., awareness of problem, weighing pros and cons, building confidence, improving situation, and adapting to change), thereby explaining mechanisms underlying stage transition movements. Therefore, while preserving the fundamental perspectives and theoretical advantages of both TTM and PRM, this study proposes the Staged-Continuum Dynamic Interaction Model (SCDIM) of IPV disengagement (Figure 1 [FIGURE:1]). Its core propositions are as follows:

1. Integration of stage characteristics and continuity. This model posits that IPV disengagement is a complex process possessing both disengagement process stage characteristics and continuity in psychological and behavioral changes under multiple internal and external influences. During this process, victims exhibit specific psychological and behavioral characteristics at different stages, with stages not being completely independent but rather mutually influencing and dynamically interconnected, manifesting as boundary ambiguity between stages (e.g., Contemplation may embed Precontemplation features) and prevalence of transitional states (e.g., "turning zone" shaded areas).

2. Real-time interaction of internal and external factors. This model simultaneously emphasizes the real-time dynamic interplay between internal psychological factors (e.g., IPV awareness, self-efficacy) and external environmental factors (e.g., social support, resource acquisition) during IPV disengagement. This interaction not only affects behavioral choices within stages but also directly triggers cross-stage progression or regression through the waxing and waning of "risk-protective" factor intensities.

3. Dynamic mechanism of movement pathways. This model defines dynamism as the spatiotemporal evolution characteristics of disengagement pathways, with its essence being that disengagement pathways are not predetermined fixed trajectories but emergent results of real-time internal-external factor interactions. The model focuses on victims as adaptive agents in continuous interaction with their environment and clearly demonstrates the morphological diversity (e.g., linear progression, nonlinear transitions, multi-stage cycles), directional variability (e.g., victims may produce differentiated pathways such as forward movement or regression due to internal-external factor changes), and trigger sensitivity (e.g., sudden events may induce "stagnation→leap" pathways) of IPV disengagement's complex pathways.

4.2 Mechanisms of SCDIM

As shown in Figure 1, SCDIM is a bidirectional arrow model divided into five stages. The rightward arrow contains internal and external protective factors promoting IPV disengagement, such as awareness of abusive relationships and external support and recognition. This arrow represents the forward disengagement process, with protective factors helping victims achieve cross-stage progression. The leftward opposing arrow contains internal and external risk factors inhibiting IPV disengagement, including low IPV cognition and deficient social support networks, which hinder disengagement. These influencing factors universally exist across all stages, with opposing effects of different risk and protective factors affecting cross-stage movement processes. Meanwhile, under the influence of key factors at each stage, individuals achieve forward or backward cross-stage continuous movement in the model's central portion. Additionally, nine unidirectional arrows in the model describe possible cross-stage pathways during IPV disengagement (i.e., paths ①~⑨), representing victims' potential cross-stage progression, regression, and multi-stage leaps. Finally, four "turning zones" (i.e., shaded areas Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ) represent transitional states that may exist between adjacent stages during transitions. In summary, SCDIM presents the developmental stages of IPV disengagement and their influencing factors, summarizing key factors for achieving stage transitions, regression, or stagnation, and specifying concrete transition pathways. The following sections introduce the linear/nonlinear pathways and their mechanisms that IPV victims may experience in SCDIM.

4.2.1 Linear Pathways and Mechanisms

First, individuals in the Precontemplation stage typically lack awareness of being in abusive relationships and have no intention to change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984). Therefore, the core issue facing individuals at this stage is whether they can acknowledge abuse in their relationship, i.e., "awareness of problem." Individuals may rationalize abusive behavior, so movement to the next stage requires an identifiable precipitating event to prompt acknowledgment of partner abuse (Burke et al., 2001). Consequently, in Precontemplation, high IPV cognition level—awareness of being in an abusive relationship—constitutes the key protective factor for stage transition. Precipitating events promoting IPV cognition typically include sudden incidents (e.g., severe abuse), seeking others' opinions, and increased anger. On this basis, once individuals possess high IPV cognition, they may achieve the transition from Precontemplation to Contemplation (path ①). Conversely, low IPV cognition and partner dependence constitute risk factors that cause individuals to stagnate in Precontemplation.

In contrast to Precontemplation, individuals entering Contemplation have recognized problems in their relationship and begun considering change but have not yet made change decisions (Shurman & Rodriguez, 2006). The core issue in Contemplation involves evaluating relationship termination consequences and weighing pros and cons of leaving the partner based on factors such as economic security and personal safety; thus, the core issue is "weighing pros and cons." Accordingly, in Contemplation, abuse escalation, endangerment of self and children's safety, and greater benefits for children from leaving actively promote IPV disengagement. Meanwhile, risk factors such as childhood abuse history, high responsibility for marriage and family, and sociocultural stigma phenomena hinder leaving. Through decisional balance of risk and protective factors, when individuals evaluate leaving outcomes as "benefits outweigh costs," they are prompted to achieve transition to Preparation (path ②); otherwise, they continue stagnating in Contemplation.

The next stage is Preparation, wherein individuals plan to take leaving action in the near future (Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Velicer et al., 1998). The core issue in Preparation is whether individuals possess confidence to successfully disengage from abusive relationships, i.e., the core issue is "building confidence." Therefore, individuals at this stage must actively prepare for IPV disengagement to build confidence, which may include acquiring social resources and incorporating family, friends, and others as external support in change plans. If individuals perceive action as beneficial and capable of producing good outcomes, can obtain others' recognition and support, and possess high personal and family socioeconomic status, these factors promote IPV disengagement. Additionally, according to the theory of planned behavior (TPB), perceived behavior control independently predicts behavior (Ajzen, 1985). For example, when individuals in Preparation obtain adequate social resources, their perception that disengagement can succeed increases, i.e., high self-efficacy prompts individuals to actively take disengagement action. Therefore, researchers consider high self-efficacy a key protective factor for crossing the Preparation stage (Kraft et al., 1999). When victims obtain sufficient social resources and external support, formulate feasible plans, and possess self-efficacy for plan implementation, individuals more easily enter the Action stage (path ③). Conversely, risk factors such as fear of leaving consequences (e.g., losing child custody, inability to support self and children), inability to obtain support and police/legal protection, and fear of stigmatization hinder IPV disengagement. When individuals cannot overcome the key risk factor of fearing leaving consequences, they may regress to Contemplation (path ⑥).

In the Action stage, individuals have formulated plans and are taking IPV disengagement action. They typically work over extended periods to enhance their capabilities and seek support to change their current situation (Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Velicer et al., 1998). Unlike Preparation, individuals in Action have made substantive efforts toward change, i.e., implementing change plans formulated in Preparation and working to transform problematic behaviors into acceptable states. For example, victims take concrete actions such as calling police or seeking help from family and friends (Shurman & Rodriguez, 2006). Therefore, the core issue in Action is whether victims can significantly improve their abused situation through enhanced personal capabilities and external support acquisition, i.e., "improving situation." At this point, actually possessing adequate and stable resources, continuously obtaining external support, and increasing self-efficacy constitute protective factors promoting IPV disengagement. Lenio (2006) argued that when individuals see beneficial action outcomes, maintain positive emotional states, and receive positive social feedback, they enter the Maintenance stage. That is, obtaining social recognition as a key protective factor promotes transition from Action to Maintenance (path ④). Additionally, as risk factors in Action, structural barriers (e.g., lack of economic resources, inadequate laws), learned helplessness, inability to obtain family support, and cultural stigma negatively impact IPV disengagement. Due to dependence on partners and families, the sense of responsibility for maintaining family integrity becomes a key risk factor at this stage, i.e., individuals unable to relinquish this responsibility during action may regress from Action to Preparation (path ⑦).

In Maintenance, individuals work to prevent returning to abusive relationships and gain greater confidence in maintaining their current state (successful IPV disengagement) (Lenio, 2006; Velicer et al., 1998). Individuals at this stage have entered a safe state of having disengaged from abusive relationships, so the core issue is whether they have achieved independence from former partners and adapted to new lifestyles, i.e., "adapting to change." Research indicates that Maintenance represents a continuation of Action, requiring individuals to have the capacity to adopt and maintain behavior change over longer periods (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997; Velicer et al., 1998). At this point, protective factors such as having trustworthy relationships, obtaining external support, and adapting to new (abuse-free) lifestyles promote continuation of maintenance actions. Conversely, risk factors such as lacking external support, pessimism, and anxiety about future life may lead to maintenance failure, wherein individuals' established sense of security is again threatened, forcing them to regress to the Action stage where they must re-evaluate and take measures to protect themselves (path ⑧).

4.2.2 Nonlinear Pathways and Mechanisms

In addition to the aforementioned continuous transitional movements, some individuals may experience "leapfrogging" between stages during IPV disengagement. Reisenhofer and Taft (2013) noted that leaps between stages are often passive and spontaneous. For example, when major abuse incidents suddenly occur or individuals realize partner abuse will not change, they may achieve transitions from Precontemplation/Contemplation (Zone Ⅰ) to Action (path ⑤). Factors promoting leaps from Precontemplation to Action may derive from sudden severe violent events in life (e.g., violence against children, life-threatening violence). Additionally, when victims in Contemplation recognize the persistence of partner abuse, they may achieve leaps from Contemplation to Action (Khaw & Hardesty, 2007). Meanwhile, when IPV disengagement actions yield negative outcomes, such as individuals believing their IPV situation cannot change after failed action attempts, reverse transitions from Action/Preparation (Zone Ⅲ) to Precontemplation/Contemplation (Zone Ⅰ) occur (path ⑨) (Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013). For example, victims may experience decreased self-efficacy after failed disengagement attempts, leading them to believe they cannot leave their partner and regress from Action to Contemplation; individuals with severely inadequate self-efficacy may even develop self-doubt and regress to Precontemplation where they deny their IPV situation. Simultaneously, individuals in Preparation may regress to Precontemplation if they cannot successfully obtain resources or information supporting IPV disengagement (e.g., family opposition to disengagement or encouragement to forgive abuse).

Notably, due to the complexity of behavior change itself, individuals may simultaneously occupy multiple stages during IPV disengagement. This model explains this phenomenon through two forms. The first manifests as "turning zones" between adjacent stages closely related to the disengagement process (shaded areas Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ). Due to boundary ambiguity between stages, victims exhibit transitional states simultaneously belonging to two adjacent stages during cross-stage transitions, displaying characteristics inherent to both stages. For example, individuals in Contemplation may begin trying small behavioral adjustments, such as investigating whether relevant legal policies can facilitate their disengagement ("weighing pros and cons"), but these behaviors actually resemble Preparation's "actively acquiring external resources." The second form manifests as victims' leaps across multiple stages (e.g., paths ⑤ and ⑨). Specifically, due to IPV disengagement process complexity, individuals simultaneously occupy multiple different stages during forward or backward leaps, with the process both forming the leap's final outcome and possessing characteristics of multiple stages throughout the leap. For example, Khaw and Hardesty (2007) found through interviews that mothers might "leap" from the Action stage of deciding to divorce back to Precontemplation/Contemplation (path ⑨) due to considerations of children's well-being. At this point, the woman is already in the Action stage of improving her personal situation while simultaneously being in the Precontemplation/Contemplation stage of considering her children's welfare. Additionally, based on existing research findings, this model only details the leap states that may exist during IPV disengagement (paths ⑤ and ⑨), as leaps involving other stages are difficult to achieve (Khaw & Hardesty, 2007). Thus, SCDIM provides a more comprehensive description and explanation of this complex process while preserving the respective advantages of TTM and PRM.

5 Limitations and Future Directions

Based on integration of existing research and combining TTM and PRM, this paper proposes SCDIM, providing a systematic framework for parsing the complex pathways of IPV disengagement. To better advance research progress and practical applications in this field, we discuss future research directions and application scenarios.

5.1 Model Validation and Boundary Effects

SCDIM's construction is based on summarizing previous research findings (Burke et al., 2001; Khaw & Hardesty, 2007; Lenio, 2006). However, past research predominantly employed qualitative methods such as semi-structured interviews, with data collection relying heavily on victims' self-reports, while data coding, classification, and interpretation may also be subject to researcher bias. Consequently, the model's scientific validity requires further verification through dynamic longitudinal research. Future studies could design tracking research using mixed methods (quantitative tracking + qualitative interviews) to capture victims' stage transitions, regressions, or leaps during disengagement processes and quantify dynamic weights of core influencing factors (e.g., self-efficacy, social support) at each stage. For example, experience sampling methodology (ESM) could be employed to high-frequency collect victims' cognitive, emotional, and behavioral data, combined with machine learning analysis to identify predictors of stage transitions (e.g., triggering effects of sudden violent events on stage leaps) [see: Zhang et al. (2016) for systematic review of ESM application characteristics in organizational behavior; Myin-Germeys et al. (2018) for detailed ESM research guidelines and prospects]. Furthermore, the internal mechanisms underlying individuals' stage transitions remain unclear. Current research has revealed IPV disengagement internal mechanisms from the perspective of "culture of pretence." Culture of pretence is a state where abuse is not acknowledged and is difficult for those outside the relationship to identify or recognize, i.e., individuals present everything as "normal." Research shows that culture of pretence hinders individuals' abuse awareness and action toward IPV disengagement through its internal factor—violence normalization (Francis et al., 2017). Thus, IPV disengagement internal psychological mechanisms are complex and extensively influential. Future research could draw on health behavior neuroscience paradigms, integrating physiological indicators (e.g., cortisol levels, prefrontal activation) with psychological and behavioral data to explore how "culture of pretence" affects Precontemplation stagnation through cognitive dissonance, or how neural mechanisms (e.g., brain network characteristics of post-traumatic stress responses) moderate disengagement decisions, revealing biopsychosocial interaction mechanisms underlying the disengagement process [see: Niu et al. (2024) for TMS-EEG data analysis techniques that effectively enhance sensitivity and reliability of multimodal physiological-behavioral data integration]. Finally, boundary effects of this model should also be emphasized. Research indicates that factors such as unemployment and economic difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic increased IPV frequency and severity, while family isolation measures and protection agency closures severely hindered IPV disengagement (Fawole et al., 2021; Lyons & Brewer, 2022; B. Sabri et al., 2018). Although the model incorporates "leap" pathways, its depiction of disturbance effects from sudden public events (e.g., pandemic lockdowns) is insufficient. Future research could purposefully examine potential moderating effects of external situational variables such as sudden public events (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic) and supplement stage "leap" mechanisms under crisis contexts to test SCDIM's external boundary effects and enhance the model's comprehensiveness and applicability [see: Bliese et al. (2017) for methodological framework based on discontinuous growth models (DGM) suitable for dynamic evolution analysis of cross-level subjects during acute events].

5.2 Expanding Research Populations and Deepening Cultural Adaptation Analysis

Current research in this field predominantly focuses on female victims, with only limited studies investigating male, older adult, and sexual minority IPV victims. Consequently, certain specific influencing factors in SCDIM currently apply only to female populations (e.g., mother/wife identity), creating limitations in the model's applicability. Moreover, research has found gender differences in IPV disengagement processes, with women more likely to maintain relationships due to fear, lack of economic resources, and shame about leaving partners, while men more frequently remain due to commitment to partners and socially prescribed tough images (Bates, 2020; Eckstein, 2019). Accordingly, future research should include male, non-binary, and older adult populations to explore how unique factors such as "male fear of losing custody" or "older adult economic dependence" embed within the model. Additionally, existing theoretical models are primarily constructed based on Western cultural backgrounds and mainstream samples, while collectivist cultural characteristics in East Asian societies such as China may systematically moderate disengagement processes and pathways. Specifically, Western culture's emphasis on individualism may lead individuals to rely more on personal decision-making and social support systems when disengaging from IPV, whereas IPV disengagement mechanisms in Chinese contexts are nested within complex "family-centered" ethical networks, causing victims to face greater family pressure and social stigma when disengaging. Research shows that family values and gender role norms in East Asian cultures may create greater psychological and social barriers for women disengaging from IPV (Rai & Choi, 2018). Meanwhile, religious beliefs may have different impacts across cultures. For example, Christianity in Western cultures may encourage victims to seek church support, while Confucianism in Eastern cultures emphasizes forgiveness and endurance, potentially making it more difficult for victims to disengage from abusive relationships (Afrouz et al., 2020; Chan & Sachs, 2023). Thus, research on IPV disengagement processes in Chinese cultural contexts must emphasize cultural factors such as family responsibility (e.g., obligation to maintain "family harmony"), gender roles (male economic dominance and female "virtuous wife and good mother" role expectations), social support (e.g., social support networks may be constrained by "face" culture) and stigmatization (e.g., collective subconscious of "don't air dirty laundry in public), and Confucian values (e.g., moral responsibilities emphasizing "forgiveness" and "endurance") (Shen, 2024; Cao et al., 2022). In summary, future research should test SCDIM's applicability in non-Western contexts (e.g., East and South Asia), particularly examining cultural variables' moderating effects on stage pathways and exploring influencing factors and unique pathways of IPV disengagement across different cultural backgrounds.

5.3 Developing Stage-Based Intervention Strategies and Expanding Application Prospects

Although SCDIM demonstrates practical application potential, its implementation must be based on scientific validation of the model's effectiveness and generalizability. Regarding interventions, SCDIM's stage divisions provide theoretical foundations for developing more precise intervention strategies. Future research could explore possibilities for designing targeted support strategies based on core issues at each stage. For example, research shows that AI-based psychological support applications or chatbots can improve individuals' mental health (Gaffney et al., 2019). Therefore, in Precontemplation, digital tools could be utilized to provide low-threshold informational and psychological support to assist victims' IPV awareness. However, note that the effectiveness, ethical boundaries, and applicability of such AI tools in sensitive contexts (e.g., IPV) require rigorous empirical evaluation (Torous et al., 2021). In Contemplation, motivational interviewing (MI) techniques could be adapted to develop assistive tools or professional training programs to help victims weigh pros and cons and quantify disengagement risks and benefits (Saftlas et al., 2014). Additionally, such intervention strategies could be compared with traditional measures to validate stage-based strategy effectiveness while attending to cultural adaptation.

Regarding applications, SCDIM's emphasis on structural resources (e.g., legal, economic security) has implications for policy development. For example, legal and social service systems could explore providing differentiated support schemes based on stage characteristics revealed by the model. In public services, multi-sectoral collaborative networks (e.g., police, community, medical institutions) could be established to optimize coordination mechanisms for early identification of high-risk individuals and effective resource deployment. Moreover, SCDIM's theoretical foundation derives from classic models in behavior change (Burke et al., 2001; Lenio, 2006; Reisenhofer & Taft, 2013), endowing it with cross-disciplinary and cross-domain application potential. For example, future research could combine intersectionality frameworks to analyze how structural factors such as race, class, and sexual orientation dynamically interact with SCDIM stage pathways, revealing differential mechanisms of disengagement trajectories across populations. Additionally, the model could be extended to other persistent behavior change research domains (e.g., smoking, substance addiction withdrawal, chronic disease management) or applied to studies of disengaging from unhealthy interpersonal relationships (e.g., family, peer, and colleague relationships), thereby testing theoretical generalizability and expanding its application scope.

References

Shen, Y. (2024). Intimate relationships: Ethical needs or social exchange—A comparative analysis based on cultural differences between China and the West. China Social Science Review, (03), 116–125. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=_dzes7vZToPqy_fpI-Jno2QLwfJm8DNA2K7ZbAf3O5EIR_qpB99pRqZtIKOyRVWaZ5xaOws_j8lyh0UM_1HUpbOcOWGQ42SQYUR_MAsMQ2V7qRpJ081PxV1An1BdTIqEZeWY6LckztFLrfLGXKjjVDP1VDtubBmGGe7r4sj5mkrq1USiG3h9vGvEjEkf9tusyAtI7KiAPDI=&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

Tu, H., & Zhang, C. (2024). Causes of intimate partner violence: Attitude-based explanations from social learning and feminist theory perspectives. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(11), 1898–1911. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/11.4766.r.20240903.1339.026

Zhang, Y., Luo, N., & Shi, W. (2016). Experience sampling method—A new method for collecting "real" data. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(2), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1042.2016.00305

Afrouz, R., Crisp, B. R., & Taket, A. (2020). Seeking help in domestic violence among Muslim women in Muslim-majority and non-Muslim-majority countries: A literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781102

Aguiar, A. P., & Corrêa, R. d. S. (2022). Violência por parceiro íntimo contra a mulher e insegurança alimentar: uma revisão narrativa da literatura. Interface - Comunicação, Saúde, Educação, 26, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1590/interface.210488

Ahmad-Stout, F., Nath, S. R., Khoury, N. M., & Huang, H. (2021). Experiences of intimate partner violence: Findings from interviews with South Asian women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), NP1941–NP1964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517753850

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer.

Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(2). 163–191, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838002250769

Atiyat, R., & Al Momani, I. (2022). To leave or not to leave, that is the question: Discussing notions of particularity in "breaking the cycle" through the lens of feminist literary theory. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 24(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.5325/intelitestud.24.3.0409

Azeez, E. P. A., Negi, D. P., Kukreja, T., Tanwar, K. C., Kumar, M. S., Kalyani, V., & Harmain, D. (2024). Why do they decide to stay? Experience of Indian women surviving intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research, 16(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-09-2023-0827

Badenes-Sastre, M., Beltrán-Morillas, A. M., & Expósito, F. (2024). Absence versus presence of intimate partner violence in a sample of Spanish women: Conflict resolution strategies and associated variables. Violence Against Women, 30(3-4),

Badenes-Sastre, M., Lorente, M., Beltrán-Morillas, A. M., & Expósito, F. (2023). Transformative effect of intimate partner violence against women based on sociocultural factors trapping women in a violent relationship. Current Psychology, 43(12), 10786–10800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05101-2

Band-Winterstein, T. (2015). Aging in the shadow of violence: A phenomenological conceptual framework for understanding elderly women who experienced lifelong IPV. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 27(4-5), 303–327, https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2015.1091422

Barnett, O. W., & LaViolette, A. D. (1993). It could happen to anyone: why battered women stay. Sage Publications, Inc.

Barrios, V. R., Khaw, L. B. L., Bermea, A., & Hardesty, J. L. (2021). Future directions in intimate partner violence research: An intersectionality framework for analyzing women’s processes of leaving abusive relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23-24), NP12600–NP12625.

Bates, E. A. (2020). “No one would ever believe me”: An exploration of the impact of intimate partner violence victimization on men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 497–507.

Bliese, P. D., Adler, A. B., & Flynn, P. J. (2017). Transition processes: A review and synthesis integrating methods and theory. Annual Review Organizational Psychology Organizational Behavior, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113213

Bridges, A. J., Karlsson, M. E., Jackson, J. C., Andrews, A. R., & Villalobos, B. T. (2018). Barriers to and methods of help seeking for domestic violence victimization: A comparison of hispanic and non-hispanic white women residing in the United States. Violence Against Women, 24(15), 1810–1829. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218754409

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press.

Bruton, C., & Tyson, D. (2017). Leaving violent men: A study of women’s experiences of separation in Victoria, Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817746711

Burke, J. G., Gielen, A. C., McDonnell, K. A., O'campo, P., & Maman, S. (2001). The process of ending abuse in intimate relationships: A qualitative exploration of the transtheoretical model. Violence Against Women, 7(10), 1144–1163.

Cao, J., Liu, X., & Gonzalez-Guarda, R. M. (2022). Trapped in my roles as a woman with no help: Experiences of intimate partner violence against Chinese women. Violence Against Women, 29(5), https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221104504

Caridade, S., Pinheiro, I., & Dinis, M. A. P. (2020). Stay or leave abusive dating relationships: Portuguese victims’ reasons and barriers. Social Sciences, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9050084

Catallo, C., Jack, S. M., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H. L. (2012). Identifying the turning point: using the transtheoretical model of change to map intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency department settings. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2012(1), 239468. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/239468

Cervantes, M. V., & Sherman, J. (2021). Falling for the ones that were abusive: Cycles of violence in low-income women's intimate relationships. Journal Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), NP7567-NP7595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519829771

Chan, B., & Sachs, C. J. (2023). Intimate partner violence and sexual violence. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, 41(2), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2023.01.007

Chang, J. C., Dado, D., Hawker, L., Cluss, P. A., Buranosky, R., Slagel, L., McNeil, M., & Scholle, S. H. (2010). Understanding turning points in intimate partner violence: factors and circumstances leading women victims toward change. Journal of Women's Health, 19(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1568

Cheung, D. S. T., Tiwari, A., & Wang, A. X. M. (2015). Intimate Partner Violence in Late Life: A Case Study of Older Chinese Women. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 27(4-5), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2015.1092903

Childress, S., Panchanadeswaran, S., & Joshi, M. (2021). Leaving and beyond: Voices of survivors of domestic volence from Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), 1718–1744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517743550

Cluss, P. A., Chang, J. C., Hawker, L., Scholle, S. H., Dado, D., Buranosky, R., & Goldstrohm, S. (2006). The process of change for victims of intimate partner violence: support for a psychosocial readiness model. Women's Health Issues, 16(5),

Cohen, V., Clark, S. M., Saker, K. M., Dunn, S. E., Watson-Singleton, N. N., & Kaslow, N. J. (2024). Intimate partner violence and barriers to leaving among low-income African American women: the role of self-esteem as a mediating factor. Journal of African American Studies, 28(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-024-09671-8

Costanza Baldry, A., & Cinquegrana, V. (2020). The decision to leave the abusive partner by women survivors of intimate partner violence and risk of further revictimization: The role of gratitude and risk perception. Violence Against Women, 27(9), 1232–1251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220935203

Counts, D. A., Brown, J. K., & Campbell, J. (1999). To have and to hit: Cultural perspectives on wife beating. University of Illinois Press.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1988). Research as social action: The struggle for battered women. In K. a. B. Yllö, M. (Ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse (pp. 51–74). SAGE Publications.

Eckstein, J. J. (2019). “I’m strong for her” versus “I rely on him”: Male and female victims’ reasons for staying reflect sex-gender conflations. Journal Applied Communication Research, 47(2), https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1584403

Enander, V., & Holmberg, C. (2008). Why does she leave? The leaving process (es) of battered women. Health care for women international, 29(3), 200–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330801913802

Estrellado, A. F., & Loh, J. (2016). To stay in or leave an abusive relationship: Losses and gains experienced by battered Filipino women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(9), 1843–1863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516657912

Fawole, O. I., Okedare, O. O., & Reed, E. (2021). Home was not a safe haven: women's experiences of intimate partner violence during COVID-19 lockdown Nigeria. Bmc Womens Health, 21(1), Article https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01177-9

Ferrer-Perez, V. A., Bosch-Fiol, E., Ferreiro-Basurto, V., Delgado-Alvarez, C., & Sánchez-Prada, A. (2020). Comparing implicit and explicit attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women. Frontiers in psychology, 11, Article 2147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02147

Feyissa, G. T., Otero-García, L., Durán-Martín, E., Castellanos-Torres, E., Sanz-Barbero, B., & Vives-Cases, C. (2024). Accessibility of intimate partner violence-related services for young women in Spain. Qualitative study on professionals’ perspectives. PloS one, 19(4), Article 0297886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297886

Francis, L., Loxton, D., & James, C. (2017). The culture of pretence: a hidden barrier to recognising, disclosing and ending domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15-16), 2202–2214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13501

Fredrickson, B. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. The Psychology of Gratitude/Oxford University Press.

Gaffney, H., Mansell, W., & Tai, S. (2019). Conversational agents in the treatment of mental health problems: mixed-method systematic review. JMIR mental health, 6(10), e14166. https://doi.org/10.2196/14166

Gracia, E., Lila, M., & Santirso, F. A. (2020). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review. European Psychologist, 25(2), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000392

Grych, J., Hamby, S., & Banyard, V. (2015). The resilience portfolio model: Understanding healthy adaptation in victims of violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039671

Henderson, A. J., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. G. (1997). He loves me; he loves me not: Attachment and separation resolution of abused women. Journal of family violence, 12, 169–191.

Heron, R. L., Eisma, M., & Browne, K. (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

Hightower, J., Smith, M. G., & Henry, C. H. (2013). Hearing the voices of abused older women. In J. A. Yaffe (Ed.), Elder abuse and mistreatment (pp. 205–227). Routledge.

Hing, N., O’Mullan, C., Mainey, L., Nuske, E., Breen, H., & Taylor, A. (2021). Impacts of male intimate partner violence on women: A life course perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8303.

Howell, K. H., Thurston, I. B., Schwartz, L. E., Jamison, L. E., & Hasselle, A. J. (2018). Protective factors associated with resilience in women exposed to intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 8(4), 438.

Hutchison, E. D. (2010). A life course perspective. Dimensions of human behavior: The changing life course, 4, 1–38.

Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/351858

Khaw, L., & Hardesty, J. L. (2007). Theorizing the process of leaving: Turning points and trajectories in the stages of change. Family relations, 56(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00470.x

Koenig, M. A., Stephenson, R., Ahmed, S., Jejeebhoy, S. J., & Campbell, J. (2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic violence North India. American journal public health, 96(1), https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.050872

Kraft, P., Sutton, S. R., & Reynolds, H. M. (1999). The transtheoretical model of behaviour change: Are the stages qualitatively different? Psychology & Health, 14(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449908407339

Lahav, Y. (2023). Hyper-Sensitivity to the perpetrator and the likelihood of returning to abusive relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1-2), NP1815–NP1841, Article https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221092075

Larkin, G. L. (2008). Deadly sins and cardinal virtues in the clinical management of intimate partner violence. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 19(4), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1086/JCE200819405

Launius, M. H., & Lindquist, C. U. (1988). Learned helplessness, external locus of control, and passivity in battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626088003003004

Lenio, J. A. (2006). Analysis of the Transtheoretical Model of behavior change. UW-Stout Journal of Student Research, 5(1),

Lipsky, S., Caetano, R., Field, C. A., & Larkin, G. L. (2006). The role of intimate partner violence, race, and ethnicity in help-seeking behaviors. Ethnicity and Health, 11(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850500391410

Lyons, M., & Brewer, G. (2022). Experiences of intimate partner violence during lockdown and the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of family violence, 37(6), 969–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00260-x

Masten, A. S., Burt, K. B., Roisman, G. I., Obradović, J., Long, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Resources and resilience in the transition to adulthood: Continuity and change. Development and psychopathology, 16(4), 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.10170S0954579404040143

McKinley, C. E., & Liddell, J. L. (2022). "Why I stayed in that relationship": Barriers to indigenous women's ability to leave violent relationships. Violence Against Women, 28(14), 3352–3374. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221104507

McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health education quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500401

Moffitt, T. E. (2013). Childhood exposure to violence and lifelong health: Clinical intervention science and stress-biology research forces. Development psychopathology, 25(4pt2), https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579413000801

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., & Ross, S. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108

Monterrosa, A. E. (2019). How Race and Gender Stereotypes Influence Help-Seeking for Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17-18), NP9153–NP9174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853403

Muñoz-Rivas, M., Ronzón-Tirado, R. C., Redondo, N., & Cassinello, M. D. Z. (2022). Adolescent victims of physical dating violence: Why do they stay in abusive relationships? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11-12), NP10362–NP10381, Article 0886260520986277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520986277

Murvartian, L., Saavedra-Macías, F. J., de la Mata, M. L., & Crowe, A. (2024). Understanding social workers and health professionals' public stigma against women who experience intimate partner violence in Spain. Journal of family violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-024-00714-y

Myin‐Germeys, I., Kasanova, Z., Vaessen, T., Vachon, H., Kirtley, O., Viechtbauer, W., & Reininghaus, U. (2018). Experience sampling methodology in mental health research: new insights and technical developments. World Psychiatry, 17(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20513

Niu, Z., Jia, L., Li, Y., Yang, L., Liu, Y., Lian, S., Wang, D., Wang, W., Yang, L., Pan, W., & Li, X. (2024). Trial-by-trial variability of TMS-EEG in healthy controls and patients with depressive disorder. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 32, 3869–3877. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnsre.2024.3486759

O’Neal, E. N., & Beckman, L. O. (2016). Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216646223

Overstreet, N. M., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help seeking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746599

Pinnewala, P. (2009). Good women, martyrs, and survivors: A theoretical framework for South Asian women's responses to partner violence. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208328005.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing traditional boundaries of therapy. Dow Jones‑Irwin.

Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of the structure of change. In Y. F. Klar, J. D.; Chinsky, J. M.; Nadler, A. (Ed.), Self Change: Social psychological and clinical perspectives (pp. 87–114). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2922-3_5

Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American journal of health promotion, 12(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38

Pugh, B., Li, L., & Sun, I. Y. (2018). Perceptions of why women stay in physically abusive relationships: A comparative study of Chinese and U.S. college students. Journal Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518778264

Rai, A., & Choi, Y. J. (2018). Socio-cultural risk factors impacting domestic violence among South Asian immigrant women: A scoping review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.12.001

Reisenhofer, S., & Taft, A. (2013). Women's journey to safety—the transtheoretical model in clinical practice when working with women experiencing intimate partner violence: A scientific review and clinical guidance. Patient education and counseling, 93(3), 536–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.004

Rizzo, C. J., Joppa, M. C., Barker, D., Zlotnick, C., Warren, J., Saint-Eloi Cadely, H., & Brown, L. K. (2020). Individual and relationship characteristics of adolescent girls with histories of physical dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5-6), 1389–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696859

Roberto, K. A., & McCann, B. R. (2018). Violence and abuse in rural older women’s lives: A life course perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), NP2205–2227NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518755490

Roberto, K. A., & McCann, B. R. (2021). Violence and abuse in rural older women’s lives: A life course perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), NP2205–2227NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518755490

Sabri, Simonet, M., & Campbell, J. C. (2018). Risk and protective factors of intimate partner violence among South Asian immigrant women and perceived need for services. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(3), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000189

Sabri, B. (2014). Domestic violence among South Asian women: An ecological perspective. In M. Taylor, J. A. Pooley, & R. S. Taylor (Eds.), Overcoming Domestic Violence: Creating a Dialogue Around Vulnerable Populations (pp. 105–119). Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY.

Sabri, B., Nnawulezi, N., Njie-Carr, V. P. S., Messing, J., Ward-Lasher, A., Alvarez, C., & Campbell, J. C. (2018). Multilevel risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence among African, Asian, and Latina immigrant and refugee Women: Perceptions of Effective Safety Planning Interventions. Race and Social Problems, 10(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9247-z

Saftlas, A. F., Harland, K. K., Wallis, A. B., Cavanaugh, J., Dickey, P., & Peek-Asa, C. (2014). Motivational interviewing and intimate partner violence: randomized trial. Annals Epidemiology, 24(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.10.006

Sandhu, K. K., & Barrett, H. R. (2020). “Should I stay, or should I go?”: The experiences of, and choices available to women of South Asian heritage living in the UK when leaving a relationship of choice following intimate partner violence (IPV). Social Sciences, 9(9), Article 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090151

Sani, A. I., & Carvalho, C. (2018). Domestic violence and children at risk: Empirical study of Portuguese police records [Violência doméstica e crianças em risco: Estudo empírico com autos da polícia portuguesa]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 34, e34. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e34417

Sani, A. I., & Pereira, D. (2020). Mothers as victims of intimate partner violence: The decision to leave or stay and resilience-oriented intervention. Social Sciences, 9(10), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9100174

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., & Doyle, J. S. (1988). The relationship between characteristics of the victim, persuasive techniques of the batterer, and returning to a battering relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(5), 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1988.9922914

Schwarzer, R., Knoll, N., & Rieckmann, N. (2004). Social support. In A. Kaptein & J. Weinman (Eds.), Health Psychology (pp. 158–182). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Shah, A. H., Catalano, A., Bhatia, U., Gupta, D., Daruwalla, N., Osrin, D., & Nadkarni, A. (2024). Coping strategies and help-aeeking behaviors among survivors of intimate partner violence: A qualitative study of spouses of men with heavy drinking in India. Health & Social Care in the Community, Article 6839787.Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6839787

Shurman, L. A., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2006). Cognitive-affective predictors of women’s readiness to end domestic violence relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(11), 1417–1439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506292993

Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). National intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/46305

Spencer, C. M., Stith, S. M., & Cafferky, B. (2020). What puts individuals at risk for physical intimate partner violence perpetration? A meta-analysis examining risk markers for men and women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020925776

Stöckl, H., & Sorenson, S. B. (2024). Violence against women as a global public health issue. Annual Review of Public Health, 45(1), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-060722-025138

Storer, H. L., Rodriguez, M., & Franklin, R. (2018). “Leaving was a process, not an event”: The lived experience of dating and domestic violence in 140 characters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11-12), NP6553–NP6580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518816325

Taherkhani, S., Negarandeh, R., & Farshadpour, F. (2019). Barriers to leaving a relationship from the perspective of married abused Iranian women: Secondary analysis of the interviews with abused women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19-20), 4162–4184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519844777

Tarzia, L., Murray, E., Humphreys, C., Glass, N., Taft, A., Valpied, J., & Hegarty, K. (2016). I-decide: An online intervention drawing on the psychosocial readiness model for women experiencing domestic violence. Women's Health Issues, 26(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2015.07.011

Tello, J. J. A., & Suárez, N. M. C. (2020). Survivors of partner violence: factors and psychological processes involved in the decision to stay or leave relationship. Avances En Psicologia Latinoamericana, 38(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.7139

Torous, J., Bucci, S., Bell, I. H., Kessing, L. V., Faurholt‐Jepsen, M., Whelan, P., Carvalho, A. F., Keshavan, M., Linardon, J., & Firth, J. (2021). The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry, 20(3), 318–335. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20883

Velicer, W. F., Prochaska, J. O., Fava, J. L., Norman, G. J., & Redding, C. A. (1998). Smoking cessation and stress management: applications of the transtheoretical model. Homeostasis, 38(5-6), 216–233.

Voolma, H. (2018). “I must be silent because of residency”: Barriers to escaping domestic violence in the context of insecure immigration status england sweden. Violence Against Women, 24(15), https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218755974

Walker, L. E. (1977). Who are the battered women? Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 2(1), 52–57.

Wickrama, K. A. S., & Noh, S. (2009). The long arm of community: The influence of childhood community contexts across the early life course. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(8), 894–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9411-2

Young-Wolff, K. C., & McCaw, B. (2019). Intimate partner violence and psychological distress: Opportunities for prevention and early intervention among emerging adult women. Journal of Women's Health, 28(8), https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2019.7918

Zukauskiene, R., Kaniusonyte, G., Bergman, L. R., Bakaityte, A., & Kuneviciene, I. T. (2021). The role of social support in identity processes and posttraumatic growth: A study of vctims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15-16), 7599–7624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519836785