Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects victims in ways beyond initial abuse experiences. This study examines one of these victim experiences, that of relational uncertainty. Former IPV (N = 345, n = 106 males, 239 females) victims completed surveys based on their former heterosexual romantic relationships. Results indicated that male and female relational uncertainty experiences differed and corresponded with type of IPV relationship (i.e., situational couple violence [SCV] or intimate terrorism [IT]) and gender (i.e., masculinity) affiliation. Results are discussed in terms of how they both reinforce and challenge current theorizing about IPV and relational uncertainty. Both scholarly implications and practical applications to victims are presented.

Individuals seeking substance abuse treatment are at increased risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and recent/ongoing victimization by their intimate partners. To create a safe context for trauma treatment, it may be important to address ongoing intimate partner violence (IPV). Given that most diagnostic interviews for PTSD include an assessment of potentially traumatic events across the life span, including IPV, many clinicians may assume that IPV items included in such interviews are sufficient to assess recent/ongoing IPV. This study examined whether participants reported past-year IPV experiences on a well-established self-report questionnaire of IPV, The Conflict Tactics Scale-Revised, which were not reported during a modified version of a well-established interview of trauma history, "The National Women's Study of PTSD Module." Participants were men and women in substance abuse treatment with clinically significant trauma histories. As hypothesized, participants reported recent IPV on the self-report questionnaire that was not reported during the interview. Although clinicians may assume they have adequately assessed recent/ongoing IPV during interview-based trauma assessments, findings of this study indicate that supplemental self-report assessment may enhance its detection and facilitate intervention.

This study investigated the influence of defendant characteristics, expert testimony, self-defense elements, and battered partner attributes on conviction in a homicide trial. An online sample of 442 U.S. mock jurors evaluated a self-defense scenario, provided a verdict, and answered questions pertaining to defendant culpability, legal elements, and battered partner attributes. Results showed that heterosexual female defendants were most likely to meet legal requirements of self-defense. Female participants were more likely to believe that heterosexual female defendants exhibited attributes associated with the battered partner’s syndrome (i.e., suffered from abuse and learned helplessness). Male participants were less likely to believe that homosexual male defendants suffered from attributes associated with the syndrome. There were no effects of expert testimony on the battered partner’s syndrome. Logistic regression analysis indicated that self-defense legal elements and belief that the defendant should have left the abusive relationship predicted greater likelihood of conviction. Limitations and implications for jury selection and attorney arguments are discussed.