Cited by 47Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceAttachment and Relationship DynamicsElder Abuse and Neglect

The association between social support and stages of change in survivors of intimate partner violence

Zapor, Heather, Wolford-Clevenger, Caitlin, Johnson, Dawn M.·2018·Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Abstract

For survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV), it is often difficult to take steps to establish safety and obtain a violence free life. Researchers have applied stage of change theory to aid in understanding the experience of survivors, as well as, the factors that can help women who desire to make changes in or break free from a violent relationship. Social support is one factor that can be helpful to IPV survivors who are attempting to make changes in their relationship. The purpose of the current study was to examine the differences in social support experienced by women who are at varying points in the process of change. Shelter residents ( N = 191) participated in this cross-sectional non-experimental study. Analyses demonstrated five distinct clusters or profiles of change among study participants and were labeled by the authors as follows: preparticipation, decision making, engagement, ambivalent, and action. All forms of social support (i.e., structural, functional, and satisfaction) were generally higher for individuals more engaged in the process of change. More specifically, differences were noted between the action and decision-making clusters and the engagement and decision-making clusters. These findings suggest that it is vital that clinicians working with survivors of IPV not only assess but also tailor interventions to meet survivors where they are in the process of change. Further, interventions that foster survivors' abilities to develop reliable and satisfying social support networks will be beneficial for survivors of IPV.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0886260515614282

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lack of social support, tightly related to IPV victimization, may be very high among avoidant victims of IPV.

    “lack of social support, tightly related to IPV victimization (Zapor et al., 2018), may be very high among avoidant victims of IPV (Davis et al., 2002).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zapor, H., Wolford-Clevenger, C., & Johnson, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
  • University of Akron (US)
Corresponding author
Zapor, Heather
Venue
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Published
2015-12-02
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
1051-1070
ISSN
  • 0886-2605 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6518
OpenAlex
W2189430462
Cited by
47
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Interpersonal Violence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
intimate partner violence, social support, stages of change, IPV survivors, shelter residents, structural social support, functional social support, social support satisfaction, ambivalence, decision-making, intervention tailoring
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Personal Satisfaction, Social Support, Survivors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review