CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 456Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesElder Abuse and Neglect

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disclosure of Intimate Partner Violence to Informal Social Support Network Members: A Review of the Literature

Sylaska, Kateryna M., Edwards, Katie M.·2014·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
DOI 10.1177/1524838013496335
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents a review of the published literature to date on rates, experiences, and correlates of victims’ disclosure of or help seeking for intimate partner violence to informal social support network members (e.g., friends, family, classmates, and coworkers). Research indicates that the majority of individuals disclose to at least one informal support and that victims’ disclosure is associated with a number of demographic (e.g., victims’ sex, age, race), intrapersonal (e.g., victims’ feelings of shame/embarrassment, perception of control over abuse), and situational (e.g., violence frequency and severity, if abuse is witnessed) factors. Following disclosure, victims experience a wide range of positive (e.g., believing the victim’s reports, validating the victim’s experiences) and negative (e.g. disbelieving, blaming the victim) social reactions, with positive reactions rated as the most common and most helpful forms of support by victims. Finally, a review of psychological correlates associated with reactions to disclosure indicates that positive social reactions are associated with more psychological health benefits and fewer negative health symptoms, whereas negative social reactions were associated with increased negative psychological health symptoms. Future research methodologies and implications for violence prevention, intervention, and policy are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524838013496335

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 456

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sylaska, K. M., & Edwards, K. M.
Affiliations
University of New Hampshire (US)
Corresponding author
Sylaska, Kateryna M.
ORCID
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-07-24
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
3-21
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
DOI
10.1177/1524838013496335
OpenAlex
W2015651013
Cited by
456
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11
FWCI
21.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
intimate partner violence, disclosure, informal support, help-seeking, victim reactions, shame and embarrassment, victim blaming, social validation, mental health outcomes, violence prevention
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Female, Helping Behavior, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Risk Factors, Self Disclosure, Sexual Partners, Social Support, Spouse Abuse, Crime Victims

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