Content uploaded by Hollyn Michaels
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hollyn Michaels on Jul 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
2
Why She Doesn’t Just Leave:
The Interaction of Attachment and
Perceived Barriers to Leaving an Abusive Relationship
A Dissertation Submitted To The Faculty Of The Graduate School In Partial Fulfillment
Of The Requirements For The Doctor Of Psychology Degree
Psychology Department
by
Hollyn M. Michaels
Wheaton, Illinois
April 2016
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS iii
Why She Doesn’t Just Leave:
The Interaction of Attachment and
Perceived Barriers to Leaving an Abusive Relationship
by
Hollyn M. Michaels
Approved:
_____________________________ _______________
Cynthia Neal Kimbal, Ph.D. Date
_____________________________ _______________
Jana Pressley Psy.D. Date
_____________________________ _______________
Benjamin Pyykkonen, Ph.D.
Date
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this clinical dissertation manuscript are those of the student and
do not necessarily express the views of the Wheaton College Graduate School.
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Acknowledgments
Dr. Neal Kimball, thank you for always believing in me, coaching me through this
marathon of a degree, and being a steadfast support and adviser. You have continually
believed in my ability to do this program and run this race, even when I doubted myself.
Thank you for helping me find my voice; you have helped me make this a project I am
proud of. Dr. Pyykkonen, thank you for your encouragement and willingness to guide me
through the dissertation process. Dr. Pressley, thank you for providing me with the
“holding environment” to struggle and to grow; you helped me get out of the woods and
into the clear without things going down in flames. Your mentorship has helped me
develop not only as a clinician, but also as a person.
On a personal note I have had many friends and supports that have been a key part
in this journey. I would like to thank my partner, Matt, for being my safe haven and
secure base throughout this program, process, and life. Miranda, for reminding me to
laugh and play in the midst of the pain that life can bring. Most of all, thank you for the
late night phone calls and giving me an unconditionally supportive ear. Ryan, for
allowing me to rant and vent about having to “trust the process.” Kelly, for helping me
put down the masks and become real. And to Alyse, my first supervisor, you made sure I
had a secure “clinical family of origin,” and you continue to inspire me with your heart
and compassion.
5
6
Abstract
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) occurs at disturbing levels in relationships, and while our
understanding of the factors at play that keep victims in these relationships is growing, it
is still poorly understood. When examining why victims stay in abusive relationships,
research has tended to focus on how to address the external and internal psychological
barriers a victim faces when leaving the relationship, and very little research has been
done into how a victim’s attachment influences her ability to leave an abusive
relationship. The potential interaction between a woman’s attachment style and barriers to
leaving has not been explored. The goal of this study is to investigate the relationship
between a woman's attachment style and barriers to leaving the abusive relationship;
specifically, do women with different attachment styles report different barriers as more
salient than others when it comes to leaving the relationship? Fifty women recruited from
a domestic violence agency completed demographic questions, the ECR-R and DLS. As
expected, there was an overrepresentation of insecure attachment styles. This study found
significant differences between attachment style and barriers to leaving the relationship.
Namely, those scoring higher in attachment anxiety scored higher on “internal inhibiting
factors” such as hopes things change, fear of loneliness, and social embarrassment. While
those scoring higher on attachment-related avoidance have greater correlation with
“external inhibiting factors” such as fear of harm, poor social support, financial concerns,
and childcare needs. Results, directions for future research, and implications for clinical
practice are discussed.
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Keywords: adult attachment, intimate partner violence, barriers to leaving, ECR-R
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………….…………….................….…iv
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
Literature Review ………………………………….…………..………………...………1
Intimate Partner Violence................................................................….................. 2
Barriers to Leaving the Abusive Relationship.........................................................7
Attachment Theory.............................................................................................. 11
Attachment and Romantic Relationships...............................................................15
Attachment and Abusive Relationships………………….……………………....19
Purpose of Current Study…………………………….……………………..…………...25
Research Question…………………………………………………..…………...25
Hypothesis…………………………………………………..…………...............26
Method...............................................................................................................................27
Participants.............................................................................................................27
Measures................................................................................................................27
Demographics…………………………………………………………....27
Attachment to partner: The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
(ECR-R)
questionnaire..............................................................................27
Barriers to leaving the relationship: Decision to Leave Scale (DLS).......28
Procedure...........................................................................................................................29
Results……………………………………………….......................................................30
Demographics………………………………………….………...........................30
Analysis…………………………………………….……..……..……................30
Representation of insecure attachment styles............................................31
DLS subscales and the decision to leave...................................................31
Correlations between the ECR-R and DSL subscales...............................32
Decision to leave and attachment..............................................................33
Discussion..........................................................................................................................33
Representation of Attachment Style......................................................................34
Perceived Barriers to Leaving and the Decision to Leave.....................................34
Perceived Barriers to Leaving and Attachment ....................................................35
7
8
Decision to leave and Attachment ….………….……………….………….........38
Limitations and Future Research….…………………………….………….…....39
Conclusion.............…………………………………………….………………...40
Appendix A........................................................................................................................47
Appendix B........................................................................................................................48
Appendix C........................................................................................................................50
Appendix D........................................................................................................................52
Appendix E........................................................................................................................53
Appendix F........................................................................................................................56
References………………………………………….…………………….………………41
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
List of Tables
Table 1………………………………………………………………………………..33
9
10
List of Figures
Figure 1…….…………………………………………………………………………..17
Figure 2.………………………………………………………………………………..19
Figure 3.………………………………………………………………………………..19
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Why She Doesn't Just Leave:
The Interaction of Attachment and Perceived Barriers to Leaving
an Abusive Relationship
It is often difficult to understand why victims seem to have such difficulty leaving
abusive relationships, or why they leave the relationships only to quickly return to their
abusive partners; in fact, women tend to leave and return to abusive relationships five
times before leaving permanently (Okun, 1986). Observing a woman frequently leave
and return to abusive relationships can be confusing and frustrating for the general
population and mental health professionals alike. Psychological theories such as battered
woman syndrome (Walker, 1979) and traumatic bonding theory (Dutton & Painter, 1981;
Dutton & Painter, 1993) have attempted to explain why women struggle to leave abusive
relationships, and the transtheoretical model of change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984)
attempts to explain the complicated decision-making process behind a person’s choice to
leave an abusive relationship. Research has tended to focus mostly on external factors,
such as finances, lack of community support, and number of children, when examining
what separates the women who leave abusive relationships from those who remain in or
return to the abusive relationship (e.g., Aguirre, 1985; Barnett, 2000; Barnett, 2001).
Internal barriers to leaving the relationship, such as internalized traditional gender roles,
low self-esteem, and hope that their partner will change (Barnett, 2000; Barnett, 2001;
Hendy, Eggen, Gustitus, McLeod, & Ng, 2003), have also been explored, but to a lesser
extent. Additionally, while there has been some research on abused women’s attachment
patterns and their success leaving their abusive partners (e.g., Henderson, Bartholomew,
11
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
& Dutton, 1997), it has been extremely limited and only a small number of studies on this
subject exist. The purpose of this study is to examine the connection between common
barriers to leaving an abusive relationship and a victim's attachment to her abusive
partner, with the goal of determining if attachment style correlates to different barriers to
leaving the relationship.
Intimate Partner Violence
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which is often termed domestic violence, is
typically defined as a pattern of real or threatened physical, emotional, psychological,
sexual, or stalking abuse that one intimate partner perpetrates against the other with the
intent to cause injury or death (Shipway, 2004). An “intimate partner” is defined as any
former or current spouse or non-marital partner (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, &
Thompson, 2007). Though this researcher acknowledges that there are many incidents of
IPV perpetrated by women against men and in same-sex relationships, the Center for
Disease Control (CDC) reported that men perpetrate the majority of violence against
women and their children (CDC, 2010). The focus of this proposed research study is on
violence against women by their male partners; therefore, throughout this paper the
victim/survivor will be referred to as “she” and the abuser as “he.”
IPV can take on many forms, from physical assaults—such as hitting, kicking,
biting, and punching—to emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse
(Shipway, 2004). Additionally, IPV is a widespread issue in the United States with over
35% of women from all ethnicities experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by
12
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
their intimate partner, and nearly half of all women (48%) experiencing psychological
aggression from their intimate partner (CDC, 2010). The types of violence that women in
abusive relationships experience range from occasional and periodic to long term and
chronic. The most severe abuse can permeate every aspect of women’s lives, to the point
where they must ask permission to perform even the simplest tasks such as calling a
friend or going to the grocery store (Shipway, 2004). Additionally, some women may
experience only a few acts of IPV, leave the relationship permanently the first time, and
then are able to move on with their lives. However, many others experience many acts of
IPV, struggle to leave the relationship, and experience long-term consequences such as
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Shipway, 2004).
While those who ask “Why doesn’t she just leave?” believe it to be a simple
question, it effectively blames the victim, placing pressure on the woman to take action
and leave, and does not hold the abusive partner responsible for his actions. It is critical
to understand the factors that work to keep a woman feeling trapped in the abusive
relationship. This understanding will provide health professionals with the necessary
tools to better assist the woman in making healthy decisions about leaving. Women, on
average, leave and return to the relationship five times before leaving permanently
(Barnett, 2000; Barnett, 2001; Okun, 1986) and most women take 10 years to leave a
violent relationship (Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 1997). Hence, leaving is not simple
or easy.
13
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Because of this apparent difficulty women have in exiting an abusive relationship,
researchers have attempted to explain what prevents victims of abuse from leaving.
Walker (1979) was the first to write about battered woman syndrome and to describe the
cycle of violence that helps perpetuate the relationship and that often serves to keep the
woman in the relationship. This cycle tends to occur in many, but not all, IPV
relationships and can be a valuable way to understand IPV and why women feel trapped
and choose not to leave. There are three phases in the cycle (Walker, 1979; Walker,
2009). Phase 1 is the initial tension-building phase where the woman may feel the tension
rising in the relationship as her partner may increase subtle behaviors such as name-
calling or berating. The victim will often do what she can to placate her abusive partner
and not respond to the hostility. The second phase is when the “acute battering incident”
occurs. This phase is marked by increased tension and increased fear as the violent
incident becomes inevitable. Eventually in this phase tension is released once the
violence, whether physical or verbal, occurs and reduces the tension in the relationship. It
is in this phase that many would expect a woman to simply leave the relationship due to
maltreatment. However, even a fairly motivated woman will face a number of barriers to
leaving the relationship including lack of financial resources, low self-esteem, and not
having knowledge about IVP and resources available to her, as well as lack of social
support (Anderson et al., 2003; Barnett, 2000; Barnett, 2001).
The first two phases of this cycle explain the build up to and the incident of abuse;
the final phase is usually marked with acts of love and contrition by the abuser and is
14
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
often termed the “honeymoon” phase. In this third phase, the violent partner will often
apologize profusely and promise to change his ways, offer to or agree to go to counseling,
or bring the victim gifts. The batterer may even truly believe that he will never allow
himself to become violent again. The woman’s hope that her partner will change is often
restored in this phase, especially early in the relationship, and she may even begin to
think he has really changed. Walker (2009) as well as Hendy et al. (2003) found that it is
this hope that the abusive partner has changed emerging from the honeymoon period that
appears to be the most striking reason why women choose not to leave the relationship,
leading to their ultimately becoming ensnared in the cycle. During this period, when there
is no emotional or physical violence occurring, the relationship may appear stable and the
woman often sees her partner behave in the same ways that caused her to fall in love with
him at the beginning (Walker, 2009). The hope that things are changing or will change
becomes more salient; therefore, it becomes even more difficult to leave the relationship
when it appears to be changing for the better. However, this stage does not last and the
cycle eventually starts again.
The cycle of violence helps explain the abusive relationship cycle and dynamics
that make it difficult to leave abusive relationships. In addition to the cycle of violence, it
is important to explore and understand the decision-making process as well as a woman’s
readiness to leave the relationship. The transtheoretical model of change (TM), developed
by Prochaska and DiClemente (1984), is a model useful for assessing a person's readiness
to change a wide range of behaviors, including one’s readiness to leave an abusive
15
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
relationship (Burke, Gielen, McDonnell, O’Campo, & Maman, 2001). There are five
stages in this model: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and
maintenance. These stages are considered cyclical, and an individual can move back and
forth between stages at any point; though relapse is more common in the early stages
(Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984).
The stages in the transtheoretical model remain consistent regardless of the
behavior it is being applied to; however, the specific tasks of each stage vary depending
on the behavior. Through interviews with women in abusive relationships, Burke et al.
(2001) examined the process a woman goes through when leaving an abusive relationship
and applied the TM phases to a woman’s decision making and readiness to change
process. In the context of IPV, in precontemplation, a woman will not recognize her
partner's behavior as abusive and may even attribute his behavior to love. The shift from
precontemplation to contemplation is usually when some event occurs, such as a very
violent abusive incident, which spurs the woman to admit abuse is an issue. However, she
may not be ready to make any commitment to leave the relationship for a wide range of
factors, such as still being caught in the cycle or not being ready to overcome the many
barriers she will face when she leaves. The precontemplation and contemplation stages
are when women are the least likely to make a move to end the relationship.
As she moves into preparation, a woman begins to evaluate her options for
leaving the relationship and considers what concerns she may have when and if she
leaves, such as money and housing (Burke et al., 2001). In the preparation stage, the
16
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
woman may seek resources to help her leave such as women’s shelters or enlisting help
from close friends or family. She may also begin to hide money and store other important
documents away so she can take them with her when she leaves. Additionally, she may
begin to mentally prepare herself for how difficult it may be, both physically and
emotionally, for her to separate from her partner.
Once the woman reaches a point where she feels she may be able to make
preparations to leave safely, she will enter the action stage. The action stage is when the
victim makes attempts to physically leave the relationship (Burke et al., 2001). The
woman acts on all her plans and preparations made in the previous stage, and she may
move to a shelter or move in with family or friends. After the woman successfully
separates in the action stage, she moves into the maintenance stage where she makes
efforts to stay separated from her abuser and lead a life apart from him (Burke et al.,
2001). The maintenance stage may involve the woman finding new friends or hobbies
apart from her abuser and exploring aspects of her life she was not able to experience
when in the abusive relationship. In this phase, the woman may need to periodically
remind herself of reasons why she left her relationship and strengthen her resolve in order
to keep from returning to the abusive relationship. However, because change as
conceptualized by TM is a fluid process, a woman could move from action or
maintenance back to contemplation at any time, but particularly if the relationship moves
into the honeymoon phase and her hopes that her partner has or will change is restored.
Barriers to Leaving the Abusive Relationship
17
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
There are many barriers that the victim often faces when deciding to leave an
abusive relationship that often impact not only the difficulty she faces when leaving the
relationship, but also her decision to leave or stay in the relationship. The bulk of current
research has examined the external and situational barriers a woman faces when leaving.
Economic dependence is one of the most cited logistical barriers for women to overcome
when they leave an abusive relationship, since abusers often control finances in the
household and some even forbid the woman to work (Aguirre, 1985; Anderson et al.,
2003; Barnett, 2000; Barnett, 2001). In addition to economic dependence, there are many
other barriers to leaving, and most of them have been found to be some form of real, or
perceived, lack of support from social groups, community groups, law enforcement
groups, and employers (Anderson et al., 2003).
Having inadequate social support is an external barrier that prevents a woman
from successfully leaving an abusive relationship, with 63% of women reporting low
social support returning to the abusive relationship (Barnett, 2001; Johnson, 1988). One
of the factors that can contribute to having low social support is lack of support from the
workplace (Anderson et al., 2003; Barnett, 2001). If a woman is not given some
allowances for the difficulties she faces, such as needing time off to go to court, it can
add additional stress to her life. Furthermore, if the woman is religious and religious
leaders are not supportive of her leaving her husband under any circumstances it could
cause a considerable dilemma for a woman who values her faith and her leaders but also
believes she is being maltreated and needs to leave. In such cases, she may even begin to
18
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
believe staying in the relationship is the right thing to do (Barnett, 2001). Another way a
victim may lack social support is that others in her life may turn a blind eye to signs of
abuse and may not ask her about what is going on; therefore, the victim loses out on an
opportunity to tell someone what is going on and to gain support (Anderson et al., 2003;
Barnett, 2001).
Additionally, it has been found that the controlling behavior by the abuser and/or
the abuser’s perceived control over the victim may keep her in the relationship (Anderson
et al., 2003; O’Leary, 1999). The abusive partner may intentionally contribute to the
victim’s social isolation by limiting who she can talk to, what information she has access
to, and how much money she can spend. This isolation keeps the victim from having
access to potential sources of support, including friends, family, and organizations that
assist victims of IPV; in fact, she may not even be aware such organizations even exist.
Therefore, the victim often ends up isolated from the people who would and could help
her.
Another consideration accounting for difficulties in deciding to leave is the
response from the victim’s partner when she tries to leave. Often when it becomes
evident that a woman is trying to leave the relationship, the abusive partner will turn to
stalking or become more violent toward the woman—making it simply more dangerous
to leave (Sonkin, 1995; Walker & Meloy, 1998). Furthermore, some abusers are so
controlling and manipulative that some women believe they simply cannot leave and are
19
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
too scared to even attempt to leave because they fear grave harm to themselves or their
children (Jacobson & Gottman, 1998).
In addition to these external factors contributing to the difficulty of leaving an
abusive relationship, there are also internal factors that make exiting the relationship
difficult. For those with children, one of the strongest internal influences is the
internalized value of a two-parent family to the point that the victim sees it as better to
stay in the abusive relationship and give the children two parents than to leave the
abusive environment and be a single parent (Barnett, 2001). Similarly, internalization of
traditional gender roles that asserts a woman finds her well-being and meaning in a
heterosexual relationship can contribute to making the decision to leave an abusive
relationship difficult (Barnett, 2001). If the woman’s sense of well-being is threatened by
the idea that leaving the relationship means being rejected by her partner and “failing” at
the relationship, then she may see leaving as worse than sporadic violence and abuse if
she has internalized more traditional ideals of gender and relationships. Additionally, the
victim may use a variety of psychological defenses such as minimizing the abuse,
believing that IPV is common. Victims may also believe that they deserved and somehow
provoked the abuse, which can contribute to reluctance to leave the relationship (Barnett,
2001).
All the above barriers are concerns that a woman must address as she decides to
leave the relationship and will be factors in her decision-making process. In developing
the Decision to Leave Scale, Hendy et al. (2003) were able to classify the concerns that
20
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
women expressed when they were deciding to leave the relationship into seven
categories: Fear of Loneliness, Child Care Needs, Financial Problems, Social
Embarrassment, Poor Social Support, Fear of Harm, and Hopes That Things Change. The
women who had made the decision to leave the abusive relationship were more likely to
cite Fear of Harm and Child Care Needs as their most pressing concerns as they made
their decision to leave. This finding indicated that these women were worried about being
harmed by their partner for leaving, and they were worried about how they would care for
their children when they left the relationship. Notably, for those who decided to stay in
the relationship and those who chose to leave the relationship, similar scores in the Hope
That Things Change subscale were found indicating this subscale to be the most universal
concern women have regardless of their ultimate decision.
Hendy et al. (2003) found that those who decided to stay in the relationship
scored highest on the Fear of Loneliness and Hope That Things Change scales. Therefore,
these two dimensions could be viewed as barriers to leaving an abusive relationship.
However, what we do not know is why some women struggle to move past these two
barriers more than others, seemingly paralyzed by their fear of being alone and clinging
to the hope that their abusive partner might change. Attachment theory may provide a
framework for understanding some of the nuances in these barriers as they are
experienced by women in abusive romantic relationships. Since attachment anxiety
exacerbates the normal fear of separation and loss in ending long-term relationships
(Bartholomew & Allison, 2006), it would make sense that those with insecure attachment
21
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
patterns would tend to have more difficulty leaving an abusive relationship and might
score higher on Fear of Loneliness and Hope That Things Change as reasons not to leave.
Attachment Theory
Briefly, attachment theory, as developed by John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
states that there exists an innate system in humans that is designed to maintain proximity
between infants and their caretakers. This attachment theory was initially based in
Bowlby’s observations that humans seem to be born with the fundamental need (or as
Bowlby (1969) said it, the attachment behavioral system) to maintain proximity to their
attachment figures as a way of alleviating distress. Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) posited
that the attachment figure served two primary functions: (1) The attachment figure
provides a safe haven for the infant, and (2) the attachment figure acts as a secure base
from which the infant can feel safe to explore his or her world.
Over time, the child begins to develop beliefs and expectations about the
reliability of his or her caretaker as an attachment figure through experiences, and the
child internalizes those experiences. These early experiences are foundational for the
child’s growing sense of how much they can rely on their attachment figure as a safe
haven or secure base (the child’s felt security). This security is characterized by the
child’s confidence in the attachment figure’s ability to function as a reliable safe haven or
secure base for the child. When those early experiences provide a “felt security,” the child
perceives the attachment figure as a secure base for confident interaction and exploration
22
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
of their environment. Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) described these attachment
relationships as “secure.”
The expectations and beliefs the child forms based on his or her experience with
the early caregiver(s) reliability and trustworthiness is what forms the child’s internal
working model (IWM) of relationships, according to Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980). The
IWM contains both a model of the other and the self in a relationship. Therefore, a secure
IWM emerges when the child experiences a consistent loving parent resulting in the child
believing he or she is worthy of love and can reasonably expect to get his or her needs
met in relationships. However, if the attachment figure is inconsistent in meeting needs,
the lack of trust in the caregiver’s ability to be a safe haven or secure base can lead to
insecure attachment and an insecure IWM. A child with an insecure IWM would view
others as unreliable and untrustworthy and believe his or herself to be unworthy of love
and that he or she is unable to get needs fully met. Bowlby (1973) described the result of
felt security and a secure IWM, saying, “When an individual is confident that an
attachment figure will be available to him whenever he desires it, that person will be
much less prone to either intense or chronic fear than will an individual who for any
reason has no such confidence” (p. 202). Therefore, those with a secure IWM tend to be
more adept at regulating intense emotions, such as fear and anxiety, because they know
their attachment figure is available if necessary. This ability to regulate emotions as well
as the IWM’s impact on one’s view of self and others has implications for individuals
23
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
beyond their relationship with their primary caregiver and carries over into adult
relationships.
The IWM developed through early attachment figure relationships becomes the
lens through which he or she develops expectations about all interpersonal relationships.
Bowlby (1980) stressed that this attachment system was active from “cradle to grave”
and that the system and expectations learned through early childhood relational
experiences were likely to remain stable over time. Likewise, Diamond and Blatt (1994)
asserted that internal working models will shape the individual’s behavior in current and
future relationships.
Many have expounded on Bowlby’s initial work on attachment; most notably was
the landmark work of Mary Ainsworth on attachment styles. Ainsworth furthered
Bowlby’s work on attachment by identifying three patterns of attachment when observing
12-month-olds’ responses to separation from their caregiver in the Strange Situation
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Walters, & Wall, 1978). She termed these attachment patterns as
secure, anxious-resistant, and avoidant. Mary Main would later expand on Ainsworth’s
work by adding the fourth categorization of disorganized (Main & Solomon, 1986; Main
& Solomon, 1990). The attachment classifications were given based on the child’s
exploratory behavior with the caregiver present, upon separation, and the child’s behavior
when the caregiver returned. The securely attached children sought out their caregivers
when feeling distress and were easily comforted and were able to return to play. Those
who were classified as anxious-resistant were overly focused and preoccupied with their
24
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
caregivers and displayed ambivalence toward their caregivers and were difficult to
comfort. The children who exhibited avoidant attachment appeared unemotional through
separation and did not cry when their caregivers left them. Furthermore, they avoided
proximity, and when their mothers returned, the children ignored their mothers. Finally,
those children that did not fit consistently into any of the categories were ultimately
classified as disorganized; these children’s behavior lacked an observable goal, intention,
or explanation. Upon reuniting with their caregiver, the children may express odd or
ambivalent behavior toward caregiver (i.e., running up to them, then pulling away or
running away from the caregiver; maybe even hitting the caregiver). The child’s first
impulse may be to seek comfort from the parent, but as he or she gets near the parent, he
or she feels fear to be in the parent’s proximity, demonstrating his or her disorganized
adaption.
These attachment classifications were attributed to the children based on how well
they used the caregiver (attachment figure) as a secure base for exploration in the new
environment and how well they used the caregiver as a safe haven after separation (a
stressor). These attachment patterns tend to persist throughout the lifespan and will often
play out in important relationships in adulthood (Berman & Sperling, 1994; Bowlby,
1980; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). Additionally, a recent longitudinal study by Pascuzzo,
Cyr, and Moss (2013) supported the assumption that attachment styles in adulthood are
associated with early attachment relationships. In adulthood, the primary attachment
25
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
figure often shifts from the primary caregiver to an individual's romantic partner (Hazan
& Zeifman, 1994).
Attachment and Romantic Relationships
Several researchers have explored how attachment patterns and internal working
models formed in childhood continue to operate in adulthood. An adult is often attached
to more than one individual in their lives, and Bretherton (1985) and Ainsworth (1989)
have posited that attachments are arranged hierarchically with the primary attachment
figure ranking highest. This “primary attachment figure” appears to be able to shift
throughout the life span, moving from being a primary caregiver in childhood to an
individual's romantic partner as an adult (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Pascuzzo et al., 2013;
Pietromonaco & Beck, 2015; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2010). Hazan and Shaver (1987)
found that the prevalence rates of the three main attachment styles (secure, anxious, and
avoidant) in adulthood corresponded to the prevalence rates in children. They also found
that individuals’ attachment styles affected their working models of themselves and
others in relationships. Depending on their attachment category, these individuals
entertained different beliefs about how romantic relationships would develop, the
trustworthiness and dependability of partners, and personal self-worth. Those with
insecure attachment styles reported having shorter relationships and more negative beliefs
about their partners and described more negative relationships with their childhood
caregivers than those who were categorized as more securely attached in their adult
relationships.
26
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Bartholomew (1990) introduced the idea of integrating Bowlby’s dimensions of
positivity of representations of self and others to create a two-dimensional, four-category
model of adult attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin & Bartholomew,
1994). Using the added dimensions of “thoughts of self,” which is how one views
oneself, and “thoughts of others,” which is how one perceives others, Bartholomew
expanded on the current model of adult attachment and identified four attachment
patterns: secure, dismissing, fearful, and preoccupied (see Figure 1). The “thoughts of
self” dimension is the degree to which individuals see themselves as worthy and have
internalized a positive view of themselves. The “thoughts of others” dimension shows the
degree to which an individual sees others as trustworthy, dependable, and supportive,
which contributes to an individual's attitudes toward relationships and whether or not he
or she seeks others out for relationships (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).
According to Bartholomew’s system of classification (Bartholomew, 1990;
Bartholomew, Henderson, & Dutton, 2001; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin &
Bartholomew, 1994), individuals who have a positive view of themselves and have
internalized a sense of self-worth and generally expect that others will be trustworthy and
dependable are classified as “secure.” Individuals are classified as “preoccupied” if they
maintain a positive view of others and view themselves negatively and unworthy of love,
leading these individuals to seek self-acceptance through gaining the approval of others.
The individuals classified as “fearful-avoidant” have a negative view of themselves and
27
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
others, meaning that they see themselves as unworthy of acceptance and unlovable and
they view others as rejecting, untrustworthy, and unavailable. Finally, the prototypical
“dismissing-avoidant” individuals maintain a positive view of themselves while viewing
others as unavailable and not worthy of trust. They protect themselves by avoiding
relationships and pushing others away, and maintain a view of themselves as independent
and not needing relationships (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Four categories of adult attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Another way of understanding adult attachment is a two-dimensional approach to
attachment that places individuals on a continuum of anxiety-related fears of
abandonment and avoidance of romantic relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998).
The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire (Fraley, Waller,
& Brennan, 2000) measures attachment based on these two dimensions of anxiety and
avoidance. The attachment anxiety dimension examines an individual's fear of
28
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
abandonment in relationships. An individual scoring high on the anxiety dimension
would tend to worry about a partner's availability, responsiveness, etc. Those who score
lower on anxiety would tend to be more secure in their partner’s responsiveness to their
needs. The avoidance dimension examines an individual's discomfort with closeness and
dependency; those who score high in this dimension tend not to enjoy relying on others,
having others depend on them, or opening up in relationships. Individuals scoring low on
avoidance tend to be comfortable in close relationships and in allowing others to depend
on them as well as depending on others. Therefore, in this two-dimensional model, an
individual who scores low on both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance would be
considered to be on the more “secure” end of the attachment continuum. Someone who
scores high on both attachment avoidance and anxiety would fall on the “fearful-
avoidant” end of the continuum. Individuals scoring low on avoidance but high in anxiety
would fall toward “preoccupied,” and those with low anxiety and high avoidance would
lean toward a “dismissing-avoidant” attachment style (see Figure 2).
29
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Figure 2. Two-dimensional model of adult attachment (Brennan et al., 1998).
Bartholomew’s four categorical model of attachment can also be understood using the
two dimensions of avoidance and anxiety (Henderson, Bartholomew, Trinke, & Kwong,
2005). Merging both understandings of attachment creates a more comprehensive
understanding of the different attachment styles (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Bartholomew’s two-dimensional model of attachment (Henderson et al., 2005).
Attachment and Abusive Relationships
While it might at first be difficult to understand how individuals can be attached
to another individual who harms them or treats them poorly, Bowlby (1973) proposed
that the quality of the relationship is not related to the strength of an attachment bond.
According to Bowlby, when an individual feels threatened it activates the attachment
system and the individual seeks proximity to an attachment figure, forming an attachment
30
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
bond. Research on the attachment bonds between abused children and their abusive
caregivers has been consistent with Bowlby's beliefs; for example, studies by Cicchetti
and Barnett (1992), and Crittenden (1992) illustrated that abused children still have an
attachment bond to their abusers, though it is likely to be an insecure attachment.
Furthermore, Bowlby (1969) posited that not only are children who are abused or
threatened by their caregivers still attached to them, but the threat may in fact strengthen
the bond because perceived threats activate the attachment system. Studies examining
attachment and IPV have found that insecure attachment patterns are associated with the
preparation of partner violence (Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000; Dutton
& Painter, 1983).
Presently, there is an astounding paucity of research on the role of an IPV
victim’s attachment to her abuser and how that may affect her ability to leave the
relationship, with only a small handful of studies being done on this topic. In general,
most attachment-guided research in the field of IPV has focused on the perpetrator of
violence and less on the victim’s attachment, and most of the research that does focus on
victims’ attachment styles occurred before the mid-2000s (see Bartholomew & Allison,
2006, for a review). Considering that attachment style influences view of self, view of
others, and behavior in relationships, and would, therefore, be likely to have implications
for understanding why some women struggle more than others to leave abusive partners,
this lack of literature on the subject is surprising.
31
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
One of the few theories to use attachment theory concepts to attempt to explain
why women appear to have such difficulty leaving abusive relationships is traumatic
bonding theory, which can also be used to explain the condition popularly known as
Stockholm syndrome. This model utilizes the concept from attachment theory that abuse
can work to strengthen the attachment bond between victim and abuser because the abuse
activates the attachment system (Dutton, 1988; Dutton & Painter, 1981; Dutton & Painter,
1993). The alternating of intermittent abuse with affectionate behavior that commonly
occurs in the cycle of violence effectively creates what is known in learning theory as an
intermittent schedule of reinforcement, a very reinforcing and difficult to extinguish
learning schedule (Scott, 1963; Zeiler, 1972). Dutton and Painter (1993) believed
intermittent abuse to be a part of what made it difficult to leave an abusive relationship;
and they did find that attachment to the abuser was strongest among victims who
experienced more abuse and whose abuse was more intermittent rather than consistent or
continual. Therefore, according to Dutton and Painter’s theory, the combination of a
threat present in the relationship that keeps the attachment system activated, along with
the intermittent abuse that typically occurs in IPV relationships, serves to create a very
strong bond between the abuser and the victim making it very difficult to leave the
abusive relationship.
While the traumatic bonding theory put forth by Dutton and Painter (1993)
utilizes concepts from attachment theory, it is still primarily based in learning theory and
does not take into consideration that different attachment styles may be more prone to
32
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
entering and staying in an abusive relationship than others. Since one’s attachment style
influences how a person views themselves and others in relationships, it would make
sense that those with insecure patterns would be overrepresented in a sample of women in
abusive relationships. Henderson et al. (1997) examined abused women’s attachment
patterns and their success in emotional and physical separation from their abusive
partners. Henderson et al. (1997) found that those patterns associated with a positive
model of self and lower attachment-related anxiety (secure and dismissing) were
underrepresented. Those with a negative model of self and higher attachment-related
anxiety (fearful and preoccupied) were overrepresented, making up 88% of their total
sample, and of that percent, 53% were classified as preoccupied. Walker (2009) also
reported similar findings that women in abusive relationships were more likely to have an
insecure attachment style. Additionally, others have found that women in abusive
relationships have elevations in attachment-related anxiety (Bond & Bond, 2004;
Henderson et al., 2005; Scott & Babcock, 2010; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998) and in
attachment-related avoidance (Bond & Bond, 2004; Kenser & McKenry, 1998; Wekerle
& Wolfe, 1998). Due to the nature of these studies, it is impossible to say whether the
abuse in adulthood caused the attachment style or if these women already exhibited
insecure attachment before their abusive relationships. However, whether the attachment
style was there before or caused by the abusive relationship, their views of self and the
way these women interact with their partners are important for understanding the
dynamics at play that may make it difficult for some women to leave.
33
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Henderson et al. (1997) did find that those with insecure patterns of attachment,
particularly fearful and preoccupied, had difficulty leaving abusive relationships. Those
with a fearful attachment style tended to stay in the relationships longer; however, once
out of the relationships, they reported less desire to reconnect with their partners and
were more likely to endorse that they did not still love their partners. This finding
suggests that these women may have more difficulty leaving initially but may tend not to
return to the relationship once they do separate. This finding is consistent with the way an
individual with a fearful attachment style would view herself and her partners.
Prototypical fearful individuals score high on attachment-related avoidance and have
mixed feelings about being in a close relationship; they want to have close relationships,
but they hold a negative view of themselves and often have the belief that they are not
worthy of love. Additionally, they have a negative view of others, have difficulty trusting
or depending on other people, and feel uncomfortable in close relationships
(Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Therefore, it follows that once
this type of person has decided to leave a relationship, she may see her partner’s abuse as
confirmation that her partner could not be trusted. Therefore, these individuals are less
predisposed to return to the relationships.
As it concerns those with a preoccupied attachment style, Henderson et al. (1997)
found that these individuals tended to have a shorter relationship length and tended to
leave and return to the relationships multiple times. Furthermore, those with a
preoccupied style who had separated were more likely to endorse more emotional
34
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
involvement and still love their ex-partners than other attachment styles, which is
consistent with how people with preoccupied styles typically view themselves negatively
and tend to view their partners in a very positive light and want to be very close with
them. Henderson et al. (1997) concluded that a preoccupied style may be most at risk for
having difficulty permanently separating physically and emotionally from an abusive
relationship due to the difficulty these individuals have with emotionally separating from
their partners. The frequent leaving of the relationships while still having feelings for
their partners seems to make this attachment style more prone to being drawn into
reconciling. It was suggested by Henderson et al. that perhaps those with preoccupied
attachment styles use leaving to try to change their partners’ behaviors instead of leaving
with the aim of breaking off the relationship, which may be one reason why they leave
apparently so much more readily than those with a fearful attachment style, yet are also
much more likely to return.
Henderson et al. (1997) performed a 6 month follow up with their participants,
and only 4 of the 59 participants had returned to their partners at that time. Two women
had preoccupied attachment styles and the other two had fearful attachment styles;
however, the authors admit that 6 months is a fairly short time frame. When one
considers how many times a woman leaves before leaving “for good,” 6 months is an
especially short time frame. Okun (1986) looked at 300 women who had been in abusive
relationships and found that a woman left on average five times before finally terminating
the relationship permanently. Some researchers, such as Okun, suggest that leaving is a
35
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
more fluid process, and frequently leaving and returning to the relationship can help the
woman test her ability to manage on her own outside of the relationship (see also Ulrich,
1998).
Purpose of Present Study
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The above literature review describes disturbing levels of IPV prevalence in
relationships and our present understanding of why women stay in these relationships,
including external barriers to leaving and the many internal psychological factors at play.
However, the potential interaction between a woman’s attachment style and barriers to
leaving has not been explored. This interaction is important because it is possible that
women with different attachment styles may view certain barriers to leaving as more
salient than others.
This study, involving women in a domestic violence shelter, assesses if romantic
attachment relationship patterns are associated with particular barriers cited as salient
for women when making their decision to stay or leave the relationship. This information
will be useful for counselors involved with women who are victims of partner violence as
they make key decisions about leaving an abusive relationship. If attachment style is
shown to be a significant predictor for particular barriers to leaving an abusive
relationship, a counselor could better help the woman overcome these barriers by
tailoring counseling sessions.
36
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate the relationship between a
woman's attachment style and barriers to leaving the abusive relationship; specifically, do
women with different attachment styles report different barriers as more salient than
others when it comes to leaving the relationship?
Research Question
Does an IPV victim’s attachment style correlate to particular salient barriers to
leaving?
Hypothesis.
1. It is expected that there will be an overrepresentation of individuals with an
insecure attachment style in this population.
2. It is expected that this study will replicate Hendy et al. (2003). Specifically,
scores on the DLS subscales will indicate that (a) those who decide to stay in
the relationship will report greater Fear of Loneliness concerns than those who
made the decision to leave; (b) those who made the decision to leave will
report greater concerns over Fear of Harm, Childcare Needs, Poor Social
Support, and Financial Problems; and (c) there will be no significant
difference between those who decided to leave or stay on Hopes That Things
Change subscale.
3. It is expected that anxiety and avoidance on the ECR-R will correlate with
different subscales on the DLS, specifically that greater anxiety will positively
correlate with greater Fear of Loneliness, Hope That Things Change, and
37
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Social Embarrassment concerns. It is expected that there will be no difference
between anxiety and avoidance on the ECR-R and that anxiety will positively
correlate with scores on Fear of Harm and Poor Social Support.
4. An exploratory question regarding romantic attachment score on the ECR-R
and the reported decision to leave or stay will also be conducted.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a domestic violence agency in a large
midwestern city (N = 50) using the agency’s client email newsletter list. The inclusion
criteria was that the participants had to be 18 years of age or older and either presently be
in an abusive romantic relationship or have a history of being in an abusive relationship.
Participants also had to have a working proficiency in the English language.
Measures
Demographics. The women were given a brief set of overall instructions and
asked to report their ethnicity, age, and number of children. Additionally after participants
filled out the DLS, they were asked to report length in current relationship, number of
times they have attempted to leave their abusive partner, and “at this current moment in
time, what is your decision about the future of your current relationship?” Participants
were given a choice of three answers: stay, leave, and undecided (see Appendix A).
Attachment to partner: The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
(ECR-R) questionnaire. The women’s attachment to their partner was measured using
38
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire. The ECR-R is a
widely used 36-item self-report measure of attachment developed by Fraley et al. (2000).
The measure has two sub-scales of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. An
individual’s score on attachment anxiety and avoidance determine where they fall on the
attachment spectrum (e.g., an individual scoring low on anxiety and high on avoidance
would fall closer to the dismissing-avoidant attachment style end of the spectrum). Each
item is rated on a 7-point Likert-scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly
agree. The ECR-R included questions such as “I do not often worry about being
abandoned,” and “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away,” as well as
items such as “I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner,” and “I find it difficult
to allow myself to depend on romantic partners” (see Appendix B).
ECR-R is the revised version of the ECR that was developed by Brennan et al.
(1998). The original scale was reanalyzed and the final ECR-R items were selected on the
basis of item response theory. The resulting scale was more precise and had greater
stability than the ECR (Fraley et al., 2000; Sibley & Liu, 2004). The α coefficients for the
ECR-R are generally reported to be near or at 0.90, and Sibley and Lui (2004) reported α
coefficients for the anxiety subscale to be 0.95 and for the avoidance subscale to be at
0.93. Test-retest coefficients are between 0.50 and .075. Additionally, in a longitudinal
study, Sibley, Fischer, and Liu (2005) found that the ECR-R tends to be more reliable and
stable over time in measuring romantic attachment than other self-report attachment
measures accounting 85% of the shared variance.
39
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Barriers to leaving the relationship: Decision to Leave Scale (DLS). Perceived
barriers to leaving the relationship was measured by The Decision to Leave Scale (DLS),
a 30-item self-report measure developed by Hendy et al. (2003; see Appendix C). The
measure produces scores on seven dimensions: Fear of Loneliness, Childcare Needs,
Financial Problems, Poor Social Support, Fear of Harm, and Hope That Things Change.
Participants are asked to use a 5-point scale to rate how important each of the items on
the DLS is when making the decision to stay or leave the relationship where 1 = not at all
important and 5 = very important. The DLS consists of items such as “I fear what people
would say,” “I have little support from my friends,” “I would miss the affection,” and “I
fear loss of income.”
The DLS has an internal reliability of 0.73, mean test-retest reliability of 0.70.
Criterion validity for the DLS is indicated by a general college population sample
reported significantly fewer DLS concerns than reported by women shelters (Hendy et
al., 2003).
Procedure
Participants were women seeking services from a domestic violence
agency/shelter. Women were recruited by sending out a request for participants via the
agency email list. The request email (see Appendix D) contained a brief introduction to
the study followed by a link to the online survey hosted by Survey Monkey. The survey
began with an Informed Consent page (see Appendix E) and requested that participants
endorse “I agree” or “I do not agree” followed by their typed name as an e-signature.
40
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Participants were then directed to an Instructions page (see Appendix F) followed by the
survey pages for the demographics form, ECR-R, and DLS.
The results were compiled into a spreadsheet on Survey Monkey and accessing
the data required a password. Any printed materials were kept in a locked file box to
further ensure no one but the principle investigator or the research team had access to the
participants’ answers or information. After completing the survey measures, participants
had the option to provide their contact information in an online form in order to be
eligible to be entered into a drawing for a chance to receive 1 of 3 $35 gift cards to a store
such as Target or Jewel-Osco.
Results
Demographics
Participants were 50 women recruited from a domestic violence agency in a large
midwestern city. The mean age was 42.5 (SD = 13.5); the mean length of the relationship
was 13 years and 9 months (SD =12 years and 6 months); the mean number of children
was 1.42 (SD = .84). The ethnic breakdown of this sample is as follows: 73% Caucasian,
10% African American, 10% Hispanic/Latino, and 4% identified as Bi-Racial. This study
investigated only romantic relationships and excluded all other types of domestic or
familial relationships (e.g., parent/child relationships).
Analysis
Representation of insecure attachment styles. An independent-samples t test
was conducted to determine if there is an overrepresentation of insecure individuals in
41
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
this sample when compared to normative data. ECR-R norms were compiled by Fraley’s
lab in the early 2000s from people who took the ECR-R online (N = 17,000 [73% female]
average age of 27 [SD = 10]; Fraley, 2005). The test was significant for both anxiety,
t(17048) = 5.61, p = .0001, and avoidance, t(17048) = 7.65, p = .0001. Women in this
sample scored significantly higher on both anxiety (M = 4.45, SD = 1.23) and avoidance
(M = 4.21, SD = 1.19) than those in the normative data (Avoidance: M = 2.92, SD = 1.21;
Anxiety: M = 3.56, SD = 1.13). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means
for anxiety scores was 0.58 to 1.20, and the 95% confidence interval for avoidance was
0.96 to 1.62.
DLS subscales and the decision to leave. An independent-samples t test was
conducted with the decision to stay or leave as the independent variable and the DLS
subscale concerns as the dependent variable to test the hypothesis that (a) women who
decide to stay in the relationship will report greater Fear of Loneliness concerns than
those who made the decision to leave, (b) those who made the decision to leave will
report greater concerns over Fear of Harm, Childcare Needs, Poor Social Support, and
Financial Problems, and (c) there will be no significant difference between those who
decided to leave or stay on the Hopes That Things Change subscale. Those who indicated
they were “undecided” in their decision were combined into the “stay” groups, as was
done in Hendy et al. (2003).
No significant difference was found between those who decided to stay versus
those who decided to leave on Fear of Loneliness, Fear of Harm, Childcare Needs, or
42
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Poor Social Support. These findings are counter to the hypothesis and to what was found
by Hendy et al. (2003). As expected, the test was significant for Financial Problems,
t(48) = -2.10, p < .04. Women who decided to leave (M = 2.94, SD = 1.28) reported
greater financial concerns than those who decided to stay (M = 2.17, SD = 1.29). The
95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranges from -1.52 to -.031.
The test was significant for those who decided to leave on the Hope That Things
Change subscale, t(48) = 3.14, p < .003. On average, the group who decided to leave
(M = 2.55, SD = 1.31) scored lower on Hopes That Things Change than those who
decided to stay (M = 3.71, SD = 1.26). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in
means is .42 to 1.91. This finding is counter to the hypothesis and to what had been
previously found by Hendy et al. (2003).
Correlations between the ECR-R and DSL subscales. Correlation coefficients
were computed among the ECR-R and DSL scales. The results of the correlational
analyses are presented in Table 1 and show that 6 out of 14 correlations were statistically
significant and were greater or equal to .30. As anticipated, there was a very significant
correlation between the ECR-R Anxiety scale and the Fear of Loneliness
(r (48) = .47, p < .001) and Social Embarrassment (r(48) = .47, p < .001) subscales of the
DLS. A smaller, but still significant, correlation between the ECR-R Anxiety scale and
Hope That Things Change (r(48) = .34, p < .015) was also found. Additionally, the
correlations between Avoidance scale on the ECR-R and Fear of Harm
(r(48) = .47, p < .003) and Poor Social Support (r(48) = .34, p < .016) scales on the DLS
43
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
were significant, confirming the hypothesis. However, contrary to the hypothesis, the
correlation between Anxiety on the ECR-R and Fear of Harm and Poor Social Support on
the DLS was not significant. Finally, an additional unexpected correlation was found
between the Avoidance scale and the Financial Concerns scale (r(48) = .33, p < .019).
Table 1
Correlations of Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance With DLS Subscales (N = 50)
Fear of
Loneliness
Childcare
needs
Financial
Concerns
Social
Embarrassment
Poor
Social
support
Fear of
Harm
Hope
Things
Change
Anxiety
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.47**
.001
.14
.34
.28
.11
.47**
.001
.10
.47
.03
.85
.34*
.015
Avoidance
Sig. (2-
tailed)
-.16
.26
.14
.33
.33*
.019
-.03
.84
.34*
.016
.49**
.003
-.16
.27
* p < .05 (two-tailed). ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
44
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Decision to leave and attachment. A regression analysis was conducted to
determine if attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted the decision to stay or leave an
abusive relationship (“undecided” decisions were grouped with “stay”). Attachment style
did not appear to predict the decision to leave, F(2, 47) = 1.32, p < .28, with and R2 of .
053. Anxiety had no relationship to decision to stay or leave (Beta = .02 t(49) 0.13, p
< .89). However, Avoidance appeared to be trending toward significance (Beta .23
t(49)1.62, p < .11).
Discussion
This study focused on exploring the relationship between a woman’s attachment
style and perceived barriers to leaving an abusive relationship, and tested the hypothesis
that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance would correlate with various barriers
to leaving abusive relationships. This hypothesis was largely supported, with greater
attachment anxiety correlating with greater fear of loneliness, fear of social
embarrassment, and having hope that things in their relationship will change. Greater
attachment avoidance correlated with greater fear of harm from their partner, poor social
support, and financial concerns.
Representation of Attachment Styles
As expected, this study had an overrepresentation of women with insecure
attachment patterns, with participants in this study scoring higher than the general
population on both attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. This finding is consistent
with other studies that have also found evaluations in attachment anxiety and avoidance
45
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
in victims of IPV (Bartholomew & Allison, 2006; Bond & Bond, 2004; Henderson et al.,
1997; Henderson et al., 2005; Kesner & McKenry, 1998; Scott & Babcock, 2010; Walker,
2009; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998).
Perceived Barriers to Leaving and the Decision to Leave
While this study did replicate the finding from Hendy et al. (2003) that those who
decided to leave the relationship report greater financial concerns, it failed to replicate
Hendy et al.’s other findings. Specifically, this study did not find any significant
difference between women who decided to stay or leave the relationship and their DSL
scores on Fear of Loneliness, Fear of Harm, Childcare Needs, or Poor Social Support.
This lack of finding could in part be explained by this study’s fairly small sample size
(N = 50). However, another explanation is that these are fairly universal concerns for
women considering leaving an abusive relationship regardless of whether they actually
make that decision to leave. Those who choose to stay may do so because they feel they
will not have the needed strengths to overcome these barriers.
Conversely, those who have decided to leave the relationship may be reporting the
same level of concern over these issues, but for different reasons. The fears represented
in these barriers are very real for those in the midst of planning to leave. She may already
feel lonely without her partner and may fear being harmed after leaving, which is not
unreasonable as the most dangerous time for a women in an abusive relationship is when
she tries to leave (American Psychological Association, 1996; Browne & Bassuk, 1997;
Fluery, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2000; Mahoney, 1991; Walker & Meloy, 1998). Child care
46
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
becomes an immediate need and the fears related to caring for children are a practical
reality in addition to the reality that she may lack social support due to either being
isolated in the relationship she is leaving or she may have lost some social support when
she left the relationship. Furthermore, different from Hendy et al.’s (2003) finding that
there were no differences between the two groups regarding the Hopes That Things
Change subscale, this study found that those who decided to stay in the relationship were
more likely to score higher on the Hopes That Things Change subscale than those who
decided to leave. Hendy et al. concluded that their failure to find a difference between
those who decided to leave or stay on the Hopes That Things Change subscale was due to
this hope being a universal struggle and a barrier to leaving because it seemed that a
woman would need to choose to leave despite having hope that things would change.
Perceived Barriers to Leaving and Attachment
Elevations on attachment anxiety were found to correlate with higher DSL scores
on Fear of Loneliness, Social Embarrassment, and Hopes That Things Change. Since
those with more anxious attachment styles, such as those with preoccupied attachment,
have greater fears of rejection, abandonment, and find their self-worth through other’s
acceptance (Bartholomew, 1990, Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan et al., 1998;
Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), it makes sense that they would
report more fear of being alone and without a partner. It also follows that they would
endorse more social embarrassment concerns since those with high attachment anxiety
47
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
are often more concerned with other’s approval. Those who scored higher in anxiety on
the ECR-R were also more likely to score higher on the Hope That Things Change scale
on the DLS. This finding is consistent with earlier findings that those scoring higher on
attachment anxiety reported feeling more emotionally invested in the relationship and
return more frequently to the relationship, indicating a difficulty separating and hoping to
work things out (Hendy et al., 2003).
Though only correlational, these findings would suggest that when faced with the
choice to leave or stay, those who have higher attachment anxiety, such as someone with
a preoccupied attachment style, would struggle most with fears around rejection,
disapproval, loneliness, and having hope that things could change in the relationship.
Therefore, it might be helpful, when working with these individuals clinically, to focus on
addressing some of these fears, as these can be viewed as “internal” or psychological
barriers to leaving. While focusing on problem solving around external barriers to leaving
the relationship, such as finances and housing, can be helpful, those things will never
become relevant if the anxiously attached individual cannot first overcome her fears that
stem from her attachment style. Addressing these underlying psychological barriers may
be especially important for those who have a preoccupied attachment style, which is the
attachment style that is highest on attachment anxiety, as higher attachment anxiety is
associated with being less willing to leave a distressing relationship (Davila & Bradbury,
2001) and more likely to return to the relationship (Hendy et al., 2003).
48
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Avoidant attachment was correlated with Poor Social Support, Fear of Harm, and
Financial Concerns on the DLS. It is not surprising that those with elevated scores on
avoidance on the attachment scales are also likely to eschew close relationships, or
minimally to have mixed feelings about them. This finding is consistent with research
that has suggested that highly avoidant individuals tend to view others as untrustworthy
and rejecting (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Consequently, less
social support may be available when women with avoidant attachments decide to leave
an abusive relationship. While this lack of connection with others may not significantly
distress someone with elevated scores on attachment avoidance, it can become an issue if
they find themselves needing others for support. In some instances, getting out of an
abusive relationship requires some form of social support in order to find safe havens
(e.g., a safe place to stay), and if the woman has not maintained close relationships, this
type of support may be hard to attain.
In contrast to our original hypothesis that there would be no difference between
the attachment groups for the subscales Fear of Harm and Poor Social Support, the
avoidant attachment group was significantly more likely to report these as barriers to
leaving when compared to the anxious attachment group. The correlation between
attachment avoidance and Financial Concerns on the DLS was an unanticipated finding.
Greater scores on Financial Concerns were also associated with the decision to leave.
While this study found a trend toward those with elevations on avoidance as more likely
to leave the relationship, it was not statistically significant. The finding of financial
49
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
concerns correlating with higher attachment avoidance scores may suggest that those
with higher avoidance scores are more likely to leave the relationship and therefore more
likely to experience concerns around finances. This connection remains a question for
further research.
For those with more avoidant attachment styles, previous research has suggested
that they seem to struggle most in coming to the final decision to leave, but once they
leave, they have less of a tendency to return (Hendy et al., 2003). The barriers of those
with higher attachment anxiety that cite of poor social support, fear of harm, and financial
concerns are considered external barriers (Barnet, 2000; Barnet, 2001) to leaving rather
than internal or psychological, as was seen with attachment anxiety. Therefore when
doing clinical work with individuals with anxious attachment styles, the counseling
should focus less on psychological barriers to leaving and more on overcoming the
external barriers.
Decision to Leave and Attachment
While this study did not find significant difference between the decision to leave
and participants scores on attachment-related anxiety or avoidance, there was a trend
toward those with more avoidant attachment styles being more likely to leave the
relationship. Hendy et al. (2003) found that those with a fearful attachment style, who
score high on avoidance, tended to stay in abusive relationships longer, but once they
decided to leave, they were more likely to be successful in leaving their partner. Given
that these individuals have a negative view of others and are uncomfortable trusting or
50
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
depending on other people (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), the
trend that was found in this study fits with previous finding by Hendy et al. (2003).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The current study was able to examine attachment style and barriers to leaving
abusive relationships, which had never been precisely explored. However, the numerous
types of questions included in the survey instruments and smaller number of participants
did not allow for more advanced statistical design such as regression analysis. While this
study found significant correlation among variables, correlations—even strong ones—do
not equal causation. Therefore, it is impossible to say that one covariable caused another,
as it could have been a third unknown mediating variable causing the variable studied to
change together. Future studies should explore whether or not the strong correlations
found in this study are in fact predictive of one another.
Additionally, our findings suggested a trend toward those with higher attachment
avoidance being more likely to leave the relationship, but it was not statically significant.
Though the ECR-R is a valid and reliable measure that has shown to be stable over time
(Sibley & Lui, 2004; Sibley et al., 2005), we should not rule out the possibility that those
who had decided to leave the relationship would score higher on avoidance and lower on
anxiety even if this result was not reflective of their attachment style. For example, a
person who had decided to leave the relationship might not rate questions for attachment
anxiety such as “I often worry my partner will not stay with me” very high if they had
already decided to leave. Future research should examine if those who have decided to
51
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
leave score higher on avoidance and lower on anxiety because they've decided to leave or
because they truly have a more avoidant attachment.
Another limitation this study experienced was its fairly small sample size. This
limitation is likely why we failed to find significance between Anxiety on the ECR-R and
Fear of Harm and Poor Social Support on the DLS as we had expected. Additionally,
while relationship length was reported in this sample, marital status was not. Being
legally married to an abusive partner may make it more difficult to leave the relationship,
since separating from the abuser requires a significant amount of time and money for a
divorce. Future studies should examine if and how marital status impacts the correlation
between attachment style and perceived barriers to leaving. It should also be noted that
the sample was comprised of only females and predominantly Caucasian. Therefore, it is
possible that the results may not be as applicable to male victims of domestic violence
and those of ethnic minorities, and causation should be used when applying the results to
other populations. Future research should include a larger and more diverse group of
participants in order to assume generalizability of findings.
Finally, this study relied on online self-report measures. While this method of
collecting information was practical and allowed for women to complete the survey when
it was convenient and safe for them, there are inherent limitations. For instance, as with
all self-report measures, it is possible that participants could have exaggerated or
downplayed their responses. Additionally, the online nature of the survey meant that
participants could not ask any clarifying questions while they were taking the survey.
52
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Conclusion
These findings have implications for clinical work with women considering
leaving an abusive relationship. The results of this study indicate that not only are
specific barriers to leaving different between those with attachment anxiety and those
with attachment avoidance, but these barriers can be conceptualized into quite separate
categories—namely, external or internal barriers. Clinically, these findings suggest it is
particularly important to understand the attachment style of the individual one is working
with, as the interventions to address internal versus external barriers to leaving may vary
considerably. When counseling individuals with higher attachment avoidance, it would
likely be advantageous to focus initially on external barriers, whereas focusing on
problem-solving with clients with higher attachment anxiety is less likely to do much in
terms of helping them feel ready to leave the relationship.
References
Aguirre, B. E. (1985). Why do they return? Abused wives in shelters. Social Work, 30(4),
350–354.
53
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Ainsworth, M. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–
716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.4.709
Ainsworth, M. D. S, Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (Eds.). (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
American Psychological Association (1996) Violence and the family: Report of the APA
Presidential Task Force on violence and the family—Executive summary.
Washington DC: Author.
Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby, N.
(2003). 'Why doesn't she just leave?' A descriptive study of victim reported
impediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 151–155.
doi:10.1023/A:1023564404773
Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., & Yerington, T. P. (2000). Attachment,
emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between
secure, preoccupied, and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of
Family Violence, 15(4), 391–409. doi:10.1023/A:1007558330501
Barnett, O. W. (2000). Why battered women do not leave, part 1: External inhibiting
factors within society. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1(4), 343–372.
doi: 10.1177/1524838000001004003
Barnett, O. W. (2001). Why battered women do not leave, part 2: External inhibiting
factors—social support and internal inhibiting factors. Trauma, Violence, &
Abuse, 2(1), 3–35. doi:10.1177/1524838001002001001
Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (1997). Family violence across the
lifespan: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178.
doi:10.1177/0265407590072001
Bartholomew, K., & Allison, C. J. (2006). An attachment perspective on abusive
dynamics in intimate relationships. In M. Mikulincer & G. S. Goodman
54
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
(Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 102–
127). New York: Guilford Press.
Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Dutton, D. (2001). Insecure attachment and abusive
intimate relationships. In C. Clulow & C. Clulow (Eds.), Adult attachment and
couple psychotherapy: The 'secure base' in practice and research (pp. 43–61).
New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1994). The structure and function of adult
attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults:
Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 1–28). New York: Guilford Press.
Bond, S. B., & Bond, M. (2004). Attachment styles and violence within
couples. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(12), 857–863.
doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000146879.33957.ec
Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., Rivara, F. P., & Thompson, R. S. (2007). Health
outcomes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence
exposure. Journal of Women's Health, 16(7), 987–997.
doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0239
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss Series: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss Series: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety &
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby J. (1980). Attachment and Loss Series: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness, and depression.
New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York:
Guilford Press.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2), 3–35. doi:10.2307/3333824
55
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Browne, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1997). Intimate violence in the lives of homeless and poor
housed women: Prevalence and patterns in an ethnically diverse
sample. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(2), 261–278.
doi:10.1037/h0080230
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.
doi:10.1177/10778010122183784
Center for Disease Control. (2010). National Violence Against Women Survey.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive
_summary-a.pdf
Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Attachment organization in maltreated
preschoolers. Development and Psychopathology, 3(4), 397–411.
doi:10.1017/S0954579400005009
Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Children's strategies for coping with adverse home
environments: An interpretation using attachment theory. Child Abuse & Neglect,
16(3), 329–343.
Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attachment insecurity and the distinction between
unhappy spouses who do and do not divorce. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15(3), 371–393. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.371
Diamond, D., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Internal working models and the representational
world in attachment and psychoanalytic theories. In M. B. Sperling, W. H.
Berman, M. B. Sperling, & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical
and developmental perspectives (pp. 72–97). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice
perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. L. (1981). Traumatic bonding: The development of
emotional attachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent
abuse. Victimology: An International Journal, 6(1–4), 139–155.
Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A
test of traumatic bonding theory. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105–120.
Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2000). When ending the relationship does
56
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
not end the violence women's experiences of violence by former
partners. Violence Against Women, 6(12), 1363–1383.
Fraley, R. C. (2005). Information on the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
(ECR-R) Adult Attachment questionnaire. Retrieved January 9, 2016 from
http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~rcfraley/measures/ecrr.htm
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis
of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350.
Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental
dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(3), 430–445.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew,
D. Perlman, K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in
adulthood (pp. 151–178). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
Henderson, A. Z., 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(2), 169–191. doi:10.1023/A:1022836711637
Henderson, A. Z., Bartholomew, K., Trinke, S. J., & Kwong, M. J. (2005). When loving
means hurting: An exploration of attachment and intimate abuse in a community
sample. Journal of Family Violence, 20(4), 219–230. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-
5985-y
Hendy, H. M., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., McLeod, K. C., & Ng, P. (2003). Decision to
Leave Scale: Perceived reasons to stay in or leave violent
relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(2), 162–173.
doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00096
Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women: New insights into
ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kesner, J. E., & McKenry, P. C. (1998). The role of childhood attachment factors in
predicting male violence toward female intimates. Journal of Family
Violence, 13(4), 417–432. doi:10.1023/A:1022879304255
57
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Mahoney, M. R. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of
separation. Michigan Law Review, 90(1), 1–94.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented
attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton, M. W. Yogman, T. B. Brazelton, & M. W.
Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124). Westport, CT:
Ablex.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as
disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T.
Greenberg et al. (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and
intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Okun, L. (1986). Woman abuse: Facts replacing myths. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
O'Leary, K. D. (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and treating
partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6(4), 400–414.
doi:10.1093/clipsy/6.4.400
Pascuzzo, K., Cyr, C., & Moss, E. (2013). Longitudinal association between adolescent
attachment, adult romantic attachment, and emotion regulation
strategies. Attachment & Human Development, 15(1), 83–103.
doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.745713
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Beck, L. A. (2015). Attachment processes in adult romantic
relationships. In M. Mikulincer et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and
social psychology: Volume 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 33–64). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14344-002
Proschaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing
the traditional boundaries of therapy. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones Irwin.
Scott, J. P. (1963). The process of primary socialization in canine and human
infants. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 28, 1–47.
Scott, S., & Babcock, J. C. (2010). Attachment as a moderator between intimate partner
violence and PTSD symptoms. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 1–9.
doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9264-1
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2010). New directions in attachment theory and
58
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 163–172.
Shipway, L. (2004). Domestic violence: A handbook for health professionals. New
York: Routledge.
Sibley, C. G., Fischer, R., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Revised
Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) self-report measure of adult
romantic attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1524–
1536. doi:10.1177/0146167205276865
Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal stability and factor structure of
the Revised Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult
attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 969–975.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00165-X
Sonkin, D. J. (1995). The counselor's guide to learning to live without violence. Volcano,
CA: Volcano Press.
Sperling, M. B., & Berman, W. H. (1994). Attachment in adults: Clinical and
developmental perspectives. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ulrich, Y. C. (1998). What helped most in leaving spouse abuse: Implications for
interventions. In J. C. Campbell & J. C. Campbell (Eds.), Empowering survivors
of abuse: Health care for battered women and their children (pp. 70–78).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, L. A. (2009). The battered woman syndrome (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Springer.
Walker, L. E. (1978). Treatment alternatives for battered women. In J. R. Chapman, M.
Gates, J. R. Chapman, & M. Gates (Eds.), The victimization of women (pp. 143–
174). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Walker, L. E., & Meloy, J. R. (1998). Stalking and domestic violence. In J. R. Meloy
(Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 139–
161). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50026-8
59
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1998). The role of child maltreatment and attachment style
in adolescent relationship violence. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3),
571–586. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001758
Zeiler, M. D. (1972). Fixed-interval behavior: Effects of percentage
reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17(2), 177–189.
60
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Appendix A
Demographic Information
Please fill in the following information:
Birth date: ________month ________day _________year
Ethnicity:__________________
Number of children:__________
Ages of children:_____________________
If you would like to have a chance to win a gift card please provide the following
information:
Name:____________________ Phone:_______________________
E-Mail:________________ _________________
61
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Appendix B
The Decision To Leave Scale (DLS)
Perceived Reasons to Stay in or Leave a Romantic Relationship
INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate how important each factor is when making your decision
to stay in or leave your present relationship. Use a five-point scale from 1 = not at all
important to 5 = very important. Use X if not applicable.
1. _____ I fear what people would say.
2. _____ I fear harm to myself.
3. _____ I believe my children need their other parent.
4. _____ I fear loneliness.
5. _____ I have little support from my friends.
6. _____ I have little support from community agencies.
7. _____ I fear loss of custody of my children.
8. _____ I fear harm to my family.
9. _____ I would miss him/her.
10. _____ I would lose transportation, mobility.
11. _____ I would miss having somebody with whom to do things.
12. _____ I believe the needs of my family are more important than mine.
13. _____ I would lose my partner's help with the children.
14. _____ I fear loss of income.
15. _____ I fear legal proceedings.
62
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
16. _____ I would miss sex.
17. _____ I believe this is the best relationship I can get.
18. _____ I would lose the protection provided by my partner.
19. _____ I fear being homeless.
20. _____ I would miss the affection.
21. _____ I fear making my own decisions.
22. _____ I am too embarrassed to tell anybody.
23. _____ I fear harm to my pets.
24. _____ I love him/her and believe I can change him/her.
25. _____ I fear that nobody will believe me.
26. _____ I have little support from my family.
27. _____ I do not have an attorney.
28. _____ I believe he/she loves me and wants to change.
29. _____ I fear I would not find another partner.
30. _____ I fear loss of health benefits.
How long have you been in your present relationship/ How long were you in your
abusive relationship?____________________
How many times have you attempted to leave your abusive partner/ How many times did
you leave your abusive partner? __________________
At this current moment in time, what is your decision about the future of your current
relationship? _______Stay _______Leave ______ Undecided
63
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Appendix C
The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) Questionnaire
The following statements concern how you feel in romantic relationships. We are
interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in
a current relationship. Respond to each statement by indicating how much you agree or
disagree with it. Write the number in the space provided, using the following rating scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree
Strongly Neutral/
Mixed Agree
Strongly
____1. I'm afraid that I will lose my partner's love.
____2. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.
____3. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me.
____4. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them.
____5. I often wish that my partner's feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for
him or her.
____6. I worry a lot about my relationships.
____ 7. When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested
in someone else.
____8. When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I'm afraid they will not feel the
same about me.
____9. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me.
____10. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself.
____11. I do not often worry about being abandoned.
____12. I find that my partner(s) don't want to get as close as I would like.
____13. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent
reason.
____14. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.
____15. I'm afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won't like who
I really am.
____16. It makes me mad that I don't get the affection and support I need from my
64
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
partner.
____17. I worry that I won't measure up to other people.
____18. My partner only seems to notice me when I’m angry.
____19. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.
____20. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.
____21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.
____22. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.
____23. I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.
____24. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.
____25. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.
____26. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.
____27. It's not difficult for me to get close to my partner.
____28. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.
____29. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
____30. I tell my partner just about everything.
____31. I talk things over with my partner.
____32. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
____33. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.
____34. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.
____35. It's easy for me to be affectionate with my partner.
____36. My partner really understands me and my needs.
65
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Appendix D
Recruitment E-mail
You are invited to join a research study looking at the process of leaving an abusive
relationship. In this study we hope to gain a better understanding of the process of leaving
an abusive relationship so that in the future counselors and other advocates and helpers
can better assist women as they try to leave these relationships. You’re being asked to
volunteer to join this study because you have indicated you are involved, or have been
involved, in an abusive romantic relationship.
This study is being done by doctoral candidate Hollyn Michaels, MA, LPC, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Psychology degree at Wheaton College.
If you decide to participate you will be asked to complete a two-part questionnaire. One
part is about your romantic relationship and consists of 36 questions that you will rate as
to how much you think they apply to you. The second part is 30 questions that will ask
you about typical barriers to leaving abusive relationships and you will rate how much
you think each question applies to you. You will also be asked to provide basic non-
identifying information, such as how many children you have. We think these will take
you 15-20 minutes or less.
The decision to participate is up to you. If you chose to participate you can withdraw at
anytime for any reason. All of the information collected will remain anonymous and
confidential, your name is not connected in anyway to your responses. None of your
personal information is stored or shared with anyone and is used only for
Informed Consent.
If you participate and fully complete the questionnaires, you have the option to provide
your name and contact information if you would like to be entered into a drawing for a
chance to win one of three $35 gift-cards to either Target or Jewel-Osco (your choice if
you win). You do not have to provide this information to participate in the study. Your
name and contact information will not be tied to your answers and will not be shared with
anyone other than the researcher ad will be destroyed after winners are selected.
If you have questions about the study or any problems please contact the researcher,
Hollyn Michaels, at (615) 504-0430 or Hollyn.Michaels@my.wheaton.edu. You may also
66
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
contact the researcher’s advisor Dr. Cynthia Neal Kimball at (630) 752-
7033 or Cynthia.kimball@wheaton.edu.
Appendix E
Informed Consent
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
WHEATON COLLEGE
Attachment and Barriers to Leaving Abusive Relationships
Primary Investigator: Hollyn Michaels
You have been asked to take part in a research project described below. The
researcher will explain the project to you in detail. You should feel free to ask questions.
If you have more questions later, Hollyn Michaels, the person mainly responsible for this
study, will discuss them with you.
Description of the project:
You are invited to join a research study looking at the process of leaving an
abusive relationship. In this study we hope to gain a better understanding of the process
of leaving an abusive relationship so that in the future counselors and other advocates and
helpers can better assist women as they try to leave these relationships. You’re being
asked to volunteer to join this study because you have indicated you are involved, or have
been involved, in an abusive relationship.
This study is being done by a doctoral candidate in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Psychology degree at Wheaton College. The researcher is
not an employee of Family Shelter Service.
The decision to join, or not to join, is up to you and your services at Family
Shelter Service will not be affected in way by your decision. All of the information
collected will remain anonymous and confidential.
Procedures:
67
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
If you decide to participate you will be asked to complete 2 brief questionnaires.
One questionnaire is about your romantic relationship and is 36 questions that you will
rate how much you think they apply to you. The second questionnaire is 30 questions that
will ask you about typical barriers to leaving abusive relationships and you will rate how
much you think each question applies to you. You will also be asked to provide basic
non-identifying information, such as how many children you have. We think these will
take you 20 minutes or less.
At any time during the study you may stop participating and withdraw your
information for any reason.
Risks or discomfort:
This study is not expected to pose any risks to participants, however since you
will be answering general questions about your relationship with your abusive partner
you may experience some stress.
Benefits of this study:
Although there will be no direct benefit to you for taking part in this study, the
researcher may learn more about the process of leaving abusive relationships and this
information may be useful to other’s who are trying to leave similar situations.
Compensation
If you participate and complete the questionnaires, you have the option to provide
your name and contact information if you would like to be entered into a drawing for a
chance to win one of three $35 gift-cards to either Target or Jewel-Osco (your choice if
you win).
Confidentiality:
All of your information will be kept confidential. None of the information you
provide will identify you by name. The questionnaires you will complete will not have
your name on them and your answers will not be able to be connected back to you.
Instead of your name we will assign your answer sheets numbers in order to keep the
questionnaires grouped together. This Informed Consent document that has you name on
it will be kept in a locked box inside a locked office.
If you chose to provide your contact information to be eligible to win a gift card,
your name will not be tied to any of your results and will be used only by the primary
researcher solely for the purpose of selecting gift card winners and will be destroyed once
the gift card has been awarded to the participants. Providing this information is optional,
but if you do not provide this information you cannot be entered to win the gift card
68
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Voluntary participation and withdrawal:
Participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all
or to leave the study at any time without providing a reason. Whether you participate or
not, your decision will not affect your services at Family Shelter Service.
Questions, Rights and Complaints:
If you have questions about the study or any problems please contact the
researcher, Hollyn Michaels, at (615) 504-0430 or Hollyn.Michaels@my.wheaton.edu.
You may also contact the researcher’s advisor Dr. Cynthia Neal Kimball at (630) 752-
7033 or Cynthia.kimball@wheaton.edu.
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant
in this study, please direct them to the IRB Administrator at Wheaton College’s
Institutional Review Board at (630) 752-7046, or IRB@wheaton.edu.
If you would like to receive a summary of the results of the study when it is
completed please email Hollyn Michaels ( Hollyn.Michaels@my.wheaton.edu)
Consent statement
By signing this document you consent to participating in The Attachment and
Barriers to Leaving Abusive Relationships Study being given by Hollyn Michaels, MA, a
doctoral candidate at Wheaton College.
This statement certifies the following: that you are 18 years of age or older and
you have read the consent and all your questions have been answered. You understand
that you may withdraw from the study at any time and that you will not lose any of the
benefits that you would otherwise receive by withdrawing early.
All of the answers you provide to Hollyn Michaels will be kept private. You
should know that you have the right to see the results prior to their being published.
A copy of the informed consent will be given to you.
________________________
Signature of Participant
_________________________
Typed/printed Name
_______________________
Date
69
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Appendix F
Instructions
Thank you for taking time to participate in this study. You are eligible to
participate if you are, or have been, involved in an abusive relationship where your
abuser was a romantic partner. You are not eligible if your primary abuser was any other
family member that is a non-romantic partner.
This study is being done by a doctoral candidate in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Doctor of Psychology degree at Wheaton College. The researcher is
not an employee of Family Shelter Service. If you would like to receive a summary of the
findings from this study when it is completed please email Hollyn Michaels
Hollyn.Michaels@my.wheaton.edu.
In this survey you will find two questionnaires. There will be brief instructions
for each questionnaire, please read them carefully. Please take your time answering each
question. There is no right or wrong answer, simply select the answer that best fits you at
this time.
Your name will not be attached to any of these questionnaires. The only form that
requires your name is the Informed Consent page, and this will be stored and saved
separately from your answers.
You have the option to provide your name and contact information if you would
like to be entered into a drawing for a chance to win one of three $35 gift-cards to either
Target or Jewel-Osco (your choice if you win). We must have at least your first name and
phone number or email address in order to be able to contact you if you win.
Your name will not be tied to any of your results and will be used solely for the
purpose of selecting gift card winners. Providing this information is optional, but if you
do not provide this information you cannot be entered to win the gift card.
70
ATTACHMENT AND LEAVING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns related to this study please contact:
Hollyn Michaels, at (615) 504-0430 or Hollyn.Michaels@my.wheaton.edu. You may also
contact the researcher’s advisor Dr. Cynthia Neal Kimball at (630) 752-7033 or
Cynthia.kimball@wheaton.edu.
71