**6. Discussion**

This study aimed to understand the reasons for staying in/leaving an abusive relationship. The results from the qualitative analysis were organized into two major domains (A. reasons for staying in an abusive relationship vs. B. reasons to leave the abusive relationship) that complement each other, being an integral part of the decision-making process of a victim of violence. We found that extrinsic factors (e.g., related to children, the aggressor, the society) reveal the existence of myths that can make it difficult to interrupt the cycle of violence, and thus it is important that they are considered in an integrated intervention when supporting the victim.

We verified how the fear of social exposure (to the family or society) of their situation was one of the factors that constrained victims from complaining and requesting help, and as a consequence, it contributes to the continuity of the abusive intimate relationships. The language used by participants revealed that fear of exposure to others was reinforced by socio-cultural factors. Society imposes meanings and representations on the women victims (Jones et al. 2017). This is particularly true in the context of gender domination, which Portuguese women also experience through the process of socialization. We witness the individual internalization of cultural discourses that result in external effects, for the victim and for society, by sustaining violence as something normative (Jones et al. 2017). This influences the social acceptance of the problem and affects the way victims talk about the aggressions they experience (Machado and Dias 2010; Sears 2018). Marriage for life and issues such as fidelity and modesty are conceived as eternal values to be respected, contributing to the maintenance

of the abusive relationship (Wilhelm and Tonet 2007). Divorce or separation are viewed negatively and as to be avoided, associated with a fear of social discrimination and a belief that it is potentially more di fficult to rebuild normative family life in these circumstances, due to the lack of approval and support of family and friends (Okada 2007).

Another myth that often ties victims of violence to the maintenance of the intimate abusive relationship is related to the belief that children are better o ff having a father than having no father (Sani et al. 2020). Perhaps because of this, even though they experience a violent relationship and are not fully aware of the risks to their children, some victims experience the dissonance in considering whether or not to leave the abusive relationship, believing their children love both parents and thus that loss of a parent may cause them emotional damage (Stephens 1999; Zink et al. 2003). Consequently, the victim is often in a dilemma such that, in any of the scenarios, she will not feel able to keep her children safe by herself or even be able to provide them the necessary emotional support. Hence, the fear of destroying a family may appear as one of the factors that contribute to victims staying in the abusive relationship (Narvaz and Koller 2006). This kind of thinking reveals the need for interventions to work on developing the self-regulation skills that promote victims' ability to control impulses, manage emotions, and persevere in the face of di fficulties (Grych et al. 2015; Hamby et al. 2017).

A belief that a partner's abusive behavior is only temporary and that a restoration of family peace is possible can keep the victim in the abusive intimate relationship. In this context, the victim tends to hide her desires and delude herself in the expectation that her partner will change (Wilhelm and Tonet 2007). This hope dissipates after various disappointments regarding his behavior (Fonseca et al. 2012). The construction of new meanings (Grych et al. 2015) about the permanence of the partner's abusive behavior contributes to the victim leaving their abusive relationship and thereby regaining their self-worth and self-respect (Estrellado and Loh 2019).

Economic dependence was mentioned by a third of the participants as a factor in their decision-making. The scarcity of material resources, combined with low job opportunities and the absence of financial autonomy, makes some victims afraid they cannot guarantee to economically support themselves and their children if they choose to break the relationship (Wilhelm and Tonet 2007). Consistent with the literature (Anderson and Saunders 2003; Estrellado and Loh 2019; Jones et al. 2017) some victims stayed with their abusive partners out of economic necessity, especially if they are unemployed. Shelters are not always a possible and desirable solution (Sani et al. 2019) and in the absence of a safe alternative, staying in an abusive relationship turns out to be the option taken. However, if victims can use their interpersonal resources, alongside other intrinsic strengths such as meaning-making (Baly 2010) and the capacity for self-regulation (Grych et al. 2015), they can sustain their decision and prepare themselves to leave (Bermea et al. 2020), for example, by getting a job (Estrellado and Loh 2019).

Family support was found to influence the victims' motivation for leaving the abusive relationship. According to the resilience portfolio model (Grych et al. 2015), interpersonal forces are a determining factor in the victim's decision to end a violent relationship (Okada 2007). Such support is important for a victim of violence to be able to overcome the undesirable e ffects resulting from the abusive experience (Levendosky and Graham-Bermann 2001) and to be able to develop other resources for their recovery. It is essential for the victim's self-regulation and promotes their ability to deal with adverse situations (Hamby et al. 2017).

Awareness of continued aggression and, therefore, the prospect that violence will persist over time, even across generations, creates a weariness and intolerance for the abusive intimate relationship in victims, especially where they fear for their own physical wellbeing or that of close family members such as their children (Faro and Sani 2014; Jones and Vetere 2017). The results of this study reinforce the idea that victims choose to leave the abusive relationship based on the best interests and protection of their children (Edleson et al. 2003; Sani and Carvalho 2018; Sani and Lopes 2018; Zink et al. 2003).

### **7. Implications for Intervention**

Domestic violence by an intimate partner is a complex problem. The decision to leave is not simple and is better characterized by a process that is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, such as psychological, physical, economic, familial, social, and cultural factors (Jones et al. 2017) operating at di fferent ecological levels. Professionals can play an extremely important role in supporting the victims of violence in their decision-making, if the support provided meets the needs of the victim.

For this to happen, it is important from the outset to assume a non-pathological stance to safeguard the dignity of the victim and to increase the opportunities to identify the problem and possible solutions. The traditional deficit-centered paradigm must be challenged by an approach that recognizes the resources and strengths of each person (Hamby 2014), that promotes action instead of passivity, and that does not just problematize but becomes part of the solution.

Thinking about resilience does not exclude thinking about risks but rather thinking about risks to convert them into points of intervention. This is sometimes done by inverting them (e.g., lack of support vs. existence of support; passivity vs. assertiveness) and by focusing on ways to promote a subject's resources. This possibility only exists if we access the victim's narratives so that we can understand their anguish, fears, and expectations. Rather than guiding our interventions by a prototype of a defenseless, passive, or dependent victim—that no theoretical model, exclusively, has managed to prove—we need to understand that the complex and multidimensional problem of IPV requires asking questions and outlining answers and that these can only be e ffective if constructed from the meanings of each individual subject. Only in this way can an individual intervention plan be e ffective, validating the multiple criteria that weigh on a victim's decision to leave or stay in the abusive relationship.

This study helps to demonstrate the vital role that a qualitative, scientifically based approach can play in recognizing the best intervention strategies for victims of violence. Just as the decision to participate in this study was voluntary, so must the question of whether to leave (or stay in) the relationship be considered by the victim's own decision-making process, supported (without pressure) by professionals. As we find that victims' experiences are full of dissonances, we discuss the importance of adopting an intervention model that seeks to increase the victim's resilience.

According to the Resilience Portfolio Model (Grych et al. 2015), three major categories of forces are highlighted: interpersonal, meanings-making, and self-regulation. Thus, there are both extrinsic and intrinsic forces that can be worked with to enhance the victim's resilience. As proposed by the authors of the model, the strengths and protective factors of the victim can shape how they deal (cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally) with IPV; identifying such factors o ffers mechanisms through which intrapersonal forces can be used to enhance the results of intervention, making it more e ffective.

Thus, support professionals should work to extract the strengths and protective factors of individual victims from their narratives. Over time, the recognized extrinsic forces (A, c.f. Figure 1) may help the victim to deal with adversity, by strengthening the meaning-making (B) that enhances change and the capacity for intrinsic forces such as self-regulation (C) to overcome obstacles. To assist the victim in decision-making for a life without violence, professionals can, through their strategies and techniques, develop an approach to intervention that incorporates information (e.g., the dynamics of IPV, e ffects of IPV on children); counseling (e.g., for the well-being of victims and children); guidance resources (e.g., activating protection and prevention mechanisms such as shelters, the police); and strategies for promoting the stability of resilience forces. Given that the whole process is dynamic, the (in)stability of these forces can determine the failure or success of the intervention, which points to the importance of continuous and present support, which can be tailored as the victim's self-su fficiency grows over time.

35

**Figure 1.** Comprehensive scheme of implications for intervention with victims based on *The Resilience Portfolio Model* (Grych et al. 2015) and the results obtained in this study.
