Experiences with mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence among victims
Little is known about why some intimate partner violence (IPV) victims experience mandatory reporting of IPV (MR-IPV), while others do not. A new study has investigated what factors are associated with MR-IPV experience and examined the experienced consequences of MR-IPV among victims.
From the left: Astrid Gravdal Vølstad, Kevin S. Douglas, and Solveig Karin Bø Vatnar.
This study focused on intimate partner violence (IPV) victims’ experiences with mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence (MR-IPV). We examined two aspects of MR-IPV experience: 1) which factors were associated with having experienced MR-IPV and 2) which consequences IPV victims with MR-IPV experience reported that MR-IPV had for them. We examined the responses from 86 IPV victims who responded to a questionnaire about MR-IPV and IPV. Of these, 39 had experienced MR-IPV. According to the law, MR-IPV applies when it is most likely that severe or persistent IPV will occur. We were therefore particularly interested in investigating whether IPV victims subjected to more severe IPV to a higher extent had MR-IPV experience. We found that this was not the case, which could indicate that MR-IPV might not be practiced as intended. We found that IPV victims who had perpetrated severe psychological violence had a higher likelihood of having MR-IPV experience. The IPV victims reported both positive and negative consequences of MR-IPV, but generally more positive consequences for themselves.
