Barriers to and facilitators of help-seeking behavior among Israeli men who experience intimate partner violence: A qualitative study.

Abstract

Research has shown that male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) are less likely than women to seek formal and informal help. Studies have identified internal barriers (e.g., shame) and external and structural barriers (e.g., limited availability of services), rooted in hegemonic masculinity norms, that explain this underutilization of help. There is also evidence of recent changes in the cultural understanding of masculinity, but these new insights have yet to be incorporated in theories of male IPV and related help-seeking. The purpose of the present study was to obtain a deeper understanding of the help-seeking decisions, barriers, and facilitators of formal and informal help-seeking among male IPV victims. In-depth interviews were conducted with a community sample of 17 Israeli men who self-identified as having been subjected to IPV. Thematic analysis revealed that help-seeking decisions were shaped by a lack of awareness of the need for help, expected outcomes of help-seeking, and actual help-seeking attempts, which together created both barriers and facilitators. Three barriers were identified; they were related to masculinity ideals, failure to recognize victimization, and family values. In addition, three facilitators of help-seeking were identified; they were related to recognizing victimization, access to online social networks, and the fatherhood role. The findings indicate that the barriers and facilitators were interrelated, reflecting the interlocking changing social constructs of masculinity, victimization, and family values. These research findings may contribute to the development of strategies to encourage help-seeking behaviors, such as gender-inclusive education and training of practitioners in IPV services. Public Significance StatementThe findings reveal the help-seeking process of male victims of female intimate partner violence, which is shaped by a lack of awareness of the need for help, expected outcomes of help-seeking, and actual help-seeking attempts. These findings highlight the need to identify and remove barriers to help-seeking based on the intersection of masculinity ideals, failure to recognize IPV, and family values.

Third-party perceptions of intimate partner violence victimization in men.

“…Walker and colleagues' findings and those of other studies (e.g., Dutton & Nicholls, 2005;Gueta & Shilchove, 2022;Winstok, 2017) detail a variety of gendered stereotypes applied to men who are IPV victims by individuals in their sphere, including friends, family, and social service and court officials. Various findings suggest that violence against men is perceived as less serious by lay third-parties (Felson & Feld, 2009;Hines et al, 2020), by psychologists (Follingstad et al, 2004), and by police (Cormier & Woodworth, 2008); that male victims are conjectured to be responsible for their victimization (Parker et al, 2020); that male perpetrators are rated by third parties as nine times more criminal than female perpetrators (even when controlling for body size and perceived injury; Parker et al, 2020); and that male victims are much less likely than female victims to acknowledge their victimhood, despite meeting well-defined behavioral criteria for victimization (Arnocky & Villancourt, 2014).…”

“…This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. (Walker et al, 2019) and there are a variety of barriers to men who might otherwise avail themselves of those resources (e.g., Cho et al, 2020;Gueta & Shilchove, 2022).…”

“…Across all IPV types, Corbally (2015) cautioned that current IPV definitions and measures utilize language that is based on the experiences of female IPV victims such that men who have experienced IPV may not apply those descriptions to themselves or their experiences (Drijber et al, 2013; Walker et al, 2019); qualitative studies such as Gueta and Shilchove (2022) support these conclusions. Additionally, men may fear “second wave abuse” if they self-identify as IPV victims (e.g., abuse enacted through social, judicial, and/or law enforcement systems; Laing, 2017).…”

“…Broadly, evidence is rapidly accumulating that IPV is a relatively common phenomenon for men and is associated with significant risk for harm and negative outcomes (Bates, 2020; Hine, 2019). However, in contrast to the well-researched and effective screening procedures and interventions for women who are victims of IPV (Trabold et al, 2020) and legally mandated reoffending risk reduction strategies for men who are perpetrators (Cannon et al, 2016), few support resources exist for men who are IPV victims (Walker et al, 2019) and there are a variety of barriers to men who might otherwise avail themselves of those resources (e.g., Cho et al, 2020; Gueta & Shilchove, 2022).…”

An exploratory study of men’s access to mental health services.

“…This article focuses on “access” as a multidimensional concept that incorporates the availability of services, the utilization of (and barriers to using) services, the relevance and effectiveness of services, and services’ equity or social justice components (Gulliford et al, 2002). There is emerging literature investigating men’s help-seeking behaviors, including research investigating anonymous online help-seeking (Drioli-Phillips et al, 2021), explorations of differences in help-seeking based on whether it was professional help, informal help, or self-help in question (Cole & Ingram, 2020), and analysis about how barriers and facilitators of help-seeking may be complex and interrelated (Gueta & Shlichove, 2022). However, focusing only on men’s help-seeking has at times resulted in simplistic attribution of men’s difficulties in accessing health services to a mismatch between available services and masculine norms (Addis & Mahalik, 2003).…”