“I Thought About Killing Myself, but a Part of Me Insisted on Getting Help”: Coping Experiences of Male Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite evidence of male victimization in intimate relationships, Canada, like many other countries, lacks institutional support for men who experience abuse. As a result, male survivors may feel compelled to cope with IPV on their own. Purpose: This study examined the coping strategies male victims use to prevent or minimize violence and mitigate the effects of abuse already perpetrated. Methods: A mixed-method design was employed to explore coping strategies among Canadian men who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV). Quantitative data on help-seeking strategies used by male and female victims of IPV were drawn from the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey on Victimization, followed by a qualitative analysis of interviews with 16 male survivors. Results: Male IPV victims in Canada were significantly less likely than female victims to seek formal or informal support while in abusive relationships. Qualitative findings suggested this reluctance was driven by avoidant coping strategies, such as denial of abuse and withdrawal (Theme 1), as well as escaping abuse through work and productivity (Theme 2). Less prevalent but noteworthy themes included attempts to help abusive partners and save the relationships (Theme 3) and the pursuit of well-being after the abusive relationship ended (Theme 4). Conclusions: This study highlights male victimsâ reliance on avoidant coping strategies while in abusive relationships, which can hinder effective responses to abuse. It underscores the importance of developing gender-inclusive support systems for all victims of partner abuse and calls for reshaping societal perceptions of masculinity to create a judgment-free environment where male victims feel empowered to seek help.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".