(PS12-C75) Variations in Perspectives of Intimate Partner Violence Between Survivors, Community Members, & First Responders

Introduction: Understanding perspectives is a key step to implementing effective action and providing support, particularly with survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and the assistance they are currently provided on an institutional and societal level. Currently, trainings first responders receive can vary widely and impact the quality of response. For example, despite training, police responses may often minimize violence, victim-blame, or express clear belief in IPV myths (Gezinski, 2020). On an individual level, survivors often experience internalized stigma, which can be a significant factor in their perceptions of IPV and willingness to seek help (Murray et al., 2018) – and when they do seek help, community members may struggle with providing effective support, possibly due to concerns about “deservingness of help”, even within self-identified close-knit communities (Banyard et al., 2019). Consequently, working to understand the perspectives members of the community have regarding IPV can impact their willingness to engage in help-seeking behaviors, and the quality of responses when they do. This study examined the variations in the perspectives of IPV based on positions in the community – specifically, if an individual has had experiences with IPV (first or second hand), if they have no prior experiences, or if they have primarily professional experiences as a first responder.  

Method: Data was collected via participation in two surveys. One survey included scales such as the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale and questions about the officer's demographic identity and career history. The other assessed the DVMAS, beliefs about service use, personal experience with IPV (first and second hand), and demographic questions. P</span>articipant responses will be combined into three distinct groups: first responders, community members with no prior IPV, and current/previous survivors.

Results: 551 responses were collected after data cleaning. We plan to run a descriptive and cross-correlational analysis to determine if there are variances in perceptions of IPV and community resources based on their role in the community and past experiences. We anticipate survivors will have a more accurate perception of IPV than individuals without prior experience and first responders, and there will be a significant negative correlation between perceptions of IPV and likelihood of help-seeking from specific resources.

Implications: A potential limitation is findings will indicate a correlational relationship rather than causal. Further, most participants were white, indicating results may not be consistent in a cross-cultural context. Nonetheless, the results will help us determine how community roles may impact perceptions of IPV and provide insight into current reputations of resources when responding to IPV. By understanding these current gaps, the findings can contribute to the facilitation of a more guided conversation around IPV awareness, thereby facilitating healing and fostering of a relationship between survivors, community members, and first responders, thereby contributing to overall community wellbeing.