Perceptions of Boundary Ambiguity in the Process of Leaving an Abusive Partner

• Author: Jennifer L. Hardesty,Lyndal Khaw
• Published date: 01 June 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12104
• Date: 01 June 2015

Perceptions of Boundary Ambiguity in the Process of

Leaving an Abusive Partner

LYNDAL KHAW*

JENNIFER L. HARDESTY

†

To read this article in Spanish, please see the article’s Supporting Information on Wiley Online

Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/famp).

The process of leaving an abusive partner has been theorized using the Stages of Change

Model. Although useful, this model does not account for changes in relational boundaries

unique to the process of leaving. Using family stress and feminist perspectives, this study

sought to integrate boundary ambiguity into the Stages of Change Model. Boundary ambi -

guity is defined as a perception of uncertainty as to who is in or out of a family system (B oss

& Greenberg, 1984). Twenty-five mothers who had temporarily or permanently left their

abusers were interviewed. Data were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory meth-

ods. Results identify types, indicators of, and mothers’ responses to boundary ambi guity

throughout the five stages of change. Most mothers and abusers fluctuated between physi-

cal and psychological presence and absence over multiple separations. The integration of

boundary ambiguity into the Stages of Change Model highlights the process of leaving an

abusive partner as systemic, fluid, and nonlinear.

Keywords: Boundary Ambiguity; Intim ate Partner Violence; Qualitative Research;

Relationship Dissolution; Stages of Change Model

Fam Proc 54:327–343, 2015

The process of leaving an abusive partner involves multiple stages (Burke, Gielen, Mc-

Donnell, O’Campo, & Maman, 2001) and often multiple attempts (Lacey, Saunders, &

Zhang, 2011). Researchers have used a behavioral change model known as the Stages of

Change Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984) to explain how abused women navigate

this process (Burke, Denison, Gielen, McDonnell, & O’Campo, 2004; Burke, Mahoney, Gie-

len, McDonnell, & O’Campo, 2009; Burke et al., 2001; Chang et al., 2006; Cluss et al.,

2006; Frasier, Slatt, Kowlowitz, & Glowa, 2001; Khaw, 2012; Khaw & Hardesty, 2007,

2009; Shurman & Rodriguez, 2006; Zink, Elder, Jacobson, & Klostermann, 2004). While

this model is useful for theorizing change, there are limitations when applied to the pro-

cess of leaving. Primarily, the model focuses on individual change; thus, the complex

dynamics of an interpersonal relationship are largely unaccounted for (Brown, 1997;

Khaw & Hardesty, 2009). One possible dynamic is boundary ambiguity.

*Family and Child Studies, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.

†

Human and Community Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lyndal Khaw, Family and Child Studies,

Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043. E-mail: khawl@mail.montclair.edu

The authors wish to acknowledge the Pampered Chef Dissertation Enhancement Award from the

Family Resiliency Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the Jessie Bernard Out-

standing Research Proposal Award from the Feminism and Family Studies Section of the National Council

on Family Relations for funding this study.

327

Family Process, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2015 ©2014 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12104

Drawing from family stress theory, boundary ambiguity refers to a psychological sense

of uncertainty about who is in or out of the family system (Boss & Greenberg, 1984).

Different types of boundary ambiguity have been shown to influence how individuals and

families manage various situations of loss, including separation from a partner (for a

review, see Carroll, Olson, & Buckmiller, 2007). Given that many women leave abusive

partners multiple times before permanently ending their relationships (Lacey et al.,

2011), we sought to examine how boundary ambiguity operates throughout the stages of

change in a sample of 25 abused mothers.

BOUNDARY AMBIGUITY

Boundary ambiguity is a lack of clarity about who is in and who is out of a family sys-

tem. The perception of boundary ambiguity emerges when “an individual is physically

present but not perceived by themselves or others as a member of the family; or when an

individual is physically absent but still psychologically viewed as a family member” (Leite,

2007, p. 163). Boundary clarity occurs when an individual is perceived to be both physi-

cally and psychologically present or physically and psychologically absent from the family.

Researchers have identified four types of boundary ambiguity (Carroll et al., 2007).

Type I boundary ambiguity occurs when one is physically absent but maintains a

degree of psychological presence in the family (Boss, 2007). This type was initially studied

in military families with husbands or fathers missing at war (Boss, 1977). Because these

families did not know if their loved ones were alive or deceased, they reported an emo-

tional preoccupation with the missing member (Campbell & Demi, 2000). Type I boundary

ambiguity was also reported in separated and divorced families, where families questioned

if a member was still a part of the family despite his or her physical absence (Mad den-

Derdich, Leonard, & Christopher, 1999).

In contrast, Type II boundary ambiguity is perceived when a family member is physi-

cally present but psychologically absent (Boss, 2007). Research on Type II boundary ambi-

guity has often focused on families with a member with chronic illnesses (e.g.,

Alzheimer’s) who has lost some mental or emotional capacity despite being physically

present. Type II boundary ambiguity is a barrier to successful coping among family care-

givers of Alzheimer’s patients and has been linked to depression and negative views on

family life (Kaplan, 2001; Mu, Kuo, & Chang, 2005).

Finally, Types III and IV boundary ambiguity are unique in that they do not involve a

physical or psychological loss. Type III boundary ambiguity, inclusion, emerges when new

members join the family, such as in remarried families (Stewart, 2005). Type IV boun dary

ambiguity, intrusion, emerges when family boundaries are intruded upon by systems and

contexts outside of the family (Carroll et al., 2007). For example, Lee ’s study (1995) identi-

fied clergy families who reported intrusion by congregation members outside of the family.

Overall, boundary ambiguity has been applied to a broad range of family situations,

many of which involve d a physical or psychological loss (Carroll et al., 2007). Although

perceptions of grief and loss have been reported among women in the process of leaving

(Landenberger, 1989), the construct of boundary ambiguity has never been explored with

loss in the context of leaving. In this study, we explore the process of leaving using the

Stages of Change Model.

THE STAGES OF CHANGE MODEL

The Stages of Change Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984) consists of five stages

ordered according to one’s readiness to change (Burke et al., 2001). In precontempl ation,

an abused woman is not psychologically prepared to leave because she has not yet defined

www.FamilyProcess.org

328

/

FAMILY PROCESS