For law enforcement professionals, looking beyond behaviors to better understand the dynamics of sexual violence is critical in building the case.
Some of the most challenging questions in sexual violence investigations aren’t about what happened during the assault. They’re about what happens afterward.
Why would a survivor keep communicating with a perpetrator? Why might a victim return to a relationship with a person who hurt them or express hesitation about the consequences of an arrest? Why might a survivor disclose a rape and later minimize what happened or recant entirely?
These behaviors can be difficult to reconcile with our perception of how a victim “should” respond to a traumatic event. When a survivor maintains contact with the person who harmed them, investigators may question whether the case has merit.
But this is the reality: we may be interpreting a survivor’s behavior without understanding the impact of trauma.
Understanding trauma bonds can help us make sense of these behaviors and relationship dynamics. Human behavior is complex, and when sexual violence occurs within a relationship involving manipulation, coercion, or abuse, our investigations can be more complex as well. But when police ask better questions, avoid preventable investigative errors, and gather more comprehensive evidence, we can do better for survivors.
What Is a Trauma Bond?
Trauma bond describes a strong emotional attachment that can develop between a person experiencing abuse and the person causing harm, particularly when abuse is mixed in with periods of perceived safety.
The person causing harm may switch back and forth between intimidation/control and affection. The survivor may experience genuine emotional connection in tandem with fear and confusion. The result can be a situation that is difficult to leave, even when the survivor recognizes that it is dangerous.
It’s important to distinguish trauma bonds from trauma itself. Not every survivor develops a trauma bond. The term is not a clinical diagnosis and should not become an investigative label applied to survivors across the board. The big question isn’t whether a survivor has a trauma bond. It’s what relationship dynamics might explain about the survivor’s behavior and what evidence can help establish those dynamics?
Why Sexual Violence Can Create Complicated Relationship Dynamics
When the perpetrator is someone the survivor knows, trusts, loves, lives with, or depends on, the survivor may be confronting several realities at once:
- Emotional attachment: They may still love the person, remember good times, and hope the relationship can go back to what it once was.
- Fear of retaliation: They may believe that reporting or leaving will trigger violence.
- Dependence: Housing, transportation, childcare, immigration-related concerns, or other practical circumstances may make leaving difficult.
- Manipulation and self-blame: The perpetrator may minimize the assault, blame the victim, claim the act was consensual, or paint the survivor as responsible for conflict in the relationship.
- Intermittent affection or reconciliation: Apologies, promises things will be different, and periods of calm may reinforce hope that things will change.
- Concern about consequences: A survivor may fear that reporting will impact shared children, family finances, shared social networks, or the perpetrator’s future.
These factors can coexist. A survivor may recognize that what happened to them was sexual violence, feel scared of the person responsible, and still want to preserve the relationship. That’s not necessarily a contradiction. It’s a reminder that people can experience attachment, fear, pain, and uncertainty simultaneously.
The Investigative Trap: Expecting Victims to Behave Like “Victims”
Police are trained to evaluate evidence, identify inconsistencies, establish timelines, and assess credibility. Those responsibilities must live separately and distinctly from any preconceived picture of how the “perfect victim” reacts to sexual violence. How a person experiencing trauma responds is by no means the “test” of whether sexual violence occurred.
Consider a few common scenarios.
Scenario 1: The survivor continues texting the suspect.
A detective reads friendly messages from the victim to the suspect, sent days after a sexual assault. The messages appear inconsistent with the detective’s understanding of how someone who has been sexually assaulted would behave.
But continued communication does not establish consent to the earlier sexual activity. The messages may reflect an attempt to maintain normalcy, fear of provoking the suspect, or a desire to repair the relationship.
The appropriate investigative response is to establish context. What was the relationship like before the assault? What happened afterward? Were there threats, apologies, pressure, or attempts to control the survivor or minimize what happened? What do the communications reveal when examined over time?
Scenario 2: The survivor defends the suspect.
A survivor tells the first responding officer, “He’s not a bad person. He would never intentionally hurt me.” The officer might interpret this as an admission that the survivor may have consented, or isn’t sure what really happened.
But the statement may reflect a genuine emotional attachment, difficulty reconciling sexual violence with the survivor’s past perception of the person, or fear of what will happen if the suspect gets in trouble.
Investigators should not assume they know which explanation applies. They can acknowledge the complexity without debating the survivor’s feelings: “It sounds like you have complicated feelings about what happened and about him. Tell me more about that.”
Scenario 3: The survivor recants or minimizes the assault.
After initially describing what happened to them as rape, a survivor later says, “Maybe I misunderstood,” or “It wasn’t that big a deal.”
Recantation and minimization require careful assessment. They can occur for many reasons, including fear, pressure, shame, or concerns about the consequences of reporting. The key is not to assume that a recantation proves the original report was false. Investigators should explore the circumstances surrounding the survivor’s statements and seek corroborating evidence where available.
The lesson in all three scenarios is the same: behavior that appears “inconsistent” is a reason to ask trauma-informed questions, not a reason to doubt a survivor’s report.
Trauma Bonding and Consent: The Relationship Does Not Answer the Question
One of the most important distinctions in sexual violence investigations is the difference between a relationship and consent to a specific sexual act.
A survivor may have willingly engaged in sexual activity with the same person before and after a sexual assault. They may have initiated sexual contact on other occasions, exchanged flirty messages, or expressed a desire to remain in the relationship.
None of those facts establishes consent to the act that is under investigation.
Consent must be evaluated in the context of the specific incident and the applicable law. Investigators should examine what was communicated, what each person did, whether coercion or force was applied, whether the person was able to give consent, and any other circumstances relevant to the legal elements of the case.
This distinction is especially important when investigating intimate partner sexual violence. Investigators need to understand that sexual violence can occur within an ongoing relationship, including a relationship that continues after sexual violence has occurred.
How Trauma-Informed Investigations Can Improve Case Development
Understanding trauma responses and trauma bonds are about developing a more complete understanding of the circumstances of the case. Some investigative best practices that can help:
1. Establish the relationship history
Ask about the relationship before, during, and after the reported incident. Explore patterns of control, threats, intimidation, unwanted sexual contact, reconciliation, and changes in behavior. These questions help investigators understand the context without telling the survivor what their experience means.
2. Explore continued contact without judgment
Instead of asking, “Why did you keep talking to him if he assaulted you?” consider:
- “Tell me about your communication afterward.”
- “Tell me how you felt about talking with them at that point?”
The goal is to understand the circumstances, not to require the survivor to defend their behaviors.
3. Look for patterns, not just isolated communications
A single suggestive text doesn’t tell the whole story. Investigators should examine available communications in context and over time.
Relevant evidence may include threats followed by apologies, repeated unwanted contact, pressure to retract a statement, demands for secrecy, attempts to monitor the survivor, or messages that reveal power dynamics.
4. Investigate the recantation itself
When a survivor changes an account or stops participating in the investigation, document what changed and when. Explore whether there was contact with the suspect, pressure from family or friends, fear of retaliation, or a change in the survivor’s understanding of the process.
5. Recognize that participation can fluctuate
A survivor’s willingness to participate may change as the investigation progresses. Fear, emotional distress, practical barriers, and uncertainty about the criminal justice process can all impact participation.
Investigators can help by explaining next steps, being transparent about what they can and cannot promise, identifying safety concerns, and connecting survivors with a trained sexual assault advocate to keep them informed of their rights throughout the process.
6. Separate personal reactions from investigative conclusions
It is human to struggle with behaviors that seem contradictory. Officers may feel frustrated when a survivor returns to a suspect, changes an account, or expresses concern for someone accused of causing harm.
Those reactions are worth recognizing, because unexamined frustration can affect questioning, documentation, and decision-making.
A useful internal question is: Am I evaluating the evidence, or am I evaluating whether this person is behaving the way I think a victim should behave?
That distinction can change the direction of an interview and the quality of an investigation.
A Better Question Can Lead to a Better Investigation
Trauma bonds offer one possible framework for understanding why a survivor may remain emotionally connected to someone who has harmed them. But no single concept explains every survivor or every case.
The practical lesson is straightforward: don’t confuse attachment with consent, continued contact with proof that sexual violence didn’t occur, or emotional complexity with a lack of credibility.
Instead, ask questions that expose context. Examine patterns over time. Investigate changes in accounts carefully. Seek out corroborating evidence. Remain open to multiple explanations while maintaining professional objectivity.
Our responsibility is not to decide whether someone “acts like a victim.” It is to investigate what happened.
By learning the complicated dynamics that can follow sexual assault, police are better positioned to conduct thorough, survivor-centered investigations without sacrificing accountability or the pursuit of evidence.
That’s not just a more compassionate approach. It’s a more comprehensive investigation.
Want to continue the conversation? Contact me at kristin@endsexualviolencect.org