Why People Side with Abusers Instead of Victims: A Psychological, Social, and Cultural Analysis

People often side with abusers due to psychological discomfort, fear, cultural conditioning, and manipulation—each rooted in complex social and emotional dynamics. Understanding these factors is essential for dismantling victim-blaming and building supportive environments.

Abuse—whether emotional, physical, sexual, or psychological—is a violation of trust and dignity. Yet in many cases, observers, family members, or even institutions side with the abuser rather than the victim. This phenomenon is deeply painful for survivors and perplexing for advocates. It reflects a web of psychological defenses, social conditioning, and cultural norms that obscure the truth and perpetuate harm.

This essay explores nine key reasons why people may side with abusers, drawing on psychological theory, sociological research, and cultural analysis. It also offers strategies for shifting these dynamics toward justice and empathy.

1. Denial and Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance occurs when people experience psychological discomfort from holding conflicting beliefs. If someone believes an abuser is a “good person”—a loving parent, respected leader, or charming partner—they may struggle to reconcile that image with evidence of abuse.

Rather than revise their belief, they may deny the abuse altogether. This defense mechanism protects their worldview but invalidates the victim’s experience.

“People will often reject information that threatens their self-concept or social identity” (Festinger, 1957).

In families, this can manifest as disbelief: “He would never do that.” In religious communities, it may sound like: “She must be mistaken—he’s a man of God.”

Impact: Victims are gaslit not only by abusers but by those who refuse to see the truth.

2. Fear and Control

Fear is a powerful silencer. In abusive systems—families, workplaces, or communities—people may fear retaliation if they support the victim. They may worry about losing relationships, facing backlash, or becoming targets themselves.

“Fear of reprisal is a major factor in bystander inaction” (Latané & Darley, 1970).

In domestic violence cases, family members may stay silent to avoid conflict with the abuser. In institutional abuse, employees may protect their jobs by ignoring misconduct.

Impact: Silence becomes complicity, and victims are left isolated.

3. Normalization of Abuse

In some cultures or families, abuse is normalized. Harsh discipline, emotional manipulation, or controlling behavior may be seen as “just how things are.” This desensitization leads to minimization of harm.

“When abuse is embedded in cultural norms, it becomes invisible to those within the system” (Walker, 1979).

For example, patriarchal societies may view male dominance as natural, excusing coercive behavior. In high-control religious groups, spiritual abuse may be masked as “discipline.”

Impact: Victims are blamed for disrupting the norm rather than exposing injustice.

4. Manipulation and Gaslighting

Abusers are often skilled manipulators. They present a charming, generous, or competent public persona while privately controlling and harming their victims. This duality confuses outsiders.

“Abusers often engage in impression management to maintain social credibility” (Goffman, 1959).

Gaslighting—a tactic where abusers distort reality—extends to third parties. They may portray the victim as unstable, vindictive, or dishonest, shaping others’ perceptions.

Caroline Abbott writes:

“Abusers are masters at disguising their thoughts and actions… They put energy into lying to the victim’s friends, family, and church”.

Impact: The victim’s credibility is undermined, and the abuser is shielded by social charm.

5. Sympathy Toward the Abuser

Some people empathize with the abuser’s backstory—trauma, mental illness, or stress—and use it to excuse harmful behavior. While compassion is important, it must not override accountability.

“Empathy without boundaries can lead to enabling” (Brown, 2012).

This dynamic often appears in families: “He had a hard childhood.” Or in romantic relationships: “She’s just overwhelmed.”

Impact: The victim’s suffering is minimized, and the abuser is portrayed as the real victim.

6. Cultural and Gender Norms

Cultural beliefs about gender roles and power dynamics shape how abuse is perceived. In patriarchal cultures, men may be seen as natural leaders, and women as submissive. This can lead to justification of control or violence.

“Gendered expectations influence how abuse is interpreted and responded to” (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).

In some societies, women are expected to endure hardship silently. In others, male victims may be mocked or disbelieved due to stereotypes about masculinity.

Impact: Cultural scripts obscure abuse and reinforce harmful power structures.

7. Confusion About Love

Abusers often use love as a weapon. They may say “I love you” after violence, creating emotional confusion. Outsiders may believe that love justifies staying or that the victim provoked the abuse.

“Trauma bonding occurs when cycles of abuse are interspersed with affection, creating emotional dependency” (Dutton & Painter, 1981).

This confusion is reinforced by media narratives that romanticize toxic relationships. Victims may internalize blame, and observers may misinterpret the dynamics.

Impact: Abuse is mistaken for passion, and victims are told to “work it out.”

8. Desire for Harmony

Many people prioritize peace over justice. They may avoid conflict by staying neutral or siding with the abuser to maintain family or social cohesion.

“Conflict avoidance can lead to moral disengagement” (Bandura, 1999).

This is common in families: “Let’s not take sides.” Or in communities: “We don’t want drama.”

But neutrality in the face of abuse is not peace—it’s abandonment.

Impact: Victims are sacrificed for the illusion of harmony.

9. Victim Blaming

Victim blaming is the belief that the victim caused or deserved the abuse. It reflects ignorance about trauma and control dynamics.

“Victim blaming arises from the just-world hypothesis—the belief that people get what they deserve” (Lerner, 1980).

People may say: “She should have left.” Or: “He must have done something to provoke it.”

This shifts responsibility from the abuser to the victim and perpetuates shame.

Impact: Victims are retraumatized and discouraged from seeking help.

Breaking the Cycle: What Can Be Done?

To counter these dynamics, communities must foster awareness, empathy, and accountability. Here are key strategies:

1. Education

Teach about healthy relationships, trauma, and abuse dynamics in schools, churches, and workplaces.

2. Support Systems

Create safe spaces for victims to speak without fear of judgment or retaliation.

3. Accountability

Hold abusers responsible, regardless of their social status or charisma.

4. Cultural Change

Challenge norms that excuse abuse or silence victims.

5. Empathy Training

Help people recognize manipulation and respond with compassion toward victims.

Conclusion

Siding with an abuser is rarely a conscious choice—it’s often the result of psychological defenses, social conditioning, and cultural blind spots. But the impact is devastating. Victims are silenced, retraumatized, and left without support.

By understanding these dynamics, we can begin to shift the narrative. We can choose truth over comfort, justice over harmony, and empathy over denial. As Caroline Abbott reminds us:

“God doesn’t look at the outward appearance, and neither should we”.

Let us be the ones who see clearly, speak boldly, and stand faithfully with those who have been harmed.

Sources:

Reddit: Adult Survivors Discussion

Caroline Abbott: Why People Side with Abusers

PSYFORU: Cultural Perspectives in Victimology