In the shadowy realm of domestic abuse, a groundbreaking study from the University of Cambridge unveils a disturbing psychological tactic employed by male perpetrators, which experts are now terming the “weaponisation of love.” This meticulously researched investigation shifts the lens away from traditional victim-centered narratives and instead illuminates the deliberate strategies abusers use to engineer a traumatic bond with their victims. Through in-depth interviews conducted by criminologist Mags Lesiak, survivors reveal the insidious nature of psychological manipulation that precedes physical violence, creating a form of captivity that is as invisible as it is powerful.
The crux of Lesiak’s research, published in the esteemed journal Violence Against Women, challenges established paradigms of abuse recovery. Instead of focusing on perceived victim pathology—often characterized by notions of codependency or emotional weakness—this study foregrounds perpetrator strategy as the principal force in maintaining abuse cycles. Lesiak argues that the common interpretation of victim attachment as a passive, trauma-induced response obscures the intricate, tactical brainwashing engineered by abusers well before any outward signs of violence emerge.
At the heart of the study lies the concept of the “trauma bond,” a psychological attachment born of alternating cycles of threat and affection. Traditionally viewed as a victim’s reaction to physical or emotional harm, Lesiak redefines this bond as a carefully constructed mechanism employed purposefully by abusers. Through manipulations that include intense intermittent affection, emotional cruelty, and the exploitation of shared histories of trauma, perpetrators create a bond that can evoke feelings comparable to addiction in their victims, binding them in psychological chains that are difficult to break.
Lesiak’s methodology involved extensive interviews with eighteen women who had endured repeated domestic abuse. Notably, all participants were economically independent and had often lived apart from their abusers during their relationships. This critical detail allows the research to parse out attachment dynamics beyond physical captivity or financial control, focusing on psychological entrapment. Despite having safely ended their relationships, many participants admitted to a persistent, often inexplicable urge to reconnect with their abusers, a testament to the potency of the trauma bond.
What emerged from these interviews was an alarming uniformity in the behaviors and strategies consistently employed by abusers—a distinct perpetrator profile characterized by the manipulative “two-faced soulmate.” In the initial phases of a relationship, abusers often present themselves with intense charm and seemingly unwavering devotion, a calculated “love-bombing” tactic that can eclipse all previous relational experiences in the victim’s mind. This enchantment is abruptly destabilized by cruelty, ranging from verbal abuse to physical violence, which then intermittently alternates with affectionate behavior to confuse and ensnare the victim.
This pattern of intermittent reward and punishment echoes well-established grooming techniques. Lesiak describes how victims often cling to the memory of the abuser’s early warmth as a psychological anchor, desperately attempting to preserve an idealized image against the harsh reality of abuse. It is within this dissonance that the abuser’s control deepens, leveraging the victim’s hope for return to positive interactions as a powerful tool to maintain dominance.
A particularly revealing element of the research involves the shared trauma narratives between abuser and victim. All study participants reported histories of childhood trauma, ranging from neglect to sexual abuse. Abusers exploit these vulnerabilities, weaving a false intimacy by disclosing their own traumatic pasts, which serves to bond their victims while simultaneously justifying abusive behavior. This exploitation extends to instances of humiliation, where perpetrators belittle victims by comparing their pain unfavorably or mock them publicly, reinforcing dominance under the guise of mutual suffering.
Lesiak asserts that this co-optation of trauma’s healing potential is a calculated means of fostering dependency and obscuring the abuser’s responsibility. The mutual trauma narrative creates a deceptive framework where abuse is recast as a shared burden, making it more difficult for victims to seek help or recognize the manipulative nature of their situation. This dynamic perpetuates a cycle of abuse underpinned by psychological captivity rather than mere physical control.
Most strikingly, survivors frequently described their attachment to abusers using the language of addiction. Many likened their compulsive desire to reconnect with their abuser to the cravings experienced by substance addicts, underscoring the neurological parallels in reward circuitry disrupted by intermittent reinforcement. This addictive quality is evidenced by extreme measures taken by some participants, including relocation to distant cities to reduce the risk of re-engagement, highlighting the profound difficulty in breaking free from the entrapment.
Lesiak draws a compelling analogy between the abuser’s psychological tactics and the behavior of slot machines, where unpredictable rewards interspersed with losses create a powerful, often destructive, reinforcement schedule. This unpredictability heightens self-blame and self-doubt in victims, who become trapped in a cycle of hope and despair, strengthening the abuser’s grip without physical coercion. The research emphasizes that the power of this control tactic lies precisely in its invisibility, making it harder to detect and intervene.
The implications of these findings for professional training and frontline responses to domestic abuse are profound. Lesiak advocates for a paradigm shift in how coercive control is recognized, urging law enforcement and social workers to identify subtle, non-physical indicators such as the “two-faced soulmate” perpetrator profile and the manipulation of trauma narratives. Recognizing these signs early could transform intervention strategies, providing better protection and support for victims long before abuse escalates to physical violence.
Ultimately, this research reframes domestic abuse not as a consequence of victim’s psychological shortcomings but as the product of calculated, strategic tactics devised by perpetrators to maintain power and control. By illuminating the deliberate weaponisation of love through psychological captivity, Lesiak’s study challenges existing therapeutic approaches and paves the way for more effective interventions focused on dismantling perpetrator strategy rather than pathologizing victim response.
This revelation underscores the urgent need for increased awareness and education around the psychological subtleties of abuse. If society can better understand the mechanics behind trauma bonding and the deliberate brainwashing tactics employed by abusers, it may be possible to break these invisible chains and offer survivors a clearer path to recovery and freedom.
Subject of Research: Psychological tactics and perpetrator strategies in male domestic abusers leading to trauma bonds and victim attachment.
Article Title: The Invisible Abuser: Attachment, Victimization, and Perpetrator Perception in Repeat Abuse
News Publication Date: 15-Oct-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10778012251379423
Keywords: domestic abuse, trauma bond, psychological captivity, coercive control, perpetrator strategy, victim attachment, trauma bonding, intermittent reinforcement, grooming tactics, addiction analogy, two-faced soulmate, shared trauma exploitation
