A recent study from the University of Cambridge examines how male domestic abusers form psychological attachments with their victims through deliberate manipulation, even before any physical violence occurs. The research, conducted by Mags Lesiak at Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology, explores the process by which abusers create what is known as a “trauma bond”—an attachment formed through cycles of threat and relief that can make it difficult for victims to leave.
Lesiak’s work challenges the idea that trauma bonds arise solely as a response to violent trauma. Instead, the study suggests that these bonds are intentionally engineered by perpetrators who use strategic systems of control well before any visible harm is inflicted.
“Victim attachment to an abuser is not a passive trauma response, but the result of deliberate brainwashing by a perpetrator,” Lesiak said. “The abuser’s psychological tactics can get obscured by ideas of codependency, which suggest that a victim is partly culpable due to something broken or masochistic within.”
The study, published in the journal Violence Against Women, involved in-depth interviews with eighteen women who had experienced repeated domestic violence in relationships. To better understand attachment beyond physical captivity or financial dependence, Lesiak selected participants who were economically independent and often did not live with their abusers during the relationship.
Despite having ended their relationships safely, many women described a persistent urge to return to their former partners. Participants included professionals such as doctors, a dentist, a science teacher, and a chef.
Lesiak observed consistent patterns in the experiences described: “Patterns of manipulation, grooming and coercion were so consistent it was as if all these women were talking about the same man. This is a distinct perpetrator profile. Specific techniques are used to construct and then weaponise love to produce a form of psychological captivity. As with the victims in this study, it can tether women to abusers even without physical or financial coercion.”
The research found that abusers often appeared charming and deeply devoted early in the relationship. This initial affection was later replaced with cruelty—verbal abuse followed by periods of warmth—creating confusion for victims. Lesiak said, “It fits patterns of intermittent reward and punishment, a staple of grooming. Many women described classic love-bombing in the early stages. Some spoke of such intense happiness that other non-abusive relationships paled in comparison.”
According to Lesiak, this cycle left victims longing for approval from their partners and desperate to recapture earlier positive experiences. Abusers also exploited shared trauma to justify abuse or foster dependency. Lesiak noted, “All the perpetrators co-opted the healing potential of mutual trauma to justify abuse, foster dependency, and obscure responsibility for their own actions.”
Many participants compared their attachment to addiction. Lesiak said, “While it is uncomfortable, I must respect the language used by the participants, and it was explicitly that of addiction and craving. Several women related it directly to hard drug use.” Some even moved cities to avoid returning to abusive partners.
“Abusers make sure their partners experience euphoric highs and desperate lows,” Lesiak explained. “This creates a powerful psychological reward system that operates on the same logic as a slot machine, with unpredictable wins, sudden losses, and escalating self-blame.”
Lesiak argues that professional training for police and frontline workers should include recognition of non-physical forms of entrapment—such as patterns exhibited by “two-faced soulmate” profiles—as signs of coercive control.
“All human bonds involve care, endurance, and sometimes pain. By coupling cycles of affection and cruelty with the exploitation of shared trauma, abusers create a bond they can use as a tool of control,” Lesiak concluded.