Between Silence and Support: The Role of Technology in Shaping Help-Seeking for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence

By Vardhini M. Krishnan

Introduction

Gender-Based Violence (GBV) has evolved beyond traditional understandings of physical harm to include a wide range of visible and invisible forms. It is a pattern of harm where power and control shape how individuals live and are treated because of their gender or gender identity, taking shape through physical, sexual, psychological, economic, and digital forms, and sustained by everyday norms as well as deeper structural inequalities (Wilson Center). Across the world, women and gender minorities experience the greatest prevalence of GBV (World Health Organization, 2024)․ In India, these forms of violence occur in the home, workplace, educational institutions, public areas and online (Rural India Online, Violence Against Women in India).

Help-seeking behaviour in cases of sexual and gender-based violence is a complicated matter. Survivors do not often come forward with a definite and quick decision to ask for help; rather, it is a process that develops through fear, hesitation, and indecision (India IPV help-seeking study, 2024).

Nowadays, technology is increasingly shaping help-seeking processes in situations of sexual and gender-based violence. On the one hand, technology can remove some obstacles; on the other hand, it can also create new risks (UNFPA, technology and GBV, 2025). Mobile phones, instant messaging, social media and online forums are all commonly used for individuals to discuss and seek help related to their conditions․ For a lot of individuals, the first thing that they do when they feel disturbed or unsafe is to get on the phone.

Studies reveal that the vast majority of people who own a smartphone use their devices mainly for communication and solving their problems, roughly 80% of them actually making plans via the phone and more than half of them turning to their smartphones for obtaining information or sorting out issues. During stressful times, the phone is equally likely to be used for reaching out to familiar people, looking for help or getting connected with support services (Pew Research).

This article examines the role of technology in the help seeking journeys of survivors of GBV. It also covers the merits, hazards, human factors and ethical dilemmas related to the use of technology. It argues that technology would be a source of help for survivors only if and when it takes safety, privacy and social realities into consideration at the very first stage of the design.

Background: Gender-Based Violence and Technology

Technology has transformed the nature of violence against women and at the same time brought new means to counter it. Individuals may experience harm online through cyberstalking, doxing, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images (Amnesty International - Online Violence). These forms of abuse allow perpetrators to continue harm beyond physical settings and at any time. In some cases, technology is also used to monitor victims’ activities, track their location, or restrict access to communication (National Network to End Domestic Violence [NNEDV], 2020).

On the other hand, digital platforms such as helplines, mobile applications and support websites can come in handy. Survivors can turn to these tools to get information, ask for help, report incidents or keep a record of abuse in a safer and more private manner (World Health Organization [WHO], 2021). This shows the dual role of technology. It can enable harm, but it can also support help-seeking. However, this potential depends on access. Technology can only help if individuals are able to use it. In India, smartphone use and internet access have increased rapidly over the past decade. Yet access remains uneven. Women are less likely than men to own personal phones, and rural areas continue to lag behind urban regions (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation [MoSPI], 2025).

Access is not only about owning a device; whereas, it also refers to the capability of using it in a safe and private way. More often than not, devices are shared or monitored, which can restrict a survivors possibility to get help. Limited digital literacy can further restrict use. As a result, while technology creates new pathways for support, these are not equally available to all. At the same time, institutional responses have not kept pace with these changes. Law enforcement and support systems often lack the training and resources needed to address technology-facilitated forms of gender-based violence (UN Women).

Many digital platforms also do not have reporting mechanisms that fully respond to survivors’ needs. This creates a gap between the use of technology and the safety it is expected to provide.

The Non-Linear Journey of Help-Seeking for Survivors of GBV

Help-seeking in cases of gender-based violence (GBV) is not a single act. It is a slow, staggered process influenced by inner conflicts and the surrounding environment. Survivors do not move in a straight line from recognizing abuse to seeking formal support. Their choices are shaped by internal states, social interactions, living conditions, and broader structural inequalities that change over time.

A Non-Linear Process

Help-seeking often begins with recognizing the experience as abuse. A victim might even doubt their own experience, and ask: "Is this really abuse?" This phase can be prolonged, especially in cases of psychological and emotional abuse where no visible harm is present. Many people naturally try to justify or find reasons for the offender's actions, which leads them to postpone the time of realization (Liang et al., 2005).

In the next stage, survivors weigh the risks and consequences of seeking help. They would think about the potential dangers such as backlash, negative label, and the blame.
Making the choice usually comes with a set of small and indirect behaviors like sharing the secret or looking for more information.

Not many decide to take a formal step toward seeking competent aid; even for those who do, their trajectory is often not a straight line. Survivors might stop or come back. These changes should not be interpreted as wavering. They mirror the variations in the victim's circumstances of safety, support, and control.

Intersectionality

Seeking help in cases of gender-based violence is influenced by interrelated identities such as caste, class, religion, age, gender identity, disability, language, and location. These elements do not just affect experience; they are the very factors that determine one's access to support systems. Survivors from marginalized caste and class groups may be subjected to institutional bias or indifference,while those in rural areas are often physically distant from services.

In the same way, linguistic difficulties can diminish understanding as well as impede fluent communication, and those who identify as gender and sexual minorities may face the risk of being discredited even within assistance services. These obstacles do not operate separately. They overlap to create layered inequalities that make help-seeking more difficult for certain groups.

Consequently, seeking help still remains discontinuous, irregular, and uneven. Some survivors encounter more barriers not because they are unwilling, but because they have to deal with structural constraints. This implies that seeking help is not just a mental process but also influenced by wider social disparities (UN Women, 2019).

Psychosocial Barriers

Psychological factors have a big influence on survivors' ways of understanding their situation, and also on their deciding to act or not. Fear is at the core of the whole thing, and it can manifest in different ways, such as fear of retaliation, fear of being socially excluded, fear of not being believed, or fear of losing the custody of children or financial support. Such fears can isolate survivors and prevent them from seeking help, even when support is available.

Along with fear, shame and guilt usually turn the blame away from the abuser and onto the victim. Preserving family honor often ends up being a priority over addressing the wounds in many cultures. As a result, survivors are made to keep quiet. These negative emotions directed at the self can lead to delayed or completely abandoned efforts to seek help as the persons involved may not be sure if their experiences are valid.

Stress or trauma disrupt brain functions such as memory, concentration, and decision-making. Being abused for a long time leads a person to give up and act passively because they feel that whatever they do, things will not change. Such reactions are not only personal but social interactions lead to them as well. When survivors are rejected or blamed, these mental barriers become even more powerful and therefore looking for help becomes less possible (World Health Organization, 2013).

Economic Barriers

Economic situations frequently dictate the possibility of seeking help. Many survivors depend on their abusers for income, housing, and basic needs. This adds to the complexity of breaking free. Most times, the deciding factor in seeking help is the threat of a sudden drastic change such as becoming homeless or losing one's income.

On the other hand, lack of money is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to economic barriers; the relationship between these and control is very tight. Financial constraints may be a form of abuse too. Say a victim might be subjected to being limited with what they spend, isolated from obtaining information or even stopped from trying to earn a living (see Springer chapter on economic abuse).

On top of that, the costs of lawyers, travelling, and getting help may serve as further deterrents even to those who are in financial difficulties. Hence, economic violence is far from being a side issue in relation to gender violence; it is indeed one of the main ways through which power and control are exercised .

It severely limits a victim’s capacity to make decisions, thereby greatly increasing the difficulty of leaving. Because of this, the decision to get help is not simply an emotional decision, it’s a pragmatic one, too. Ultimately, decisions are shaped by basic survival needs, risk assessment, and the availability of feasible alternatives (NFHS Findings on Help-Seeking).

Accessibility and Availability of Support

Even when survivors choose to seek help, support systems do not always provide an effective response. Barriers such as lack of nearby services, low public awareness, complex legal procedures, and insensitive or poorly trained officials can make it difficult to take action. A survivor living in a rural area, for instance, may have to travel long distances to reach a police station or hospital, only to face delays or unclear procedures. In such cases, the effort involved may outweigh the perceived benefit.

In most cases, informal networks serve as the point of first disclosure. The type of response one receives here matters greatly. A supportive response, such as belief or referral to resources, can encourage further help-seeking. On the other hand, negative reactions such as victim blaming or downplaying the seriousness of the abuse may stop the process entirely. For instance, if a family member advises the survivor to remain silent to protect the family’s honor, the survivor may withdraw from seeking formal support.

NGOs and helplines often act as intermediaries by providing privacy, validation, and practical guidance. A survivor may initially call a helpline to understand available options before approaching the police or legal system. This can help reduce fear and build confidence (UN Women, 2011).

This shows that accessibility is not limited to the presence of services, but also depends on how systems respond in practice.

Technology further reshapes accessibility by changing how survivors approach support systems. Online platforms and helplines allow survivors to seek help with greater anonymity, distance, and control over timing. For example, a survivor may use an anonymous chat, search “Is this abuse?”, or save a helpline number without calling. This can reduce immediate fear, especially for those hesitant to approach formal institutions (Andalibi et al., 2016).

At the same time, access to technology is uneven, and its use can carry risks. For instance, an abuser may check call logs or messages. While technology can ease initial access, it cannot replace the need for safe and responsive support systems. Ultimately, access to help depends not only on availability, but on whether survivors can use these systems safely and without risk (Barak et al., 2008).

Role of Technology in Help-Seeking

Technology is changing the process of asking for help. It reduces the barriers to some extent but it does not remove the structural ones at all. The impact of technology is at the psychological, practical, and institutional levels.

Early Entry Point

Mobile phones are often the first lifeline for survivors. While not a remedy, they provide accessible footholds that reduce the psychological and logistical barriers to initial disclosure. Government helplines, for instance, offer free, 24-hour support — including crisis intervention, legal guidance, and referrals to police, shelters, and healthcare — all while maintaining anonymity. Similarly, NGO chat platforms, accessible via websites or mobile applications, allow survivors to communicate anonymously, providing emotional support, safety planning, and information on legal and social resources.

Technology broadens the ways survivors can access support, offering channels that are rapid, discreet, and flexible. Beyond helplines and chat platforms, specialized mobile applications allow survivors to document incidents safely, create time-stamped evidence, and even record audio or photos covertly for future legal or medical use. For example, apps like Circle of 6 enable users to alert a trusted network with a single tap, providing immediate situational backup without drawing attention. Encrypted peer-to-peer platforms, such as Signal, allow survivors to exchange sensitive information securely, ensuring that communications cannot be intercepted or traced easily.

Some emerging tools use location-based safety mapping, alerting survivors to nearby safe spaces such as shelters, hospitals, or police stations, which is especially critical for those fleeing sudden threats. Wearable-integrated devices, like smartwatches with SOS or panic features, allow instantaneous distress signaling even when the phone is inaccessible or monitored. These examples illustrate that technology does more than facilitate communication; it can actively support safety planning, documentation, and rapid emergency response in ways that traditional methods cannot.

WhatsApp and other platforms with encrypted communication enable survivors to still be able to make real-time communications with emergency services by sharing texts, voice notes, documents, and location data. Emergency safety applications not only support these features but also send SOS signals, share live location, and evidence, along with automatically alerting trusted contacts or authorities. These tools allow survivors to seek help quickly, covertly, and asynchronously, even in contexts where verbal communication is unsafe. For example, a survivor may message a helpline in the middle of the night without alerting an abusive partner, use a chat platform for safety planning, or trigger an SOS to summon immediate assistance.

Although technology expands access and facilitates confidential communication, it does not guarantee protection. In abusive settings, devices may be monitored, calls checked, or locations tracked, potentially exposing survivors to further harm. The effectiveness of these tools ultimately depends on device privacy, and in some cases, technology may inadvertently increase risk rather than provide safety (Freed et al., 2018).

Controlled Disclosure

Online platforms allow survivors to control their disclosure by deciding the means, time, and content of sharing, thereby giving them a crucial sense of empowerment after experiences that are frequently marked by a significant loss of control. Survivors can decide “what to reveal,” “how much to reveal,” and “when to stop,” allowing them to engage with support at their own pace. For example, a survivor might initially share only urgent details of an incident, pause to process emotions before continuing, or choose to disclose sensitive information selectively to a trusted counselor or platform. The ability to edit, delete, or delay messages further reinforces autonomy and reduces the emotional burden of disclosure (Suler, 2004).

Yet, controlled disclosure carries limitations. Digital communication removes physical cues—tone, body language, and hesitation—which can obscure emotional nuances. Counselors or automated systems may misinterpret urgency, intent, or emotional state, and pauses in communication may be perceived as disengagement rather than deliberate self-protection. For instance, a survivor stopping mid-message to reflect might inadvertently convey uncertainty or disinterest, affecting the responsiveness of support (Digital Counseling Research, 2022).

Overall, controlled disclosure strengthens a survivor’s agency and emotional safety by letting them set the pace and boundaries of interaction. At the same time, it may limit relational depth and immediacy, highlighting a tension inherent in digital support: the empowerment gained through self-regulation may come at the cost of nuanced understanding and immediacy in building trust and therapeutic connection.

Bridge Between Informal and Formal Support

Technology acts as a means to connect survivors with critical information and services, often similar to a bridge. It can inform about, for example, the closest shelters, legal aid services, relevant protection laws, and counseling centers. Thus, technology assists survivors in understanding and negotiating the often complicated systems that can appear inaccessible. Many survivors may not know where to turn, and digital platforms reduce this knowledge gap. For instance, websites like Women’s Helpline portals or mobile apps such as SafeCity and Aspire offer searchable databases of shelters, legal aid providers, and counseling services, while chat-based platforms can guide survivors step by step in accessing support (World Health Organization, 2013).

Despite these advantages, technology cannot guarantee effective support. It can direct survivors to services, but it cannot ensure that those services are responsive or adequate. Police officers may act insensitively, shelters may be overcrowded, and courts may take months to process cases. In such instances, digital mediation alone cannot resolve structural barriers. Technology functions only as a bridge—the utility of which depends entirely on the reliability, responsiveness, and capacity of the systems it connects to (UNODC, 2019).

Technology opens up new paths of help-seeking by making things more accessible, offering anonymous interaction, and giving step-by-step guidance. This, in effect, lowers the initial psychological and other barriers to making contact help. However, the present part of the text points to a major dilemma: whereas digital solutions can give survivors considerable power in terms of information access, their impact in the real world depends on how well institutions and the whole support environment function.

Structural Limits

Technology is not neutral; it reflects the assumptions, priorities, and biases embedded in its design (Noble, 2018). Its architecture shapes visibility, communication, and access, often in ways that reinforce existing inequalities. Algorithms determine what content is shown, which voices are amplified, and which are marginalized. Platform policies govern what users can safely express, while data storage practices affect whether survivors feel secure or exposed. Even the language and interface design influences how easily survivors can communicate their experiences or navigate digital support tools.

These structural features carry real risks. Data breaches can expose sensitive personal information, endangering survivors and their contacts. Abuser surveillance allows perpetrators to track locations, monitor conversations, or maintain control remotely. Digital illiteracy reduces awareness of these risks and makes navigating platforms safely more difficult. Unequal access—common in rural or low-income areas—and the absence of smartphones or reliable internet can exclude the most vulnerable, meaning digital solutions may unintentionally reinforce marginalization. For example, survivors in remote regions may know about a helpline but lack the connectivity to use it safely, leaving them reliant on potentially unsafe in-person avenues.

Most importantly, technology cannot reform institutions, dismantle patriarchal norms, or replace legal accountability. While it can mediate access to services, information, and networks, it does not alter the underlying distribution of power (Eubanks, 2018). Digital tools can expand entry points and provide autonomy, but their effectiveness is ultimately constrained by social, institutional, and structural realities.

Challenges and Risks of Using Technology

While technology can support help-seeking, it also introduces risks that may intensify survivor vulnerability. These risks are interconnected and often reinforce existing inequalities.

Digital surveillance is a direct and immediate threat. Violent partners may monitor call logs, install spyware, or demand passwords. In shared device settings, privacy is limited. As a result, digital help-seeking may increase exposure rather than safety. For example, reports of technology-facilitated abuse during lockdown periods in India highlighted how perpetrators used phone monitoring, social media access, and location tracking to control survivors. In such cases, even attempts to contact helplines or support services could be detected, making digital help-seeking a risky act rather than a safe option.

Data security is another concern. Many platforms collect sensitive information but lack strong protection. A breach can lead to public exposure, stigma, or retaliation. The digital divide further restricts access. Not all survivors have smartphones, private internet, or digital literacy. Shared devices and language barriers make confidential help-seeking difficult. In India, gender gaps in mobile and internet access remain significant, especially in rural areas (GSMA, 2023).

The credibility of online information is uneven. Some platforms lack trained professionals, increasing the risk of inaccurate or harmful advice (Bivens & Haimson, 2016). Over-reliance on digital support can create a false sense of safety. Survivors may feel supported online while remaining in unsafe environments. At the same time, digital platforms can lower initial barriers to help-seeking. They offer anonymity, quick access, and emotional reassurance, especially for those who cannot approach formal institutions.

However, these benefits are conditional. Digital tools, in some very dangerous situations, not only wouldn't be able to protect the survivors but may even lead to their exposure to harm more than before. Besides, in places where people are kept under very strict surveillance, the use of digital tools may not help to reduce the level of harm but only change it and make the different forms of harm less visible to the public. Also, their effects depend on social positions too, which is why it is very necessary to analyze how different and intersecting identities may influence the ways of seeking help.

Intersectional Factors Shaping Experiences

The risks outlined above do not affect all survivors equally. Their impact varies across caste, class, religion, sexuality, disability, and age. A woman from a marginalized caste may avoid the police due to fear of discrimination. A queer survivor may fear being outed. Individuals with disabilities may face usability barriers. These patterns reflect intersectionality, where multiple systems of power shape lived experience (Crenshaw, 1989).

Digital inequality deepens these gaps. Internet access is lower in rural areas. Many platforms are English-based. Accessibility features are often missing. In India, women are significantly less likely than men to use mobile internet, limiting independent access.

When systems are designed for an “average user,” they exclude those at the margins. For instance, in many parts of India, women rely on shared phones. A survivor trying to access a helpline may do so under observation, increasing the risk of detection.

This may prevent survivors from saving helpline numbers, deleting browsing history, or accessing support without being noticed. Thus, technology can reproduce inequality rather than reduce it. These layered barriers directly shape how digital systems must be designed and governed.

Implications for Technology Design and Policy

The harms listed above show that poorly designed digital tools may even become sources of new harms, so their careful design and regulation is extremely necessary. Surveillance risks require discreet, safety-focused design. Quick exit features, hidden interfaces, and minimal data storage reduce detection (Southworth et al., 2005).

Data risks require strong protection systems. Encryption, informed consent, and clear data policies are essential for safety. The digital divide calls for inclusive design. Platforms should support multiple languages, simple interfaces, and accessibility features.

The limits of digital support make links to offline services necessary. Platforms should connect users to legal aid, shelters, and counseling. Inconsistent responses highlight the need for accountability. Timely case handling and enforceable standards are essential (European Commission, 2022).

Without accountability, even well-designed tools risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. Technology should function within a broader support system. It can assist help-seeking, but it cannot replace institutional reform or social change.

Conclusion

Building on the implications for technology design and policy, help-seeking in cases of gender-based violence is shaped by psychology, culture, and power structures. It is a gradual, emotional process that often takes place without words. Technology can help reduce initial barriers by providing anonymity, first contact, and flexible avenues for support, allowing survivors to reach out safely and at their own pace.

At the same time, digital tools carry risks such as surveillance, data leaks, exclusion, and false security. These tools reflect the inequalities present in society—if offline disparities persist, they will reappear online. Intersectional factors like gender, caste, class, disability, and location further influence how survivors can access and use technology effectively.

Real change requires coordinated efforts that combine thoughtful technology design, responsive institutions, and social transformation. Digital tools can strengthen help-seeking pathways, but sustainable reductions in gender-based violence depend on legal, institutional, and cultural reforms. Technology is valuable as an enabler, but it is not a substitute for systemic change.

As a key takeaway, preventing gender-based violence requires coordinated efforts across different levels. Education should promote equality and respect from an early stage, while families and communities need to respond with support rather than blame. Institutions must be safer, more accountable, and capable of handling cases fairly, with laws that are not just present but properly enforced. Survivors should have access to safe and stigma-free ways to seek help. Overall, lasting change depends on aligning education, institutional response, legal systems, and everyday social attitudes.

References

1. World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256

2. Liang, B., Goodman, L., Tummala-Narra, P., & Weintraub, S. (2005). A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-6233-6

3. Freed, D., Palmer, J., Minchala, D., Levy, K., Ristenpart, T., & Dell, N. (2018). “A stalker’s paradise”: How intimate partner abusers exploit technology. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174241

4. UN Women. (2020). Online and ICT-facilitated violence against women and girls during COVID-19. UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org

5. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

6. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002

Vardhini M. Krishnan is an undergraduate student in B.Tech Data Science at the S-Vyasa School of Advanced Studies (Deemed to be University), currently in her first year, with a parallel academic interest in psychology through correspondence study at the Counsel India Organization. Her work focuses on gender-based violence, particularly the psychological and social processes behind help- seeking. She approaches these issues through an interdisciplinary lens, combining analytical thinking with behavioral understanding. She aims to further explore data-driven and policy-oriented approaches to improve access to support systems.