Epistemic injustice.

A phenomenon that psychologists sometimes call normalcy bias, optimism bias, and, in some cases, epistemic injustice.

When someone finally discloses domestic abuse and hears responses such as:

“I doubt he’ll kill you.”

“You’ll both meet someone else and move on.”

“Every couple argues.”

the speaker may think they are being reassuring. However, from a psychological perspective, they may actually be minimizing a serious threat and failing to appreciate the reality the victim is living.

Why do people respond this way?

1. Normalcy Bias

The human brain prefers to believe that tomorrow will be much like today.

Most people have never experienced severe coercive control or domestic violence. Their brains automatically compare the situation to ordinary relationship conflict.

Instead of asking:

“What if this is dangerous?”

they unconsciously ask:

“What would happen in a normal breakup?”

This can lead them to underestimate risk.

2. Optimism Bias

Neuroscience shows that humans are wired to believe bad outcomes are less likely to happen than statistics suggest.

The brain often discounts threatening information because it is emotionally uncomfortable.

The friend may genuinely believe:

Things will calm down.
The abuser will move on.
The victim is worrying too much.

Unfortunately, many domestic homicide cases reveal that others underestimated the danger until it was too late.

3. The Just-World Hypothesis

Many people unconsciously want to believe the world is fair and predictable.

If they accept that a seemingly ordinary person could be seriously harmed by a partner, they must confront the reality that terrible things can happen to good people.

To reduce their own anxiety, they may downplay the risk.

4. Epistemic Injustice

This occurs when a person’s knowledge or testimony is given less credibility than it deserves.

The victim is the person living with:

the threats,
the intimidation,
the coercive control,
the fear,
the escalation.

Yet outsiders may assume they understand the situation better than the person experiencing it.

This can leave victims feeling invisible and unheard.

What neuroscience tells us

When people hear information that conflicts with their existing beliefs, the brain often resists it.

For many people:

“Domestic violence = black eyes and broken bones.”

When presented with coercive control, stalking, intimidation, threats, financial abuse, or psychological terror, their brains may fail to classify it as genuine danger.

As a result, they minimize it.

The problem is that risk assessment experts know that some of the strongest predictors of serious violence include:

escalating threats,
strangulation attempts,
stalking,
obsessive jealousy,
coercive control,
refusal to accept separation.

These behaviours often matter far more than whether the victim currently has visible injuries.

A more appropriate response

A supportive friend does not need to predict murder to take concerns seriously.

A better response is:

“I don’t know exactly what will happen, but I can see that you’re frightened. Let’s look at the facts, assess the risk, and work out what support you need.”

That response respects both the person’s experience and their safety.

The tragedy in many high-profile domestic violence cases is that warning signs were visible long before the final act of violence. Afterward, people often say, “We never thought it would go that far.”

From a psychological perspective, that hindsight frequently reflects how powerful normalcy bias and optimism bias can be when people are confronted with uncomfortable realities.