Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting, personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25 (3), 259-273

Posted on March 10, 2012 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Pontzer, D. (2010). A theoretical test of bullying behavior: Parenting,
personality, and the bully/victim relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 25 (3), 259-273.

Summary provided by Joan Neff

Pontzer’s study attempts to broaden our understanding of the causes of bullying behavior. Existing research indicates that bullying can be explained, at least partially, by poor parenting; i.e., parenting that is harsh, rejecting, neglectful, lacking in affection, or that fails to teach appropriate behavior. He points out, however, that very little research has focused on the relationship between parenting and being the victim of bullying. His current study examines the relationship between parenting styles and bullying among both perpetrators and victims.

The theoretical aspect of the study focuses on Reintegrative Shaming Theory, which starts with the assertion that when individuals realize they’ve done something wrong, they experience a sense of shame. However, not everyone responds to shame in the same way. Some of us attempt to correct our behavior (shame acknowledgment); some of us respond defensively and blame others (shame displacement); and some of us respond by blaming ourselves and dwelling on being rejected by others (shame internalization). Pontzer suggests that bullies tend to engage in shame displacement, while victims of bullies are more likely to internalize shame. He further suggests that the way parents discipline their children contributes how their children handle shame. Specifically, if parents explain to their children what they’ve done wrong, how they can correct it, and indicate that they are still loved in spite of what they did (reintegrative parenting), children are more likely to handle the shame appropriately and are less likely to become bullies. On the other hand, if parents engage in abusive, rejecting or hostile disciplinary practices (parental stigmatization), their children are more likely to engage in shame displacement, which contributes to bullying behavior.

Pontzer gave a sample of 527 university students a written questionnaire, which included items or measures pertaining to:
• Whether the students had engaged in bullying behavior and/or been a victim of bullying recently as well as in childhood
• How the students responded to shame (acknowledgement, displacement, internalization)
• The level of the students’ self-esteem and empathy towards others
• Whether the students had experienced reintegrative or stigmatizing parenting

Pontzer discovered that 26% of the male students and 14% of the female students had engaged in bullying at least 2 or 3 times a month in the past several months, and over half (55%) of the current bullies also admitted to being bullies as children. Twenty-four percent of the males and 23% of the females had been victimized by bullies in the past several months, and 56% of the current victims had also experienced bullying as children. Pontzer’s analysis revealed that being a current bully was significantly related to being a bully in childhood, as well as a number of other factors, including being more impulsive, engaging in shame displacement, being male, being younger, and being subjected to stigmatizing parenting. However, bullying also was associated with recalling one’s relationship with his/her parent(s) as being positive and warm. On the flip side, being a current victim of bullying was significantly related to internalizing shame, being subjected to stigmatizing parenting, being victimized by bullies as a child, being a bully as a child, being younger, and not engaging in shame displacement. Finally, Pontzer examined a small group of students who reported having recently been both a bully and a victim of bullying. The students in this bully/victim group were more likely to be younger, male, internalize shame, but also acknowledge it, empathize with others, be impulsive, have experienced stigmatizing parenting, and have been both victims and bullies as children.

As Pontzer points out in discussing his findings, probably the most significant one is that the past is the best predictor of the present. Fifty-seven percent of the current bullies had been bullies during childhood, and 74% of the current victims of bullying had been victims during childhood. The results also indicate that one’s method of handling shame does appear to be related to being a bully or a victim of bullying; i.e., bullies were more likely to displace shame while victims of bullying were more likely to internalize it. However, both bullies and victims indicated that their parents were more likely to engage in stigmatizing parenting when they were growing up, although bullies were more likely to recall warm, positive relationships with their parents.

Pontzer acknowledges this unexpected result and suggests that parents of bullies may be more likely to vacillate between being stigmatizing at some times and warm and affectionate at other times. While Pontzer indicates that more research needs to be done on this topic, his findings also underscore the need for a more comprehensive explanation of the relationship between offending and victimization in general.

Joan L. Neff, Ph.D., is Associate Provost and Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Richmond. Her teaching and research interests center on delinquent and criminal behavior, victimology, and justice system responses to both offending and victimization. She was instrumental in creating Virginia’s first training academy for entry-level victims services providers, and she continues to serve as an organizer, facilitator, and trainer for the academy.

Response by Jacob Flores

The study focused on the issues of bullying and the dynamics that parenting have upon the perpetrator, the victim and the bully/victim.

I found the study addressed issues that were already reinforced by practical awareness by anyone who has ever worked directly with youth and adult populations in various environments. I feel very strongly that the population of the study was very restrictive and was focused on a group of students and families that were “obviously” middle, upper middle to wealthy in their socio-economic status. This excluded many dynamics of other socio-economic populations where bullying (though still not acceptable and not strived for) is seen as a “necessity” just to survive the day. Ultimately if you do not stand up for yourself in an environment that experiences a scarcity of resources, opportunity, educational upward mobility you are doomed to living at the lower end of the pecking order. In these environments the parenting also sometimes had to address a more “strength based” attitude where it’s taught that YOU DON’T TAKE NO CRAP FROM NO ONE (excuse the colloquial expression) which might look a lot like PARENTAL STIGMATATION but actually is a reasonable perspective where resources and opportunities are scarce.

I feel that the study clarified the dynamic inherent in the violent world of bullying and how it does effect any and all environments but it did not address the youth and families that I am associated with. I feel very strongly that the people I work with will not be negotiated out of their condition by being provided new strategies and considerations when they live every day with unemployment, drug abuse, a culture of violence and the lack of strong and positive role modeling. That becomes a strong emphasis of my work in that I can provide that example while identifying and recruiting others from the community to see that there is a way out and therefore a reason to move “with considered and supported” steps away from the world that necessitates a defensive and reactive presence to ward of any and all intrusions of repressive behavior.

The findings of the study do reinforce the need to work diligently with the entire family system as the bully mentality is (in my opinion) the direct result of the indoctrination of a system that is steeped in isolation and prejudice (from outside and from within) and a culture of lost hope. Had this study been conducted with inner city populations or indigenous tribal communities, the findings would likely have been very different.

Jacob Flores has worked with over 75 native communities throughout the United States and Canada. His background is in education, mental/behavioral health, community mobilization, strategic planning, and provision of therapy in individual and group settings and holds a Masters degree in counseling psychology from Arizona State University. Mr. Flores has led numerous youth leadership trainings and technical assistance initiatives for the Office of Native American Programs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Lund, E. (2011). Community-based services and interventions for adults with disabilities who have experienced interpersonal violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12 (4), 171-182

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Lund, E. (2011).  Community-based services and interventions for adults with disabilities who have experienced interpersonal violence: A review of the literature.  Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12 (4), 171-182.

 Summary provided by Tom Underwood

The purpose of this literature review was to assess community-based interpersonal violence services and intervention programs for adults with diverse disabilities. The reviewer searched for articles from May 1995 to May 2010 via several recognized databases. The primary condition for review consideration was whether the article provided detailed information about a victim services program specifically for persons with disabilities. Further, articles could only be published in peer-reviewed journals, had to include original data, and was limited only adult participants.  A total of sixteen articles were included in the review. While the established criteria limited the breadth of the review, limits regarding empirically evaluated interventions and populations are necessary in order for clear understanding of application and effectiveness.

The reviewer found six of the thirteen articles dealt with accessibility of community-based interpersonal violence services to persons with disabilities. The finding was that most victim service programs reported having served at least a limited number of women with disabilities, most commonly persons with a mental illness disability or a developmental disability.  While these studies suggested relatively high usage of services by persons with disabilities, true usage is unknown since victim service programs do not tend to screen for disability at intake.  The numbers may be higher due to decisions by victims to not self-disclose regarding a disability and service provider lack of awareness about disabilities. On the other hand, lack of accessibility may result in significant under usage by victims.  Upon inspection, programs that identified themselves as physically accessible were not necessarily so.  Further, programs often were not programmatically accessible as evidenced by inadequate signage, alternate format materials, and so forth.

A majority of the reviewed articles included information about prevention or intervention programs. Various types of programs were reviewed: behaviorally-based abuse prevention, cognitively-based abuse prevention, and psychoeducationally-based abuse prevention. All three approaches realized limited support.  A common challenge with all three approaches was the limited transferability or generalizability to naturalistic settings. Further, these studies had very small sample sizes and typically included only women with developmental disabilities thereby limiting generalizability.

One finding of the cognitive-based programs is that “participants in the self-directed decision making treatment group scored significantly higher … on measures of self-directed decision-making practices and internal locus of control” (p. 177).  This finding tends to hold true in the areas of education and intervention. That is, control of one’s own learning, recovery, and well-being tends to realize positive results. While oftentimes well-meaning service providers may not consider persons with disabilities as having the capacity for control, the values of self-determination and control that underlies victim services are applicable to persons of all abilities.

A couple of additional observations from this review. First, there is a lack of training regarding disability issues in the field of victim services as well as lack of training regarding interpersonal violence issues in the field of disability services. This lack of training can be attributed to a lack of organizational resources, that is time and money, as well as lack of awareness regarding the scope of the problem. As mentioned previously, victim service programs generally do not screen for disabilities and may well not have persons with disabilities using services due to lack of accessibility. Similarly, disability service practitioners may not have an awareness of interpersonal violence issues of the individuals served.  Regardless of the causes, both fields have a professional obligation to enhance knowledge and develop collaborative relationships.

Second, it is extremely difficult to adequately assess program accessibility and services with the general classification of disabilities when there is a spectrum of abilities across the population. The author stated that the purpose of the review was to review programs and services for individuals “with diverse disabilities” (p. 172). For the purpose of this review it may have been better to have narrowed the type of disability since the review really did not address “diverse disabilities” but instead focused mostly on developmental disabilities. This is not to suggest that we should focus only on development disabilities nor should we create typologies. Quite the contrary; we need to recognize the uniqueness of each victim, including the abilities of each individual.

Thomas Underwood is the Executive Director of the Joint Center on Violence and Victim Studies (JCVVS) as well as the Assistant Dean of the Office of Academic Outreach at Washburn University where he administers select high level professional development courses associated with academic units. In addition to his development and instruction of a variety of professional development courses, he has also taught academic courses in victimology for Washburn University and California State University, Fresno. He is a founding member of the American Society on Victimology, an affiliate of the World Society of Victimology, and serves on its Executive Board. Dr. Underwood has authored and co-authored, edited, and reviewed numerous articles and book chapters related to victims of crime.

Response by Marcie Davis

Author Emily Lund conducted a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature from 1995 to 2010 regarding violence-related service, prevention and intervention programs for individuals with disabilities. As an advocate with over twenty-five years in the field of violence against individuals with disabilities, it is not surprising to me that Ms. Lund’s search only revealed 16 qualifying articles. In my experiences, the field of violence against individuals with disabilities during this timeframe has been extremely limited. Few research projects have focused on individuals with disabilities and many domestic violence, sexual assault, and law enforcement agencies do not collect data specific to disability and how disability is or is not impacted by violent crime. This reality was demonstrated in Lund’s research by McFarlane and colleagues (2001) where it was “found that failing to ask questions specifically about disability-related violence artificially suppressed the prevalence of violence among women with disabilities.”

Lund’s study outlined three main aims: (1) Provider and Community Services Articles; (2) Intervention and Prevention Programs; and (3) Recommendations and future implications for future policy, research, and practice based on the Provider and Community Services and Intervention and Prevention Programs that was studied.

In Aim 1: Provider and Community Services Articles, the information gathered noted that both studies reviewed indicated a high level of physical accessibility. However, Frantz et al. (2006) indicated that programs reported a higher level of physical accessibility as opposed to programmatic accessibility. This is consistent with my experience in the field. Many direct service providers including the criminal justice field, believe their programs are accessible if they provide physical accessibility such as designated parking, ramps into a facility, and one accessible bathroom stall. While these aspects of physical accommodation are important, they do not address programmatic accessibility. Survivors that we serve have indicated that domestic violence shelters had difficulty accommodating those who are blind or deaf. Individuals with vision loss often did not receive a guided tour providing them with detailed facility layout. Individuals who are deaf often were not provided interpreters. Both of the situations limited the individual’s ability to fully access the programmatic services available. Furthermore, survivors with disabilities have reported that direct service providers are often embarrassed and uncomfortable responding to their disability-related needs and equally uncomfortable acknowledging that they are sexual beings who have experienced violence. Some direct service providers have difficulty understanding the level of impact disability has on victimization. Safety planning and exiting an abusive situation becomes more complex when it is coupled with one or more disabilities. Women with disabilities often do not have the same choices available to them that women without disabilities may have. For example, they may not be able to drive, pack their belongings independently, support their children, have the physical and/or mental capabilities to take charge of their life and exit a home or relationship.

As Lund’s article suggests, many of the barriers individuals with disabilities encounter when attempting to access a community-based program can be linked to lack of funding and lack of cross-training. I have witnessed both of these factors throughout my career. We have been working diligently to bring both disability and non-disability advocates and service providers to the table to collaboratively build sustainable partnerships and coalitions. Through these working relationships, we can cross-train each other and build a lasting bridge between disability and victim service providers. Centers for Independent Living, Vocational Rehabilitation, and other direct disability service providers offer excellent opportunities to reach individuals with disabilities who may have no other contact or outlet to reveal their victimization.

I wholeheartedly agree with Lund’s findings that “increased research attention should be paid to the development and rigorous testing of IPV [Interpersonal Violence] intervention programs that address the specific needs of individuals with diverse disabilities and those who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing.”  As stated above, any type of disability will impact victimization. It can add a level of stress and increase the individual’s anxiety and concern for personal care, safety, and future consequences. Disability cannot be ignored if that individual is to receive effective victim services throughout their participation in the criminal justice system. More large scale research studies must be conducted in order to increase awareness and to produce effective protective factors that respond to the unique needs of individuals with disabilities.

I agree with Lund’s assessment that there is a strong disconnect between service providers’ perceptions regarding physical and programmatic accessibility. For the average person with a disability, it is not always realistic to expect that after reporting a crime one would become an active and equal participant in the criminal justice system. It can be overwhelming and difficult to navigate an inaccessible system, arrange transportation to attend multiple hearings and court dates in facilities that are challenging to access, all while putting their own safety and the safety of their children and families at risk. Not to mention, while still trying to maintain their health coverage, purchase all the necessary medical supplies and equipment to enable them to function at an acceptable level, and ensure a living for themselves and any dependent family members. I applaud Lund’s efforts to research the literature on this topic. And as her work has successfully demonstrated, we have only begun to scratch the surface of the vast and unique needs and issues impacting crime victims with disabilities.

Frantz, B. L., Carey, A. C., & Bryen, D. N. (2006). Accessibility of Pennsylvania’s victim’s assistance programs. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16, 209-219.

McFarlane, J., Hughes, R. B., Nosek, M. A., Groff, J. Y., Swedlend, N., & Dolan Mullen, P. (2001). Abuse assessment screen-disability (AAS-D): Measuring frequency, type, and perpetrator of abuse toward women with physical disabilities. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender Based Medicine, 10, 861-866.

Marcie Davis is the Chief Executive Officer of Davis Innovations, a research and organizational development consulting firm. She is an internationally recognized victim assistance and disability advocate and trainer who leads a diverse staff in providing program development, management, training, technical writing, grant writing, research and evaluation services to local, state, federal, and tribal governments and NGOs. She has a Bachelor of Science in Paralegal Studies and a Master of Library Science, both from the University of Southern Mississippi . Her many publications include: The SANE Response to Persons with Paralysis, Working Like Dogs: The Service Dog Guidebook, and A Law Enforcement Guide for Working with Children with Autism, Intellectual and Communication Disabilities. Ms. Davis is accompanied by her assistance dog, Whistle. She is also the host of Working Like Dogs on Pet Life Radio.

 

Posted in Disabilities | Leave a comment

Moffatt, G. K. & Hersey, N. W. (2010). Typical and atypical homicide: Investigative differences and cold case profiling. The Forensic Examiner, Spring, 39-46. Summary provided by James Beeks

Posted on January 7, 2012 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Moffatt, G. K. & Hersey, N. W. (2010). Typical and atypical homicide: Investigative differences and cold case profiling. The Forensic Examiner, Spring, 39-46.

Summary provided by James Beeks

Authors Gregory K. Moffatt, Ph.D. and Nicholas W. Hersey explored the challenges of a cold case investigation and identified two factors critical to solving a cold case. The first issue involves the victim’s family, friends, and others in the unanswered questions of why, who committed the crime, where are the remains (if the body hasn’t been found), and the quest for accountability. From a victim survivor’s perspective cold cases can foster a mistrust of law enforcement’s ability to solve a crime based on the ethnicity and economic social status of the victim. This potential minefield translates into a requirement for unique or special investigative skills that include active listening and an inquisitive personality. The authors did not include a discussion on this topic but the addition of a ‘Victim Advocate’ can reduce or mitigate this mistrust and allow investigators to focus on the investigation. The second challenge is more technical – overcoming errors in the primary investigation, budget challenges (manpower/information technology), and the disappearance or invalidation of crime evidence.

The authors did not address theories associated with typical versus atypical crimes but the aforementioned skill sets are unique to the cold case investigation’s quest to solve an offense when the crime is atypical. This requires the investigative team to avoid taking short cuts and to ensure that all aspects of the crime are documented. The salient points of this article are 1) do not take short cuts in any investigation, 2) the importance of crime scene documentation and 3) access to outside resources (Federal, State, etc.). Examples of crime scene documentation include producing a detailed diagram using 3-D videos, geographic information to map out the area, and digital photographs. This technology is common today when one views a home for sale through a video of the property or uses Google Earth to locate a residence. This technology provides dimension, geographic location (map, aerial, and hybrid) and background data on the location. Applying this concept in all criminal investigations adheres to the ‘do not take short cuts’ recommendation. The ability to re-interview individuals and re-hear voice/video statements or examine written statements is invaluable. Advances in technology allow the investigative team to apply voice stress and hand writing analyses to develop new leads. To accomplish this all evidence must be safely stored. Lastly, to bring a cold case to a positive conclusion is to approach the event from the back side by applying investigative techniques and intelligence analysis to the topic. This includes a periodic review of cold cases to identify new trends or identify others cases that display the similar patterns. The article presented the challenges of cold case investigation and investigative techniques that can enhance the positive closure rate for cold cases.

James W. Beeks, Sr. Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Piedmont College in Demorest, Georgia. His tenure with Federal Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community has given him opportunities to explore Criminal Justice, International Relations, Public Policy, the Intelligence Process, Geography, and Information Management.

Response by Connie Bergara

The article offers suggestions with regard to differences between “typical” vs. “atypical” homicides and emphasizes the importance of investigators determining at the onset which type they are dealing with in order to aim the focus of their investigation in the right direction thus enabling them to apply the most efficient method of investigative procedures. Additionally, it is critical that the case file and notes be thorough, including as much data as possible leaving no stone unturned in the process. This will eliminate valuable time spent uselessly and enable a profiler to better put the pieces together at a later date should the case grow cold.

Much of the information in this article regarding the investigating and collecting of evidence is not surprising given the fact that people are human and memories become fuzzy and more importantly most individuals are not trained investigators so they are not going to be in tune with what to look for. It is the investigators’ responsibility to ask the right questions in order to obtain the information they need. Victim survivors are traumatized and shocked and most are not going to have the presence of mind to make notes, mentally or otherwise about things they should mention to the investigator. Nothing is mentioned in the article about giving survivors some direction with regard to preservation of the crime scene. What may be common knowledge to law enforcement personnel is often unknown to survivors since for most it is the first time they are experiencing such an event.

In my work with survivors, I find that most family members are more than willing to cooperate, but do not know exactly what they should do. They are anxious to tell investigators about their loved one and what they were like in their daily lives. Allowing them to do this serves a two-fold purpose, it gives them an opportunity to validate the life of their loved one and it gives the investigator critical information about the victim that can be helpful to the case, cold or not.

It is a fact that the number of cases an investigator solves quickly is important, not only to himself and his career, but also to his department’s reputation. So it makes sense that they will devote most of their time, efforts and resources to the cases that offer the best possibility of being solved. For the families of the victims whose cases are more difficult to solve, it leaves the impression that their loved one’s life was not important enough for investigators to pursue their case. While this is not the focus of this article, I find most victim survivors appreciate knowing that the case has not been forgotten even though it may have gone cold. In my own family’s case, my mother’s murder investigation had gone cold for 7 years before it was solved. The second team of investigators, essentially “cold case profilers” back in the mid 90s, was very good about staying in touch with us and keeping us informed of any developments. This alone helped us keep our anxiety levels manageable to some extent and we appreciated their courtesy. In many cases receiving a call out of the blue from a cold case profiler can be somewhat of a shock and can dredge up feelings survivors may not have dealt with in years. In spite of that, most still want to be kept informed.

To be relevant for the victim services field, future research in this area should include the services of a victim advocate. The investigators are focusing their attention on their work so interacting with the victims is not a priority for them during that time. Adding a victim advocate would provide communication between the two without taking time away from the investigation. When advocates work closely with investigators they can many times answer questions that survivors might have or contact them on behalf of the investigator to get additional information without tying up the investigator’s time. Most survivors just want to feel like they are being kept in the loop.

Originally from San Antonio, Connie Bergara began her work in Victim Services as a volunteer with the Round Rock Police Department in 2000. Her desire to work with victims grew from her own experience as a victim survivor after her mother’s murder in 1990. She has been a Victim Advocate for the Duncanville Police Department for four years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Biar-Merritt, M. H., Crowne, S.S., Thompson, D. A., Sibinga, E., Trent, M., & Campbell, J. (2010). Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11, 178 – 189.

Posted on December 19, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

“If we want more evidence-based practice, we need more practice-based evidence.”
The mission of the American Society of Victimology is to advance the discipline of victimology by promoting evidence based practice and by providing leadership in research and education. Toward that end the Society intends to provide a monthly academic summary and practitioner response of a recent research article from a scholarly journal.

Biar-Merritt, M. H., Crowne, S.S., Thompson, D. A., Sibinga, E., Trent, M., & Campbell, J. (2010). Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11, 178 – 189.

Summary provided by Tracy Tamborra

Biar-Merritt, Crowne, Thompson, Sibinga, Trent and Campbell (2010) review the intimate partner violence (IPV) literature for the purpose of exploring why heterosexual women use IPV. They note that over the last few decades research has emerged that confirms women’s use of violence, but fails to contextualize their use of violence. In other words, research has found that women use IPV, but the research has not identified why women use IPV. They point out that there are many explanations for women’s use of IPV. Feminist perspective explanations argue that women’s use of IPV is generally a response to their male partner’s controlling behavior. Whereas the family conflict literature argues that men and women’s motivations are similar; they use IPV to either express anger or resolve conflict. Finally, there is limited research that finds that women use IPV as a power and control tactic. Biar-Merritt et al. note that these explanations “tend to depict women’s motivations as discrete and singular” (p. 179); they call for a more complex discussion.

In order to more definitively assess why women use IPV, Biar-Merritt et al. undertook a systematic review of published research in the area of heterosexual women’s use of IPV. Of the 4,000 articles initially identified, a total 144 articles were reviewed further. Of the 144, only 23 articles were selected for analysis. The selected articles were written in English, included participants over 22 years of age, included primary data, involved heterosexual couples, and explored women’s motivations. The majority of the articles excluded (105 of 144), were excluded because they did not evaluate the women’s motivations.

Analysis of the 23 selected articles revealed that there are four primary motivations for women’s use of IPV. The first type of motivation discussed was anger. Sixteen studies found that anger was a primary or secondary motivation.  The next motivation, desiring attention, was found in 10 studies. Next, self-defense and/or retaliation was found to be a motivation in all but three articles (the three articles did not ask about self-defense). Finally, 14 studies found that coercive control was a motivation for women. They do explain that although research has reported that women use IPV for control, in Western societies, women are generally unlikely to be successful in controlling their partners.  In addition to the four primary motivations, Biar-Merritt et al. note that their review revealed that women’s use of IPV depends on the level of IPV (severe, moderate, minor), the women’s access to alternatives, and their level of aggression.

The authors conclude their review by noting the difficulty in assessing women’s motivations. For instance, they note that while women use IPV “to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense” (p. 187). They question whether this should be included in definitions of self-defense or whether this is purely retaliation. They also note that most of the research was collected interviews or questionnaires; they note that both methods have potential biases.  To address these issues, Biar-Merritt et al. put forth three suggestions. First, they call for more research that considers the motivation of women from diverse backgrounds, is methodologically rigorous, and includes focus groups. Next, the authors suggest that legal polices should acknowledge that women’s use of IPV is generally a response to their partner’s violence. Finally, they suggest that batterer’s intervention programs should consider the specific needs of women. For instance, Biar-Merritt point out that women commonly use IPV to “address the interrelated triad of feeling ignored, powerless, and angry” (p. 188).

Professor Tracy Tamborra is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and the Coordinator of the Victim Services Administration at the University of New Haven. Tamborra has researched and published in the areas of domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault. She teaches courses on victimization, theory and the effects of the criminal justice system on historically marginalized persons. In addition, Tamborra worked directly with victims of sexual assault and domestic violence for many years; most recently as the director of domestic violence services at a not-for-profit in New Jersey.

Response by Cindy Yadov

I found the article Why Do Women use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations to be an interesting read. From my perspective as a victim advocate for victims of domestic violence, this research attempts to synthesize the literature that seeks to explain why women react with physical violence towards the men with whom they have significant, romantic relationship. The researchers suggest four major motivators of IPV in women abusers: anger, the desire for attention, self defense/retaliation and coercive control.

As a victim services practitioner, I am not surprised by the findings of the analysis. I have seen all four motivations in my work with victims. Of the four, self-defense seems is the most prevalent theme in the IPV situations that I have encountered in which the woman was the abuser. Additionally, when acting in self-defense, many of my clients indicated that there were children involved, they were protecting the safety of their children and that they had no other choice (this would collaborate the study conducted by Miller and Milloy, 2006). I wonder if defense of children is properly considered under the umbrella of “self-defense” or if it needs to be considered its own category of motivation.

I agree with the observations of the researchers that the lines can sometimes be blurred between all four of the motivators. One example raised in the article is a woman who uses abuse to get her partner to leave the house. Such abuse would be classified as coercive control since she is controlling her partner’s behavior. But if she’s putting him out of the house because she fears for her safety, then it’s also self-defense. Linking interventions to narrow definitions of motivation will likely be less effective than those that recognize a more nuanced perspective.

In this research, there is mention that women have a tendency to act on emotion more than men do, a concept that I can usually agree with. I have had several cases where the female abuser attempted to communicate with her male partner, felt ignored, and then became angry. She responded with physical violence, and the victim responded in kind. Then the female abuser will continue the physical abuse in order to assert control over the current physical situation.

One of the most interesting concepts in this article was that Miller and Melloy defined three categories of aggressive women: generally violent, ones with a frustration response, and defensive behavior. As a practitioner, if I had tools that would assist me in categorizing the type of abuse behavior, it would help me better identify the kinds of assistance that would most benefit the victim in certain circumstances.

If I had a chance to influence any of the research examined by the authors in this article I would have asked them to include the law enforcement perspective. I feel that the police officers who are called to the scene are trained, neutral parties, and can potentially offer significant insight. I think this concept is especially important in states where there is a mandatory arrest. In the IPV cases where women are identified as the abusers, I would like to know how the police came to that conclusion, the factors that influenced them, etc.

Also, I would have asked the researchers to identify female abuser subjects in a more random fashion. In the studies examined in this article, more than two thirds of the compiled research involved women abusers who were in jail, IPV shelters and batterer’s treatment programs. My first impression is that this population might have a history of this behavior. I feel that it would be more relevant to the general population if it represented more of the first time offender.

I also agree with several of the conclusions of the article, and I think it could lead to helpful future research. In turn, this research can help advocates provide the best assistance possible for victims. One of the discussion points made was that there can be bias in the response of these women when participating in this study, namely answering in a manner that they think would be acceptable to the interviewer. That can potentially lead to untruthful answers. I also see this trend occasionally when working with male victims. The male victim is fearful of what society (including me, as his advocate) thinks of him. He feels that somehow he has lost some of his “manhood” because his female counterpart has assaulted him. He is embarrassed, and it takes a bit of time and the establishment of trust to hear what really happened during an assault.

I also agree that many of the batterer programs are geared toward the male population, and that needs to change in order to meet women’s needs as well. I feel that putting a victim through a traditional court mandated program will only further the guilt and shame that is sometimes felt during and after an assault.

Cindy Yadav is former legal advocate for a domestic violence program in Minnesota. She is a member of the ASV board and just relocated to Rochester, NY.

Posted in sexual assault, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Glass, N., Eden, K. B., Bloom, T., & Perrin, N. (2010). Computerized aid improves safety decision process for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 1947-1964.

Posted on September 16, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Glass, N., Eden, K. B., Bloom, T., & Perrin, N. (2010). Computerized aid improves safety decision process for survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 1947-1964.

Summary provided by Lisa Growette Bostaph
The Glass et al (2010) article, Computerized aid improves safety decision process for survivors of intimate partner violence, involves testing a computer program which assists battered women in safety planning with a goal of individualizing safety plans and reducing the difficulty women in IPV relationships often have in making these overwhelming decisions (termed “decisional conflict”). The researchers wanted to know whether or not this computer program reduced decisional conflict among a group of battered women. The value of safety planning has been demonstrated in previous studies and the computer program uses the Danger Assessment (DA) developed by Campbell which has been shown to accurately predict levels of danger in IPV relationships in previous tests. What makes this study different is that the use of a self-administered computer program has not been previously tested in safety planning or lethality assessment nor has it been tested for the purpose of improving the decision making process.

The computerized safety decision aid was developed during Phase 1. The program includes multiple components, including demographic questions, previous help-seeking behaviors and resources used, a safety planning checklist, whether or not they have a current safe place/person, an activity within the computer program which allowed them to use an actual sliding bar to rank priorities in their life (e.g., own safety vs. child safety or child safety vs. maintaining privacy) which are later used in creating the safety plan, and the Danger Assessment. At the end, users are given their level of danger/lethality and a completed safety plan which they have the option of printing out to take with them. The users answered questions about their decision making process before and after completing the computerized safety decision aid. These questions included identifying positive and negative aspects of remaining or leaving their relationship and at the end provided a score on their decisional conflict level.

The scores on decisional conflict were used to determine if the level of decisional conflict changed due to the use of the computerized safety decision aid. After its creation, the researchers requested reviews by both national experts and a group of twelve domestic violence advocates. Revisions to the program were made based on feedback from both groups. Phase 2 involved 90 women who were recruited through shelters and advocacy programs in the Portland, OR area. Fliers were posted at these locations and women who were interested in participating were screened to insure that they had experienced physical and/or sexual violence in past year and were 18 years of age or older. Each participant was met at a location the participant deemed to be a safe place where they completed the program at their own pace on a laptop using headphones. Once completed, the participant spoke with the research assistant to determine if they needed referrals for assistance and could leave with a copy of their safety plan, if they believed it was safe to do so.

The results demonstrated that women who used the computerized safety decision aid felt more supported in their decisions and experienced less total decisional conflict than we would expect by chance. However, the results for the areas of decision making that included certainty, knowledge, and clear values were not different than what we would expect by chance. There are some issues with this study. First, the sample was not randomly chosen; it was self-selected, meaning that the women who were willing to participate may be very different from the “average” woman in an IPV relationship. This can be seen in the demographics of the women who participated in that only 8 percent currently lived with their abuser and 69% were found to be at either severe or extreme level of danger, according to the Danger Assessment. Almost all of the women had disclosed the abuse to someone (91%), most often to an informal rather than formal person, and over half (60%) already had a safety plan in place. We could not say that the computerized program would have led to the same reduction in decisional conflict for women who were currently living with their abuser, had lower levels of danger as measured by the Danger Assessment, had not disclosed to anyone, or who had no safety plan. Also, there was no group that did not use the computer program (called a “control group”), so we cannot say that women who were battered would not have had the same result by using some other means (e.g., talking with a supportive person).

What can we say based on this study and these results? We can place some measure of confidence in the use of the computerized safety decision aid with women in very dangerous IPV relationships who have already taken steps to achieve some measure of safety.

Lisa Growette Bostaph earned her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati in 2004 with an emphasis in policing and criminal justice systems. Currently, she is an Associate Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator in the Department of Criminal Justice at Boise State University in Idaho. Dr. Bostaph’s research interests include racial disparity and policing and the criminal justice system’s response to the victimization of women. Prior to entering academia, she ran a community-based domestic violence/sexual assault advocacy organization and worked as a Victim-Witness Coordinator in a prosecutor’s office in Minnesota.

Response by Sarah Tucker
Glass and her colleagues bring a digital twist to safety planning with this study. This research found that the survivors who participated reported that this computerized safety planning tool helped them determine their safety priorities and feel more confident in their decisions. Additionally, the tool incorporates Campbell’s Danger Assessment – long held as a respected tool in the field. The advantage of this electronic tool used by Glass and her colleagues is the real-time feedback as it adjusts according to the responses and and provides instant “scoring.”

I commend the researchers on their attention to the safety and privacy challenges surrounding technology. By providing a safe computer for participants to use, researchers eliminate the possibility that the survivor would leave a trail by accessing this survey from her home computer, and greatly decrease the potential that a current or former abusive partner will learn about her participation and potentially perpetrate violence. While the possibility that an abuser could learn about her participation in other ways (checking her voicemail, reviewing her text messages, following her to the meeting with the researcher), the researchers have taken laudable steps to mitigate this risk. I urge the researchers to continue to take this care in future studies.

Depending upon their counseling orientation and discipline, some counselors and advocates may find this method of sitting a woman at a computer “cold” or “isolating,” while others will see it as an opportunity to reach a population that may not otherwise seek help. Practitioners have long struggled with reaching the “underserved” or those people who don’t seek access. This may provide a valuable tool. While a victim may be understandably reluctant to take a brochure that has the words “Domestic Violence” plastered across the front, the discretion and privacy provided by this assessment might attract survivors looking to take the next step in evaluating their relationships.

The researchers are clear that this computerized aid is not intended to replace face to face counseling or services, and in fact state that, “providing the computerized safety decision aid in diverse settings such as welfare offices, Head Start programs, community agencies, and libraries is one step to increasing access to safety planning and to provide information about local resources and advocates.” I urge Glass and her colleagues to carefully guard the future of this tool. It may provide incredible value to some survivors but it MUST remain an optional, private, informational tool, and never a mandated survey, required to receive public benefits or services.

I’d be remiss in my duty as an advocate for survivors if I didn’t address the dangers of safety planning in a vacuum. While it appears that the researchers have done everything possible to mitigate any danger, our daily experiences show us that people, and especially abusers, are unpredictable. Unlike computers, they don’t follow patterns or commands without fail. So, regardless of the research tool or survey, it remains critical that survivors continue to trust themselves, as their level of risk could change dramatically after they take any assessment. Computer-based tools require additional caution, especially if a survivor unwittingly uses a personal computer. Even if a victim were to take every step possible in clearing her online history and footprints, abusers often install spyware on victims’ personal computers, which allows them to view and record every move a victim makes online.

While safety planning has long been an individualized process, created for each survivor based on her life’s circumstances, this method has only benefited those survivors who do find the courage to reach out and seek help. The decision tool tested in this article may very well prove to be a viable option to reach a new population of survivors, and bring us one step closer to reaching unserved and underserved communities.

Sarah Tucker is a Technology Safety Specialist with Safety Net: the National Safe & Strategic Technology Project of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). Through training, technical assistance, and policy advocacy, she addresses all forms of technology that impact survivors of stalking, sexual violence and domestic violence. Before joining the Safety Net Project in 2004, Sarah coordinated NNEDV’s Doors of Hope grant program, worked at the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence and provided bilingual (English-Spanish) advocacy services at the Domestic Violence Center of Howard County (MD). Over the past ten years, she has provided hundreds of local, state, national, and international trainings and co-authored several articles on the use of technology and violence against women. She holds a Bachelors of Arts from Mount Saint Mary’s University, and is current pursuing a Master’s certificate in Cybersecurity from the University of MD, Baltimore County.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Meier, J. S. (2009). A historical perspective on parental alienation syndrome and parent alienation. Journal of Child Custody, 136(5), 232-257.

Posted on August 11, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Meier, J. S. (2009).  A historical perspective on parental alienation syndrome and parent alienation.  Journal of Child Custody, 136(5), 232-257.

Summary provided by Annelies K. Hagemeister

Meier’s article is a historical analysis by a legal scholar and lawyer about the use of parental alienation (PA) in family court cases. She rightly asserts that practitioners of all types need to be extremely cautious of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and its related alienation theories in custody litigation. Meier draws upon research studies, practice literature, and legal case decisions to support her points. She provides a thorough and careful analysis of both the historical origins and the current application of PAS. Ultimately, she concludes that allegations of PA/PAS are highly suspect for several reasons.

Parental alienation – the notion that couples who are engaged in contentious divorce and child custody proceedings often contribute to their children’s siding with one parent or another – is a theory that has taken on a life of its own. Contentious custody battles are extremely difficult and confusing for children, and that they may “pick sides” is not disputed. Overtime, however, many family courts have shifted toward automatically disputing allegations of abuse, as if they are always some form of deliberate retribution. Allegations of sexual or domestic abuse are seen as part of an attempt by a parent, usually the mother, to alienate the child(ren) from their other paren. As Meier points out, and advocates for battered women will attest, it is the alienating and manipulative behaviors of an abusive husband/father that courts should be more concerned about.

In her article, Meier clearly lays out the major critiques of PAS both as originally construed by Richard Gardner and as reformulated. These are that PAS: a) is based on flawed, circular logic; b) lacks empirical support; and c) is based upon theoretical hunches and interpretations of Gardner’s clinical experiences alone. Each of these is important to consider in understanding the dubious nature of PAS and the concerns raised today.

The circularity of PAS theory is due to contradictory assumptions that abuse claims are made to alienate a child from the offending parent; but to come to this conclusion, we are supposed to first determine that there is PAS, which we can’t determine if abuse claims are valid. PAS presumes that a child’s distance or hostility toward their father, for example, is unreasonable and pathological, not based in reality. If we have to begin from this position, we see that the theory doubles back on itself. In this case, a child who is highly resistant to spending time with their father because he has actually abused the child’s mother should not be believed. So, the theory violates a major principle of a good scientific theory to begin with.

As for the validity of PAS, we have only to look at scholarly literature. Meier illustrates that the empirical assumptions upon which the theory is based are incorrect, namely that allegations of sexual abuse in custody litigation are rampant and the allegations are false.  Additionally, the consensus of the scholarly research in this area (on which we should base sound evidence-informed practices) and statements of professional organizations clearly indicate there is no scientific validity to PAS; it has been discredited. PAS is a theory, not a diagnosis; no such “syndrome” appears in the universally used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) upon which mental health diagnoses are based. When Gardner’s viewpoints are analyzed, Meier notes that they were extreme, particularly with respect to issues of child sexuality. (Gardner asserted that sexual relations between adults and children were not harmful to children and may be beneficial to the human species!)  Furthermore, his proposed remediation for a diagnosis of PAS were also far outside best practice, proposing, for example, that children should be completely cut-off from contact with their allegedly alienating mother in order to reconnect with their father. As Meier’s states, “PAS theory recasts abuse claims as false tools for alienation, thereby inherently dissuading evaluators and courts from serious consideration of whether abuse has actually occurred” (Meier, 2009, p. 236).

Despite these concerns, family courts continue to base legal decisions and legislators base social policies on PAS. This is not only inappropriate, but also has potentially devastating consequences for mothers and children, such as custody being awarded to a battering ex-spouse. Even with evidence to the contrary, PA has become central to disputed custody cases not only in the U.S., but internationally. As Meier explains, though very few legal opinions have even analyzed legal admissibility of PAS, it is routinely introduced in such cases and its application has crept beyond allegations of sexual abuse to domestic violence. Much of the influence on courts has been the introduction of PAS by custody evaluators, guardians at litem (GALs), and court appointed special advocates (CASAs) who sometimes seem to hold undue influence over judges. Meier asserts that even the more contemporary and revised versions of PA, which remove the word “syndrome” are often no more than repackaging of PAS is new wrapping.

Meier contends that there are other factors in play when we try to understand the influence PAS still has in custody litigation. These factors include: a) PAS being an appealing and tidy alternative explanation for the very messy, contentious custody disputes; b) denial of abuse in families so that judges (among others) resist acknowledging this reality; and, c) gender bias in the legal system, which currently seems to favor “father’s rights,” father involvement, and joint/shared custody almost at any cost.  A combination of these factors, which are based more on ideology and belief, than on evidence and fact, seem to continue to have hold on many family lawyers and judges alike.  It is of great concern that PAS/alienation theory continues to be misused at the expense of children and mothers, whose real experiences of abuse are marginalized all too often.

Annelies Hagemeister PhD, MSW, LISW, is Associate Professor in the Department of Social Work at Minnesota State University, Mankato, where she was taught since 2003 and currently serves as Department Chairperson. Prior to this, she was project coordinator for the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse (MINCAVA), instructor in social work and family social science at the University of Minnesota, and a children’s therapist at the Domestic Abuse Project (DAP) in Minneapolis. As project coordinator with the Collaborating for Women and Child Safety Project she provided technical assistance, curriculum development, and training for professionals serving families impacted by domestic violence.

 

Response by Kathy Manis Findley

Dr. Annelies K. Hagemeister provides a succinct and accurate summary of Joan S. Meier’s article, and in so doing, presents a frighteningly accurate picture of what is happening in family courts in America and around the world.  For victim advocates, both Hagemeister’s summary and Joan Meier’s writing is critical to understanding our advocacy role in cases of partner violence and the custody disputes that result from them. Dr. Hagemeister puts the issue in sharp perspective with this assertion:

Family courts continue to base legal decisions and legislators base social policies on PAS. This is not only inappropriate, but also has potentially devastating consequences for mothers and children, such as custody being awarded to a battering ex-spouse. Even with evidence to the contrary, PA [parental alienation] has become central to disputed custody cases.

From the perspective of victim assistance, the summary is directly on point in its descriptions of the experience of clients saddled with accusations of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and all of its related, but flawed, alienation theories that have so impacted custody litigation. I speak from the knowledge gained from what is now a four-year nightmare for one of our clients, her children and our entire staff.  Every act on the part of our client resulted in further sanctions on her and harm to her children. Every informed and researched act of advocacy on our part for our client and her children actually made the situation worse. For almost a full year, the mother had no contact at all with her children while they were in the custody of their battering and abusive father.

While I wholeheartedly affirm Dr. Hagemeister’s findings on PAS; I also believe that the nature and brevity inherent in a summary simply cannot do justice to the reality of PAS. For that reason, I would hope that victim advocates would read this article summary as an invitation to do additional research on an issue that has literally changed the way we must work with our clients who are embroiled in acrimonious custody disputes.

The view from the victim advocate’s desk clearly reveals that this “movement” changes everything about our work. Suddenly, we find ourselves not only advocating for a battered mother, but also for children who are given no voice in the ultimate battle for power and control. As Dr. Hegemeister correctly stated, but also understated, PAS is an outgrowth of what we have come to know as the “father’s rights” movement. She explains it in this way: “gender bias in the legal system . . . seems to favor father’s rights, father involvement, and joint/shared custody almost at any cost” and states further that the PAS ideology, which is not based on evidence and fact, continues to influence both attorneys and judges.”

In Arkansas, four battered women have come to us for help because their children are held hostage by family courts. There are others who do not come because they are afraid of repercussions, and even more who are seeking help under pseudonyms out of fear. For one of our clients, we enlisted the help of the organization founded by Joan Meier, the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DVLEAP). Because our client had already expended more than $100,000 in legal costs and other related expenses, two DVLEAP attorneys from Washington, DC, came to Arkansas at their own expense to argue the case before the Arkansas Court of Appeals.[i]

Our client lost that appeal, but that is the reality in the trenches. The real situation in the trenches is that this is not simply about the “father’s rights” movement; it is about a cottage industry for attorneys, mental health professionals, supervised visitation monitors and even ad litem attorneys who are enjoying lucrative relationships with family court judges. As a team, they routinely bankrupt families with enormous court-ordered fees and often recommend that children be placed with their sexually or physically abusive fathers. Family court judges frequently ignore evidence of abuse, refuse to hear direct testimony from children, and rubber stamp the recommendations of their “team mates” while protective parents are forced to pay costly fees to attend supervised visits with the children they raised, watching helplessly as their children continue to report abuse to uncaring visitation monitors. If they speak out about system injustices, they may face judicial retaliation and lose what little time they have with their children. The unregulated cottage industry churns away, generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to “experts.”

This is a national epidemic that is destroying families without any punitive remedies, and I strongly urge victim advocates to begin their research NOW. Begin with Dr. Hagemeister’s thorough summary, move on to the research and writing of Joan Meier, study the resources on the DVLEAP website[ii] and then watch the video referenced here of actual interviews from the 2008 Battered Mothers Custody Conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5viwjaIorU8.

[i] (http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=43876&page=1&searchid=4a233ee9-16e6-4478-9be4-d6d9f71d14e7; Oates v. Oates)

[ii] http://www.dvleap.org/Home.aspx

_________________________________________________________

Kathy Manis Findley, BA, MDiv, CTS, CVAP-A, is Executive Director, Safe Places, Little Rock, Arkansas.  She has served in the field of victim assistance for over 20 years and has extensive experience in working with victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse. She serves on the faculty of the National College of District Attorney’s Conference on Domestic Violence, is a national speaker and trainer, and is the author of three books and numerous published articles. Her work in the community includes serving as vice chair of the Little Rock Commission on Children, Youth and Families, past chair of the Little Rock Commission on Domestic Violence, and serving on the following organizations: Sixth Judicial District Sexual Abuse Management Team, Pulaski County Multidisciplinary Child Abuse Team, Arkansas Women’s Health Workgroup, and the Domestic Violence Committee of the Arkansas Commission on Child Abuse, Rape and Domestic Violence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: a meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, American Psychological Association (136) 5, 894-914.

Posted on July 6, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: a meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates.  Psychological Bulletin, American Psychological Association (136) 5, 894-914.

Summary provided by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Those who work with victims know that forgiveness plays a large role in healing. This is particularly well known among restorative justice practitioners, who commonly have a goal of helping victims forgive. This study attempts to identify statistically significant aspects of forgiveness, looking both at effects for the victim and usefulness of various strategies.

A meta-analysis is a study that looks at studies rather than individual subjects.  This meta-analysis looked at the results from 175 previous forgiveness studies which included 26,006 participants. Twenty-two variables were chosen, and each study was analyzed through that lens. Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that forgiveness is complex. They were able to find some statistically significant aspects of the forgiveness project which could prove useful to practitioners.

Forgiveness research is multi-disciplinary, resulting in a wide array of studies from different viewpoints. What the researchers found to be missing was an effort to put all this empirical data together. One result of this missing integration is people in one discipline guessing about correlations that other disciplines have already studied. Many examples are given. The purpose of this study is to bring all that data together, at least on the twenty-two aspects being studied. Part of the effort is to quantify the results of many qualitative studies so that they can be effectively compared.

Based on this comparison the authors create “Cognitions, Affect, and Constraints: A Tripartite Forgiveness Typology.” These three can be seen as ways of thinking, ways of showing feelings, and ways of dealing differently with the world as a result of the victimization followed by forgiveness. There is the old joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Becoming a mugging victim affects how one thinks about the world, how one feels about the world, and what one does to stay safe in the future. How does forgiveness affect these three areas of life?

Forgiveness means different things to different people. For this study the researchers used McCullough, Pargament, and Thoresen’s definition of forgiveness as a “prosocial change toward a perceived transgressor.” They see forgiveness as motivating prosocial behavior toward the offender and a lack of forgiveness to motivate antisocial behavior toward them. This study only looks at interpersonal forgiveness between two people.

The three aspects of forgiveness studied, cognition, affect and constraints, are simply described. Cognitions describe an effort to understand what happened. Affect describes emotions and moods associated with victimization. Constraints are the self-protective things done in an effort to be safe, and may extend well beyond the harm caused by a particular offense.

Cognitions

What happened and why are the questions posed when one tries to understand being harmed. Who is responsible for the harm, and what did they intend? We are able to forgive accidental harm more easily than deliberate harm. Apology works in this area by showing that even deliberate harm is now regretted, making the offender more worthy of forgiveness. The severity of the harm plays a role, since it is more difficult to forgive someone who has caused great harm. A final important aspect in this area is rumination. Repetitively reliving the bad event makes forgiveness more difficult.

The study shows that a victim who sees their harm as being severe, intentional and caused by the offender is unlikely to forgive. Cognitions play a larger role than affect or constraints in deciding whether to forgive.

Practitioners can easily see strategies to aid victims in working through these cognitive tasks. Victim offender dialogue (VOD), for instance, provides an excellent method for demonstrating lack of intention to harm and regret for harm caused. It is the most direct way to resolve the why question. VOD also helps victims to accurately describe the harm caused, and allows rumination to be more realistic rather than being fed by unknowns. Where the actual offender is not available, a surrogate can be used.

Affect

Emotions and mood play a large role in encouraging or discouraging forgiveness. Forgiveness is not, after all, a completely rational process. Whether triggered by the offense or not, negative moods and emotions block forgiveness. Self-esteem and empathic concern are also part of affect. A person with high self-esteem is more resilient when harmed, and more able to empathize with the offender.

The study found that negative mood, anger and empathy were most important, and that all negatively affected forgiveness. High self-esteem did not have an effect, although the authors caution that measurement was difficult.

Practitioners are well aware that negative moods all but prevent forgiveness. Assistance for victims needs to include mood-elevating activities. Anger is a way to describe an intensely negative mood. Just as is the case with cognitions, VOD can allow victims to express anger directly and constructively while effectively gaining new information that ameliorates anger.

Constraints

This area is less intuitive for practitioners. Constraints have partly to do with the cost of not forgiving. Refusing or failing to forgive prevents restoration of the relationship with the offender. This can be a problem where there is an ongoing relationship. It can also make the victim look antisocial if their group values forgiveness. This is especially true among religious people whose values include forgiveness.

The study found that relationship closeness, satisfaction and commitment were significant in the decision to forgive, but relatively minor compared to cognitions. Religiosity and internal forgiveness expectations were even less important.

Practitioners who consider forgiveness the F word have seen that social pressures to forgive can be damaging, particular for members of religious groups. This study indicates that these pressures are a small portion of the motivation to forgive.

Conclusion

Cognitions, affects and constraints work together as a person decides to forgive. Apology and other activities that act in the cognitive realm are of greatest importance in the decision to forgive. The study’s many variables also pointed out interesting areas of insignificance. Gender, for instance, makes no difference in the decision to forgive.

The study indicates that practitioners would do well to focus on cognitive tasks that help a victim recognize that their harm is not as severe as it might be, that the event was not intended to cause harm to them, and that the offender regrets the harm. Victim offender dialogue is well-suited to these tasks, which could also be addressed in therapy.

Duane Ruth-Heffelbower is Associate Professor of Peacemaking and Conflict Studies , School of Humanities, Religion and Social Sciences, Fresno Pacific University; Director of the Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies ; Director of Graduate Academic Programs in peacemaking and conflict studies; faculty in the Criminology and Restorative Justice Studies degree completion program; faculty in the School of Business Leadership Studies MA program. Attorney and Counselor at Law, mediator, arbitrator and facilitator in all disputes. He is a member of the board of the American Society of Victimology and a Counselor with the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Victimology Section.

 

Response by Sandra J. Lydick

As the authors of this ambitious meta-analysis of forgiveness state, “There is a paradox within the forgiveness literature.”  They explain that forgiveness research has yielded much empirical data while the nature of the interdisciplinary approach has prevented synthesis.  For a practitioner working in the field, this meta-analysis offers an important opportunity to assess what has been demonstrated in the literature about how forgiveness is connected to other feelings and cognitions, as well as to examine more analytically one’s own assumptions and biases about forgiveness.

The well known saying of Lao Tzu, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step” appears to make a long road seem easier.  As I started down the road with this study, some steps were challenging.  The authors examined for some two dozen factors, the relation of each to forgiveness.  For only a few (empathy, assessment of intent, and state anger), could be said that their relation to forgiveness is important.  A few clearly play little or no consistent role in determining forgiveness.  But for the preponderance of factors, the relationship is inconclusive, somewhere in the grey zone between not quite absent and not quite important.  It is a judgment call whether to consider these factors or ignore them.

Further, such studies tend to focus on the degree to which their results can be said to differ from chance.  In the world of people, of crimes and of healing, however, we are concerned with knowing not about the study but about the people being studied: how much difference do these factors make in people’s lives.  Such studies bear upon and hint about what we really want to know, but leave us a bit in suspense, as if waiting for the other shoe to drop.  It may be important for practitioners to look closely at the degree of correlation between forgiveness and cognitions, affects, and constraints to determine whether or which strategies to assist clients are warranted.  If a calculated r value of 0.4 to 0.7 is a moderate correlation (rather than a significant or strong correlation as stated in the study), then some of the conclusions in the study would be different.  Thus, depending on how one interprets the r value, the results can be interpreted as showing that the only determinants of forgiveness with a significant correlation are the assessment of intent to harm and degree of empathy.  As a practitioner, I want to better understand how empathic emotions relate to the process of forgiveness.  Reading the literature cited will be an important aid.

Yet paradoxically, the effect of religiosity (.19) and social desirability (.09) were small according to the study.  This was a surprising and unexpected finding since many people that I work with – practitioners and victims alike – hold religious and social beliefs that affect their attitudes about forgiveness.  In fact, the belief that we should forgive is an explicit teaching of many faiths.  It would be helpful for future research to examine motivations to forgive based on religiosity and social desirability.  In my experience as a pastoral counselor, I often hear reports from individuals who are given admonitions from their religious leader or community of faith about forgiveness that is unhelpful if not harmful in their journey toward healing and wholeness which may or may not include forgiveness.  They have had to endure not only the original offense, but then also a browbeating that how they are coping is wrong.

Future research regarding healing might include the utilization of forgiveness as part of the healing journey compared to other therapeutic techniques and approaches.  I agree with Duane Ruth-Heffelbower in his conclusion of the review of the research that practitioners would do well to focus on cognitive tasks that help the victim recognize that the event was not intended to cause harm to them; although I am more tentative about the conclusion the research indicates that helping a victim recognize that their harm is not as severe as it might be (.26), and that the offender regrets the harm (apology .40; responsibility .36).  One resource I have found helpful for focusing on cognitive tasks while avoiding rumination and focusing on positive mood is Life After Trauma: A Workbook for Healing by Dena Rosenbloom, PhD and Mary Beth Williams, PhD.

A narrow place in the road for me was the definition researchers used for forgiveness, “prosocial change toward a perceived transgressor.”  To say that a lack of forgiveness motivates antisocial behavior places a stigma on the person who does not choose to forgive.  It may be important to emphasize the when in the road to forgiveness.  Practitioners are trained to meet the client where they are and to assess their readiness to move forward.  One colleague often asks people about what the meaning of forgiveness is for them.  That may initiate an opportunity for dialogue about the value of forgiveness and the range of definitions of forgiveness. I value the work on forgiveness by

Clarissa Pinkola Estes who utilizes stories to help a victim move from using rage as teacher to knowing when “untransformed rage can become a constant mantra about how oppressed, hurt, and tortured we were.” (Estes, p. 353).  She uses four levels of forgiveness:  to forego – to leave it alone; to forebear – to abstain from punishing; to forget – to aver from memory, to refuse to dwell; to forgive – to abandon the debt.

As Duane Ruth-Heffelbower points out, victim offender dialogue (VOD) “provides an excellent method for demonstrating lack of intention to harm and regret for harm caused…VOD also helps victims to accurately describe the harm caused, and allows rumination to be more realistic rather than being fed by unknowns.”  Further research about the positive results of Restorative Practices including community conferencing that has been shown to reduce recidivism rates can assist those in the field with a better informed journey.  The researchers are to be commended for providing resources and research to assist as we move forward.

References

Estes, C. (1992). Women Who Run With the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype. New York. Ballantine Books.

Rosenbloom, D. and Williams, M.B. (1999). Life After Trauma: A Workbook for Healing. New York. Guilford Press.

Rev. Sandra Lydick, M.Div., LMSW, is Executive Director and Victims Chaplain for Crime Victims Council, an outreach ministry of First United Methodist Church, Fort Worth, Texas, and a 501(c)3. Crime Victims Council sponsors an annual Interfaith Worship service of help, hope, and healing on the first day of NCVRW for victims, their families, friends, and the community. Rev. Lydick is a member of Tarrant County Coalition of Crime Victim Services, Tarrant County Council on Family Violence, and Clergy and Police Alliance (C.A.P.A.), Fort Worth PD.

 

Posted in Forgiveness | Leave a comment

Baugher, S. N., Elhai, J. D., Monroe, J. R., & Gray, M. J. (2010). Rape myth acceptance, sexual trauma history, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Interpersonal Violence (25) 11, 2036-2053.

Posted on May 26, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Summary provided by Bethany Backes

Purpose of Study

This article outlines results from a study examining rape myth beliefs among 258 college students.  The overall aim of the study was to explore specific characteristics that could potentially impact how much an individual believes rape myths.  These factors included: post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), past sexual trauma, attitudes toward women, and gender role identity.  Results from this study provide guidance to clinicians on working with survivors of sexual violence and inform educational programming aimed at dispelling rape myths.

Variables of Interest

Previous research has shown that the more a person believes in rape myths, the more likely they will engage in victim blaming.  Rape myth acceptance has been studied before, especially as it relates to gender role identity and attitudes towards women.  Two of the variables examined in this study, attitudes toward women and gender role identity, have an impact on rape myth acceptance.  Individuals holding negative or stereotypical attitudes toward women and those reporting more masculine traits and behaviors have been found to have higher levels of rape myth acceptance. However, there is limited information on the relationship between past sexual trauma and rape myth acceptance and no studies have included PTSD as a variable when examining this topic.   The authors believe that past sexual trauma history and PTSD will be tied low levels of rape myth acceptance.

Multiple instruments were used to measure these variables and background information was also collected.  All data collection took place through a web-based survey. Participants with a sexual trauma history and a random sample of participants not reporting previous sexual trauma were compared to examine differences in rape myth acceptance.

Findings

Since mostly females reported a sexual trauma and were majority of the sample, gender was used in the first step of the analysis so that the results would not be biased.  Results showed that negative attitudes toward women were significantly related to higher acceptance of rape myths which is consistent with findings in previous studies. Although masculine gender role identity scores were related to negative attitudes towards women, gender role identity did not impact overall rape myth acceptance beliefs.  Individuals who reported a past sexual trauma were much less likely to accept rape myths.  PTSD did not impact level of rape myth acceptance. However, since there were a small number of participants that reported PTSD symptoms in this study it may be useful to explore a possible connection in future studies with more participants with PTSD symptoms.

Implications for Practice

Negative and stereotypical attitudes towards women must be addressed and strategies designed to do so should be incorporated in prevention and educational programs, specifically programs aimed at college populations.   Community or campus wide sexual violence prevention programs may assist people with understanding the dynamics of sexual violence. Clinicians treating individuals or groups who accept rape myths should increase the personal relevance of sexual violence through role-playing activities.  Also important is exposing individuals to the reality of sexual violence which could create a shift in attitudes and beliefs.  Although only discussed in the beginning of the article, it is important for clinicians to understand that rape myth acceptance can have a detrimental impact on survivors of sexual violence and is an important consideration when these individuals seek treatment.

Limitations

As with all studies, caution should be used when interpreting results. The study population was largely female college students from a Midwestern institution and findings cannot be generalized to other age groups or areas of the country.  Also, participants were only asked about past sexual trauma, however, PTSD symptoms could have been tied to other traumatic experiences.   This study can only offer preliminary information on this topic due to the small sample size and that the design of the study was cross sectional which means it only provides a snapshot of a particular population.

Bethany Backes is a Social Science Analyst at NIJ, where she maintains a research portfolio on a variety of victimization issues with a specific focus on marginalized communities, sexual violence, and stalking. Ms. Backes teaches victimology courses, and prior to NIJ, she coordinated the victim services division for a statewide non-profit and directed an injury prevention research and service program at Johns Hopkins. She has been a health educator for a local health department and a therapist for survivors of rape and childhood sexual abuse. Ms Backes holds a MSW and MPH from the University of Michigan and is a social work doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland Baltimore.

Response provided by Sarah Kelly-Palmer

The research presented in the study “Rape Myth Acceptance, Sexual Trauma History and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder” seeks to explore specific characteristics that may potentiality impact how much an individual believes rape myths. Three hypotheses were presented by the authors:

1)     More traditional attitudes toward woman and Gender Role Identity (GRI) would predict higher rape myth acceptance

2)     Sexual trauma history would weaken the prediction of rape myth acceptance toward women and gender role identity

3)     Higher levels of PTSD symptom severity would weaken the prediction of rape myth acceptance by attitudes toward women and gender role identity

The article confirms what has been known in the field related to rape myth acceptance that those who have negative attitudes toward woman tend to embrace or accept rape myths.  Additionally, those reporting more masculine behaviors and traits were shown to have higher levels of rape myth acceptance, however, overall gender identity did not have a correlation with rape myth acceptance. A small number of the participants reported symptoms of PTSD so no conclusion could be drawn related to that hypothesis.

Perhaps one of the biggest limitations of the study was the fact that the majority of the respondents to the survey were female.  Considering that the Center for Disease Control estimates that approximately 20-25% of college females experience attempted or completed rape during their college years, my opinion as a practitioner is that the study would have had a bigger impact if they would have reached out to a larger sample of men.

Limitations aside, the most important point that I took away from this article as a practitioner was one that I already knew, that negative attitudes toward woman are correlated with rape myth acceptance. This fact is a helpful reminder that as victim service providers it is extremely important that we look at how we approach and combat these negative attitudes. Our culture at large supports negative attitudes toward women on a daily basis.

It is clear that more needs to be done to dispel rape myths, particularly on college campuses as the number of attempted or completed sexual assaults is so prevalent. As a practitioner, I appreciate the article emphasizing the impact that role-playing can have when working individually with a survivor, however, I feel that the article lends itself to a more global approach for the field. It is clear that more needs to be known about how to dispel rape myths and that further research into what actually works to change the way people think about woman would make an impact on the field. We must focus on changing people’s negative views of woman first and foremost. I feel that as a therapist I have the tools to do that in my everyday practice, and while this article discusses the negative impact rape myth acceptance can have on individuals in treatment, a larger movement is needed.  Further research should be conducted about impacting an individual on the treatment level related to rape myth acceptance but I also believe it is important to focus on changing the cognitions of people who perpetuate these myths that are not in treatment. We must go beyond prevention and focus on changing the way our society views women.

As a practitioner I work hard each day to assist victims on their journey to survivorship. This article is a reminder that, while we have come along with prevention and education, we still have a very long way to go. While my role as a victim service provider is that of a therapist, I see my role related to this topic as going beyond the walls of my therapy office. I can work individually with survivors and hope their journey in therapy helps to shift their view of self from victim to survivor but what is often lost is the idea of having an influence on our culture at large.  We as providers are in a unique position to not only empower the survivors we work with to be heard, but to be their voices if they are not yet ready to speak.

Sarah Kelly-Palmer is an independently licensed Social Worker and a Senior Clinical Administrator at Family Service of Rhode Island, a large social service agency that provides a variety of victims services. Sarah is the Project Director of the Children’s Treatment & Recovery Center (part of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network) which provides clinical treatment to children who are the victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse and/or neglect. Sarah was also the Project Director of the Rhode Island State Victims Assistance Academy and co-chaired the Steering Committee which created the academy.

Posted in sexual assault | Leave a comment

Diem, C. & Pizarro, M (2010). Social structure and family homicide. Journal of Family Violence (25) 5, 521-532

Posted on April 14, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

Diem, C. & Pizarro, M (2010).  Social structure and family homicide.  Journal of Family Violence (25) 5, 521-532.

Summary provided by Mary Lieberman

Although numerous studies have established a correlation between poverty and social disorganization* on the one hand and homicide rates on the other, there remains a void in our knowledge about the effect of social disorganization on family homicide and its subtypes (intimate partner, siblicide, filicide, parricide).   This is due to the fact that family homicides are relatively rare, and its subtypes even more so.  Most studies in this area have focused on the micro-level: examining situational and individual characteristics of the victim, the offender and proximate characteristics of the environment in which the event occurred.

This study is an attempt to clarify the relationship between these two variables and family homicide at the macro level.  In spite of the fact that family homicides are relatively rare, the researchers hoped to shed light on some of the assertions being made in the media about the link between the economy and domestic homicide.  They also hope that increased data might lead to the development of prevention strategies.

The authors analyzed data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports from 2000 to 2007 using ordinary least squares regression.  The data was taken from urban communities with populations of over 100,000.

Diem and Pizarro expected to find a strong link between poverty and all family homicide subtypes.  They also expected to find a strong link between social disorganization and all family homicide subtypes.

The authors found a weaker than expected but still significant link between poverty and the various types of family homicides. The authors believe the weaker-than-expected aspect may be due to the interplay of poverty itself with other more subtle factors such as the lack of mental health services in impoverished areas and a lack of resources and / or inability to access resources for victims of domestic violence.

More significantly, they found a positive but inverse relationship between social disorganization and the various types of family homicides.   In other words, the greater the social disorganization, the fewer the family homicides.  For the purposes of this study, social disorganization was measured on three traits:  percentage of homeowners vs. renters; percentage of immigrants; and population density.  Diem and Pizarro point to research suggesting that immigrants may have more cohesive family cultures; they specifically mention the Hispanic culture as a model of family cohesion that may provide sufficient emotional buffering so as to mitigate family homicide rates.  This is by far the most significant finding, assuming that subsequent studies uphold it.

Diem and Pizarro acknowledged that when family homicides are further categorized (i.e., the numbers of filicides, siblicides and parricides) the numbers are very low.  In fact, this may diminish the significance of the findings.   The authors suggest a study of rural populations using the same methods of analysis.  This might yield some insights into the effects of poverty and social disorganization on families living in isolation.

The study revealed some tantalizing hypotheses about the buffering effect that some immigrant cultures have in terms of family homicide prevention.  However, further categorizing family homicide into subtypes seems less likely to yield promising research due to the (blessedly) small numbers of filicides, parricides and siblicides.

*Social disorganization theory explains crime from the perspective of neighborhood characteristics rather than personal characteristics.  It suggests that crime is higher in neighborhoods characterized by poverty, high immigrant populations, instability, crowded conditions and the absence of economic opportunity.

Mary Lieberman, LMSW-AP, has been a social worker for 23 years and has worked in a variety of areas.  She worked with victims of domestic violence as the Director of the Guadalupe County Women’s Shelter, and then with crime victims at the Austin, Texas Police Department.  She worked with refugees as the Director of Bridge Refugee Services in Knoxville, Tennessee, and finally with at-risk teenagers at Daytop Village in New York.  She currently is an adjunct instructor of Social Work at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Response provided by Wayne Smith

In “Social Structure and Family Homicide” it appears the researchers are trying to better understand the relationship of family homicides as they might relate to poverty and social disorganization in a given geographical area.  The study indicates that in actuality there are very few family homicides including the subtypes (intimate partner, siblicide, filicide, parricide).

Pierce County in the State of Washington has a population of around 815,000.  Out of that, 380,000 are in unincorporated and 435,000 are in incorporated areas.  I am not surprised by the results of the research and, based on experience as a prosecutor-based advocate, tend to agree with their findings.  In 2010 34 homicides were reported in Pierce County.   Out of the 34 homicides, five of them were classified as family homicides (15%).  When I look at the geographical area of each family homicide, the characteristics in the environment in which they occurred were not linked to social disorganization or poverty.

Only one of the family homicides occurred in what might be classified as an area of social disorganization.  One was in a rural area, but not isolated.  The others were in neighborhoods that I would classify as middle class.  In my opinion it is difficult to anticipate where family homicides might occur, especially based on social disorganization theory.  In that sense, my experiences are similar to the findings of Diem and Pizarro.  As an advocate it would be helpful to be able to predict domestic homicides based on this theory but I believe they have less to do with social disorganization and more to do with unique stresses within the family and the offenders not knowing how to reach out for help, factors that are more difficult to pinpoint.

Wayne Smith is the victim advocate in the Pierce County (Washington) District Attorney’s Homicide Unit.  Among other high profile cases Wayne assisted in the so-called Craigslist case in which multiple offenders victimized a family on the pretense of wanting to purchase a ring they had listed for sale on Craigslist.  Wayne is former Chief of Police and a former national board member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Posted in filicide, Homicide, intimate partner, parricide, siblicide, Social disorganization | Leave a comment

If we want more evidence-based practice, we need more practice-based evidence.

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Duane Ruth-Heffelbower

“If we want more evidence-based practice, we need more practice-based evidence.”

Welcome to the first issue of the American Society of Victimology’s Research to Practice blog. Underscoring the need for mutual communication and influence between practitioners and researchers, the American Society of Criminology discussed this topic a few weeks ago at its annual meeting gaining perspective from such notables as Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson, Stanford criminologist, Joan Petersilia, John Laub, new director for NIJ and Jeremy Travis, President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice.  All agreed that the communication between researchers and practitioners is seriously lacking.  Contributing to the problem, as stated by Dr. Petersilia, is that the task for facilitating such communication “is nobody’s job.”

The mission of the American Society of Victimology is to advance the discipline of victimology by promoting evidence based practice and by providing leadership in research and education.  Toward that end the Society intends to provide a monthly academic summary and practitioner response of a recent research article from a scholarly journal.

Katz, J; May, P.; Sorenson, S. & DelTosta, J. (2010).  Sexual revictimization during women’s first year of college:  Self-blame and sexual refusal assertiveness as possible mechanisms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25:  2113-2126.

Summary provided by Joan Crowley

When it comes to sexual assault, lightning strikes twice all the time.  One major risk factor for victimization in the future is victimization in the past.  This study tries to tease out the mechanism that makes young women who have been victims of sexual assault as teenagers so vulnerable to repeat victimization.

They focus on two factors identified in previous studies:  self-blame and assertiveness.  Self-blame is divided into two categories: characterological and behavioral.  If a victim attributes her assault to some aspect of her person or personality (physical weakness, bad luck, poor judgment), this is characterological self blame.  Characterological self blame focuses on elements over which the person has no control.  Behavioral self blame, on the other hand, looks at things the victim did that facilitated or caused the assault; these would include things like going to a party, drinking, or accepting a ride with a casual acquaintance that might have elevated the victim’s risk of assault.  While character is stable, presumably behaviors can be changed.

The other element studied was sexual refusal assertiveness (SRA), referring the ability of a woman to clearly reject unwanted sexual overtures from men.  Assertiveness has been shown in prior studies to be protective against sexual assault.   Self-blame has been found to be linked to passivity in social encounters.  If this passivity undermines assertiveness, it would increase a victim’s vulnerability to later unwanted sexual encounters.

The researchers used a sample of 18 and 19 year old freshman women from a largely white residential college.  Participants were asked if they would agree to give information about their experiences with unwanted sexual contact twice during the year, in October and April.  Anonymity, important for complete reporting of sensitive information, was assured by allowing the respondents to develop their own identity codes to use in matching up the information from the two questionnaires.  The data were collected using a computer laboratory set up for psychological research.

The measure of sexual victimization was the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), which asks about a range of unwanted sexual encounters ranging from unwanted touching to coerced intercourse or rape.  Since the SES was developed for studies of college students, it fits this study situation precisely. The authors adapted their measures of self blame from a study of domestic violence victims, and their measure of sexual refusal assertiveness from a larger assertiveness scale.  Such adaptations must be done cautiously, but seem to be appropriate for this study.

The October, Time 1, questionnaire asked about sexual experiences since the age of 15.  The researchers chose this age range because high school and early college are the ages with the highest levels of sexual assault.  With a small sample size, the researchers decided to dichotomize the dependent variable of sexual victimization.  There is no way to tell whether the findings apply equally to relatively minor events such as unwanted touching as to they do to forcible rape.  Perhaps because the students were recruited to participate in a study titled “Women’s Self-Views and Sexual Experiences,” the number of women reporting at least one incident of sexual victimization at Time 1 was high, 46.0%.  Within this group, the average number of assaults was 6, and over one third reported at least one rape.  Most of the victimization happened during high school.  Analysis of the Time 1 results showed the expected correlations between victimization, self blame, and SRA.

In April, 31% of the total group of participants reported sexual victimization since October. Two thirds of these women had also reported sexual victimization in the first interview, so early victimization was a significant correlate of later victimization even within this short time frame.

Using path analysis, the researchers found that there was no direct link between initial victimization and later victimization.  Initial victimization was associated with both behavioral and characterological self blame.  Greater self blame was associated with lower sexual refusal assertiveness (SRA)  Only SRA was directly linked to later victimization.

The story appears to be that initial victimization creates self-blame.  Self-blame undermines the victim’s sexual refusal assertiveness, meaning that she would have trouble fending off unwanted attention.  It is important to note that there is no direct path between self-blame and later victimization.  The only variable directly associated with later victimization is low SRA.

The two types of self-blame have somewhat different links to SRA.  Both characterological self-blame and behavioral self blame are linked to SRA.  In addition, characterological self blame increases behavioral self blame.  This means that characterological self blame is doubly important in undermining assertiveness.

It may help to create a vignette to illustrate the process.  Consider a high school girl who goes to a party, has a drink or two and then accepts a ride home with a boy she has just met.  Once they get home, he fondles her breasts and attempts to engage her in intercourse.  Even though there was no actual rape, the contact was unwanted and unsettling.  She blames herself for being stupid and trusting (characterological self-blame) and chides herself for being so stupid that she accepted the ride home (characterological self blame leading to behavioral self-blame).  While she may be determined not to let this happen again, once she gets to college and starts to socialize with college boys, she is unsure of how to react to another boy’s advances because the self-blame leaves her passive in the face of threat.  She cannot clearly and firmly reject unwanted advances, leaving her vulnerable to being kissed and groped against her will.  Each new unwanted touch may in fact increase her vulnerability by setting up a cycle of self-blame and passivity.

The implication for treatment is that the crux of re-victimization is not self-blame directly, but the relationship of self-blame with assertiveness.  Just changing the level of self-blame may enhance the victim’s quality of life, but prevention of sexual assault should focus on the direct link between low assertiveness and victimization.  Prevention programs should enhance the ability of victims and potential victims to clearly assert what they do and do not want sexually.

Joan Crowley, 1978 Social Psychology Ph. D. University of Michigan, first encountered victimology in 1984, when she was asked to assist on writing a grant for a Child Advocacy Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.  Since taking a faculty position at New Mexico State University, she has taught courses in Victimology and in Family Violence.  Her recent research is in legal issues, including victim rights and sexual assault.

 

Response provided by Kelly Miller

“Sexual Revictimization During Women’s First Year of College: Self-Blame and Sexual Refusal Assertiveness as Possible Mechanisms” explores the connection between adolescent sexual assault victimization and new college student sexual assault victimization and suggests that two factors result in a higher risk of revictimization for new college students: 1) self-blame on the part of the victim and 2) sexual refusal assertiveness of the victim.  In conclusion, the authors submit that primary and secondary college sexual victimization prevention efforts focused on the two factors of self blame (which does not directly lead to revictimization, but arguably contributes to lower sexual assault assertiveness) and increased sexual assault assertiveness may reduce risk for re-victimization in the transition of women into college.

From my perspective as a practitioner, the study would have been more palatable if the researchers acknowledged at the outset that individuals who are victims of sexual assault are never responsible for the victimization. The authors also failed to cite other research that offenders can recognize and specifically target individuals who are more vulnerable due to prior victimization.  The study also seems to be lacking as the researchers did not take into account any services – advocacy, counseling – that the individuals may have accessed after the initial victimization in high school.

From a practitioner’s perspective, the study is limited in its scope, and as a result, the recommendations for primary and secondary prevention programs are flawed.  According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men in the United States have experienced an attempted or completed rape at some time in their lives. There is no single cause that accounts for sexual violence. Rather, a combination of forces – both those that increase the risk of violence (risk factors) and those that reduce the chances that violence will occur (protective factors) – largely determine whether or not sexual violence will be committed.

Most importantly, the study did not address other risk factors for either the perpetrator or the victim – relational, community, and societal – or protective factors.  Without implicating the multilevel factors impacting the survivors risk for re-victimization or the perpetrator’s risk factors for perpetration, can the study really identify opportunities for effective primary and secondary prevention programs?  And with limited resources dedicated to primary prevention, where should the focus be – on survivor-generated risk factors or perpetrator-generated risk factors?  And, more importantly, at what level should the primary prevention efforts be focused – individual, relational, community or societal?

By focusing on the survivor’s individual risk factors related to levels of self blame and assertiveness, the study inadvertently attributes responsibility for sexual violence against women to the individual victim, and of even of more concern, recommends sexual violence primary and secondary prevention efforts should focus on changing individual behavior of those persons at risk of revicitimization during the first year of college instead of directing efforts at changing social norms.

Individual behavior is fundamentally shaped by relationship, community, and societal factors.   Understanding these multilevel factors can help identify various opportunities for prevention. Social norms – our attitudes, standards, and beliefs influenced by culture and society – are one of the most powerful influences on individual behavior. Social norms that support male superiority, sexual entitlement, and maintain women’s inferiority and sexual submissiveness are among those at the core that support a culture of sexual violence against women.

Sexual violence primary and secondary prevention efforts should focus on influencing toxic social norms that promote environments in which sexual violence by a predator[1] can take place and inhibit appropriate bystander action rather than the individual behavior of women who have been victimized as adolescents through decreasing self-blame and increasing assertiveness.

Rather than focusing prevention efforts on the sexual assertiveness skills of an individual woman who had been victimized as an adolescent, it would seem far more effective to focus those efforts on the numerous bystanders – men and women who are part of the social and cultural environment – as an effort to change the social norms that support environments where sexual predators can thrive.   The last decade of research suggests that most rapes – more than 90 percent – are committed by serial rapists. In a 2002 survey of 1,882 Boston-area men by Dr. David Lisak, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts, 6 percent reported acts that could be defined as rape or attempted rape. Of those previously undetected rapists, 63 percent reported multiple rapes–and in fact averaged 5.8 rapes each.

Without fully taking into account the complexity and depth of factors on the sexual victimization of women and the influence of social norms, the recommendation for primary and secondary programs to increase sexual assault assertiveness of individual women is at its best incomplete and at its worst victim blaming.

Kelly Miller has been the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence Executive Director since July 2010, previously serving as Legal Director since 2005. Prior to the Idaho Coalition, Kelly has worked in the field for twenty-nine years as a legal services attorney specializing in domestic violence and sexual assault for legal services in Kentucky and Idaho as well as domestic violence and sexual assault prosecutor.

 

Posted in sexual assault | 2 Comments