政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54086

政大典藏 > College of Social Science > Graduate Institute of Social Administration and Social Work > Theses > Item 140.119/54086

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54086

Title:	婚姻暴力受虐婦女的家庭支持—復元觀點之探討 A study of Recovery on family support for abused women under marital violence
Authors:	邱筠雅 Chiu, Yun Ya
Contributors:	宋麗玉邱筠雅 Chiu, Yun Ya
Keywords:	婚姻暴力受虐婦女家庭支持復元觀點 marital violence abused women family support Recovery
Date:	2011
Issue Date:	2012-10-24 16:16:11 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	當受虐婦女欲尋求協助時，初始多以非正式支持網絡為主要求助管道，其中，家庭支持為最具情感性與義務性之協助。援此，本研究先瞭解臺灣受虐婦女家庭支持的經驗，從而分析影響受虐婦女家庭支持的原因，並以質性研究深入訪談七位受虐婦女，運用復元觀點於此問題向度，研究結果發現如下：一、依受虐婦女獲得的家庭支持功能類型，整理發現情緒性支持為三種功能類型中最重要的一種；資訊性支持中家人最常以「提供想法與建議」做為支持的方式，顯見婦女需要與信任的支持者討論行動策略；工具性支持則為三種功能型態中，最實質可視的協助。二、影響家庭支持型態因素，前人研究多以負向特質描述受虐婦女，本研究從微視層面觀點發現除了兩樣被動面特質外，受虐婦女有相當多正向主動面特質；此外，受虐婦女其主要支持者的個人特質，主要為「船錨」的角色，提供婦女一種歸屬感，帶給婦女穩定與安定的力量。中介層面觀點探究家庭系統、家庭互動關係與家庭權力關係，研究發現「長輩」或「手足」為受虐婦女的主要支持者，且手足排行序會影響誰成為婦女的主要家庭支持者。此外，家中掌權者多為主要支持者，其同時會影響其他家庭成員提供支持多寡，及影響受虐婦女因應暴力的態度；在家庭權力關係中：1)「婦女為家庭位階最低者，而支持者為家庭位階最高者」，其之間的權力關係差距最大；2)「同一位階或位階接近者」，因彼此間緊密的親情情感，成為時常頻繁聯繫的家庭成員，因此亦能成為婦女的主要支持者；同時受虐婦女均自覺於原生家庭中的權力位階為最低或者相對較低。鉅視層面探討扭曲與偏頗的價值觀念會負面影響受虐婦女其家人提供支持的意願，且結果發現這些負面影響主要為婆婆的回應方式與想法；正面影響除了有正面加強作用外，亦可能扭轉婦女自身負面的傳統觀念，協助受虐婦女走出暴力情境。三、本研究依據受虐婦女於復元統合模式之復元指標達成的數量，將受訪者劃分為完全復元型、半復元型與初學型，並發現家庭支持對受虐婦女正面影響的主要效應，為促使受虐婦女前往復元道路邁進的動力因子；同時具有舒緩受虐婦女生活壓力之負面排除的緩衝效應。本研究深入探討臺灣受虐婦女家庭支持之功能、影響家庭支持的因素，及家庭支持促進復元的作用機制。結果顯示家庭支持的作用對於受虐婦女而言，是能夠促使其復元的重要力量之一，研究成果能夠對目前協助受虐婦女復元的工作提供參考依據，以作為臺灣受虐婦女復元之本土經驗參考。 When abused women seek help, the main way is informal support network at first, in the meanwhile, the family support is the most emotional and responsible support. Therefore, this study discussed the experience of abused women obtained the family support in Taiwan and analyzed the causes of the influence on the family support for abused women. This study adopted Nature research to in-depth interview seven abused women and then used Recovery to analyze the problems. The research results were shown as follow. 1. According to the result in this study, the emotional support is the most important among three types of the function of the family support. In the information support, the family often adopt “providing ideas and suggestions” as supports for abused women. This indicates that abused women need to discuss the action strategies with reliance supporters. The instrumental support is the most substantial and visible support among all types of the function. 2. When discussing the causes of influence of the family support states, many researchers described the situation of abused women based on negative traits. In this study, the results on the micro-level showed that abused women had not only two passive traits but also many positive traits. Besides, the main supporter of abused women played a role as “anchor”, and he/she provided the sense of belonging to abused women for the stable and peace power. On the meso-level, this study discussed the family system, family interaction and familial power relations. The results indicated that “elder” or “sibling” would be the main supporter, and “birth order” would affect the person becoming abused women’s main supporter. In addition, the power holders in a family were mostly the main supporters; moreover, they would have an influence on the support from other family members and the attitude of abused women to cope with the violence. For familial power relations: 1) “Abused women were the lowest family hierarchy; the supporters were the highest family hierarchy”. The difference of the power relation between these two hierarchies was largest. 2) “Abused women and the supporters were the same or close family hierarchy”. Because of the close kinship between them and the frequently contacting to each other, the supporters would also be the main supporters. Furthermore, abused women became conscious that their family hierarchies were the lowest or the lower hierarchy in the original family. On the macro-level, this study discussed that the distorted and biased values would be the negative influence on that if the family were willing to provide support. The results indicated that the negative influences were mostly obtained from the mother-in-law’s responses and thoughts. The positive influence would be positive reinforcement effect and could reverse the negative and traditional concepts of the abused women, and it would help abused women to leave violence situations. 3. According to the recovery target of the Unity Model of Recovery which abused women achieved, the respondents were divided into full-recovery, semi-recovery and novitiate recovery. The results indicated that the main effect of the positive influence from the family support to abused women was the power factor to promote abused women toward the recovery. The positive influence could also mitigate abused women’s life stress and be the buffer effect to obviate the negatives. This study deeply discussed the function of the family support for abused women, the causes of the influence on the family support and the mechanism for the family support promoting abused women to the recovery. The results showed that the family support was the important power for abused women to recovery. The contributions of this study are to provide the conference for the recovery work of abused women and the local experiences of the recovery of abused women in Taiwan.
Reference:	內政部研考資訊平台(2011)。我國性別暴力現況調查之研究。取自：http://rdec.moi.gov.tw/Sitemap/default.aspx。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2010)。97年至99年家庭暴力事件通報案件類型統計。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2009)。96年至98年家庭暴力事件通報類型及被害人性別統計。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會(2004)。家庭暴力防治人員手冊。井敏珠(1991)。已婚職業婦女生活壓力與因應策略、社會支持之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。王仕圖、吳慧敏(2006)。深度訪談與案例演練。載於齊力、林本炫主編(2006)，質性研究方法與資料分析，頁97-116。嘉義縣：南華大學。王招萍(2010)。婚暴婦女的社會支持及其自我評價的關係探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學，嘉義縣。王怡樺(2006)。女性精神分裂症病患之母職經驗及其社會支持情形之初探(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。王行(1996)。家族歷史與心理治療。臺北市：心理出版社。伍淑蘭(2006)。一個暴力家庭之家庭韌力初探(未出版之碩士論文)。中國文化大學，臺北市。李仰欽(2005)。母職枷鎖：受暴婦女於受助過程中經驗分析(未出版之碩士論文)。東吳大學：臺北市。呂寶靜(1992)。如何結合社會資源，加強婦女保護工作。社會福利，103，33-37。宋賢儀(1998)。受虐婦女與其非正式社會支持系統互動經驗之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。宋麗玉 (2002)。社會支持網絡、壓力因應與社會網絡處遇。載於宋麗玉、曾華源、施教裕和鄭麗珍著(2002)，社會工作理論—處遇模式與案例分析，頁286-333。臺北市：洪葉。宋麗玉(2005)。精神障礙者之復健與復元—一個積極正向的觀點。中華心理衛生期刊，18(4)，01-29。宋麗玉、施教裕、張錦麗(2005)。優點個案管理模式訓練手冊。取自：http://socialwork2009.nccu.edu.tw/crsp/d/94_train_b.pdf。宋麗玉、施教裕、顏玉如、張錦麗(2006)。優點個案管理模式之介紹與運用於受暴婦女之評估結果。社區發展季刊，113，143-161。宋麗玉、施教裕(2009)。優勢觀點—社會工作理論與實務。臺北市：洪葉。吳竹芸(2009)。以優勢觀點探析新竹縣關西地區社會照顧關懷據點的作為(未出版之碩士論文)。輔仁大學，臺北市。余香靜(2009)。早期療育社會工作者以優勢觀點為基礎的家庭處遇專業實踐之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。沈天勇(2008)。以優勢觀點探討隔代教養青少年家庭之祖孫互動—以臺北市某國中為例(未出版之碩士論文)。輔仁大學，臺北市。林芬菲(1998)。婚姻暴力受虐婦女的正式機構求助歷程探討(未出版之碩士論文)。東吳大學，臺北市。周月清(2011)。澎湖縣政府，取自http://www.penghu.gov.tw/files/9802.pdf。周月清(1994)。受虐婦女與社會支持探討之研究。婦女與兩性學刊，5，69-93。周月清(1995)。婚姻暴力—理論分析與社會工作處置。臺北市：巨流。周月清(1993)。台灣受虐婦女社會支持探討之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(計畫編號：NSC82-0301-H-031-011-T)。周海娟(2001)。家庭暴力處遇與防治：澳洲經驗的省思。社區發展季刊，94，306-316。林文婷(2007)。運用優勢觀點探討青少年之貧窮生活經驗(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。林冠馨(2006)。優勢觀點運用於高風險家庭青少年情緒及行為問題(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。范良蕙(2007)。自尊、社會支持、親子關係對詩欽兒童生活適應及創傷後成長之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。新竹教育大學，新竹縣。柯麗萍、王珮玲、張錦麗(2005)。家庭暴力理論政策與實務。台北市：巨流。姚美華、胡幼慧(2008)。一些質性方法上的思考：信度與效度?如何抽樣?如何收集資料、登錄與分析。載於胡幼慧主編(2008)，質性研究：理論方法及本土女性研究實例，頁117-131。臺北市：巨流。胡韶玲(2004)。四位低收入戶單親母親的復原歷程--論親子力量的影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北大學，臺北市。祝韻梅(2002)。婚姻暴力求助婦女社會支持網絡之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。中國文化大學：臺北市。施教裕、宋麗玉(2006)。「高風險家庭關懷輔導處遇實施計畫」執行狀況初探。社區發展季刊，114，103-117。高敬文(1996)。質性研究方法論。臺北市：師大書苑。陳英介(2006)。深度訪談在經驗研究地位的反思。載於齊力、林本炫(2006)，質性研究方法與資料分析，頁117-128。嘉義縣：南華大學。陳欣愉(2009)。優勢觀點運用於遭受性侵害青少女之復元立成探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。陳怡婷(2003)。家庭系統面臨親人重病事件的運作與轉變－以進入安寧病房的家庭為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商研究所碩士論文，彰化市。陳惠君、宋麗玉(2000)。單親父母之生活壓力、因應方式、社會支持與其情緒適應之相關性研究—以高雄縣向日葵聯誼會為例。臺大社會工作學刊，2，1-54。陳若喬(2000)。單親小孩上大學—以優勢觀點探討青少年時期經歷父母離異事件的生活歷程(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。陳增穎(1999)。婚暴受虐婦女的處置與輔導。諮商與輔導，163，7-10。陳婷蕙(1997)。婚姻暴力中受虐婦女對於脫離受虐關係的因應行為之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學，臺中市。陳若璋(1993)。家庭暴力防治與輔導手冊。臺北市：張老師文化。陳若璋(1992)。台灣婚姻暴力之本質、歷程與影響。婦女與兩性學刊，3，117-147。陳源湖(1998)。高雄縣市婚姻暴力受虐婦女生活壓力、因應策略與社會支持之研究(未出版之碩士論文)，國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。陳向明(2002a)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南。陳向明(2002b)。教師如何做質的研究。臺北市：洪葉。張妙如(2006)。婚姻暴力受虐婦女復原力的展現(未出版之碩士論文)。東吳大學，臺北市。郭貴蘭(2006)。苗栗縣客家籍受虐婦女復元之初探—優勢觀點團體工作之運用(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。曾月娥(2007)。優勢觀點團體工作運用於暴力循環中婦女復元之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立暨南國際大學，南投縣。曾瑞真(1993)。家庭溝通與關係。諮商與輔導，93，32-37。彭淑華(2005)。婆家?娘家?何處是我家?女性單親家長的家庭支持系統分析。社會政策與社會工作學刊，9(2)，197-262。彭淑華、張英陣、韋淑娟、游美貴、蘇慧雯(譯)(1999)。家庭暴力(原作者：Alan Kemp)。臺北市：洪葉。(原著出版年：1997)。黃一秀(2000)。婚姻暴力之受虐婦女求助歷程之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學，臺中市。楊廣文(2009)。偏遠地區發展遲緩兒童家庭資源使用經驗之研究—優勢觀點(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學，臺中市。楊國樞(2002)。華人心理的本土化研究。臺北市：桂冠。鄒川雄(2006)。生活世界與默會知識：詮釋學觀點的質性研究。載於齊力、林本炫主編(2006)，質性研究方法與資料分析，頁21-56。嘉義縣：南華大學。葉婉真(2008)。初任母親之社會支持與自我效能感之相關研究—以彰化縣為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學，嘉義縣。劉婌齡(2002)。公部門婦女保護服務社工之協助效益—從受暴婦女角度探討(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學，臺中市。劉慧玉(譯) (1999)。親密風暴中的船錨—受虐婦女親友的角色與行動(原作者：Susan Clark Brewster)。臺北市：遠流。劉瓊瑛(1996)。結構派家族治療入門。臺北市：心理出版社。蔡杰伶(2009)。優勢觀點為基礎之探索教育團體對感化教育少年增強權能的成效(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。蔡盈盈(2006)。乳癌患者家屬照顧者的因應、社會支持與生活品質之相關性初探(未出版之碩士論文)。國立成功大學，臺南市。潘淑滿(2007)。親密暴力—多重身分與權力流動。臺北市：心理。潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究－理論與應用。臺北市：心理。鄭麗珍(2002)。生態系統觀點。載於宋麗玉、曾華源、施教裕、鄭麗珍(主編)，社會工作理論—處遇模式與案例分析，頁251-283。臺北市：洪葉。謝秀芬(2005)。家庭社會工作：理論與實務。臺北市：雙葉。簡春安、鄒平儀(2004)。社會工作研究法。臺北市：巨流。簡春安、鄒平儀(1998)。社會工作研究法。臺北市：巨流。藍采風(1982)。生活的壓力與適應。臺北市：幼獅文化事業公司。 Anderson, K. M. (1997). Uncovering survival abilities in children who have been sexually abused. Families in Society, 78(6), 592-599. Anderson, K. M., Cowger, C. D. & Snively, C. A. (2009). Assessing strengths: Identifying acts of resistance to violence and opperssion. In D. Saleebey (Eds.), The strengths perspective in social work practice.(pp.181-200). Boston: Pearson / Allyn & Bacon. Coker A. L., Watkins K. W., Smith P. H. & Brandt H. M.(2003). Social support reduces the impact of partner violence on health: application of structural equation models. Preventive Medicine, 37, 259-267. Coker A. L., Smith P. H., Thompson M. P., Mckeown R. E., Bethea L. & Davis K. E. (2002). Social Support Protects against the Negative Effects of Partner Violence on Mental Health. Journal of women’s health & gender-based medicine, 11(5), 465-476. Bowker, L. H. (1984). Coping with abuse: Personal and social networks. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.).Battered women and their family: Intervention strategies and treatment programs. NY: Stringer Publishing Company,Inc. Black, C. J. (2003). Translating Principles Into Practice: Implementing the Feminist and Strengths Perspectives in Work With Battered Women. Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work, 18(3), 332-349. Chatzifotiou, S., & Dobash, R. (2001). Seeking informal support: Marital violence against women in Greece. Violence against women, 7(9), 1024-1050. Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and Community mental health. New York: Basic Book. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300-314. Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence Against Wives: A Case Against The Patriarchy. New York: The Free Press. Dwyer, D. C., Smokowski, P. R., Bricout, J. C., & Wodarski, J. S. (1996). Domestic violence and woman battering: Theories and practice implications. In A. R. Robert(Ed.), Helping battered women: New perspectives and remedies(pp. 67-82). New York: Oxford University Press. Foa, E. B., Cascardi, M., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C. (2000). Psychological and environmental factors associated with partner violence. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 1, 67-91. Finkelhor, D. (1988). Stopping family violence. Newbury Park: Sage. Feldman, S. S. & Gehring, T. M. (1988). Changing perceptions of family cohesion and power across adolescence. Child Development, 59, 1034-1045. Flynn, J. P. (1977). Recent finds related to wife abuse. Social casework, 58, 13-20. Garner, J., & Fagan, J. (1997). Victims of domestic violence. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, & W. G. Skogan (Eds.), Victims of crime (2nd ed., pp. 53-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gold, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-133. Gladow, N. W. & Ray M. P.(1986). The impact of informal support systems on the well being of low-income single parents. Family Relations, 35, 113-123. Hamilton, G. (2003). Smart and sassy: the strengths perspective of inner-city black girls (Book). Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(3/4), 210-211. Hoff, L.A. (1990). Battered women as survivors. London and New York: Routledge. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the family, 62, 948-963. Jocobson, D. E. (1986). Types and timing of social support. Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 250-264. Lundy, M. & Grossman, S. (2001). Clinical research and practice with battered women—What we know, What we need to know. Trauma, violence, and abuse, 2(2), 120-141. Lambert, M. (1991). Social support system in practice—a generalist approach. New York: Routledge. Mary P. B. (2002). Domestic violence theories, research, and practice implications. In A. R. Roberts(Eds.). Handbooks of domestic violence intervention strategies. Oxford University Press. Thompson M. P., Kaslow N. J., Kingree J. B., Rashid A., Puett R., Jacobs D. & Matthews A.(2000). Partner violence, social support, and distress among innercity African American women. American Journal of Community Psychology,28(1), 127-143. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Patterson, D. A. (2004). Addiction treatment: a strengths perspective. Health & Social Work, 29(4), 345-347. Perkins, K., & Tice, C. (1995). A Strengths Perspective in Practice: Older People and Mental Health Challenges. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 23(3/4), 83-97. Schecter, S., & Ganley, A. (1995). Understanding domestic violence. In Domestic violence: A national curriculum for family preservation practitioners. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund. Saleebey D. (Eds.). (2009). The strengths perspective in social work practice. Boston: Pearson / Allyn & Bacon. Sullivan, W. P., Rapp, C. A. (2009). Honoring philosophical traditions. In D. Saleebey (Eds.), The strengths perspective in social work practice.(pp.220-239). Boston: Pearson / Allyn & Bacon. Tully, C. T. (2001). Not Just a Passing Phase: Social Work with Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People/Social Work With Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: A Strengths Perspective. Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work, 16(1), 116-117. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women survey. Available: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf Thrasher, S. P., & Mowbray, C. T. (1995). A Strengths Perspective: An Ethnographic Study of Homeless Women with Children. Health & Social Work, 20(2), 93-93. Unger, D. G., & Powell, D. R. (1980). Supporting families under stress: the role of social net works. Family Relations, 29 ,566-574 . Vachon, M. L. S. & Stylianos, S. K. (1988). The role of social support in bereavement. Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 175-190. Wiehe, V. R. (1998). Understanding family violence—Treating and preventing partner, child, sibling, and elder abuse. Sage Publication. Walker, L. E. (2009). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer Publish.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學社會工作研究所 98264014 100
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098264014
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Social Administration and Social Work] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
401401.pdf	1152Kb	Adobe PDF2	891	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...