RXKDYHLVVXHVYLHZLQJRUDFFHVVLQJWKLVILOHFRQWDFWXVDW1&-56 JRY
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.I ';tlt --J ti c e R e fe r e n c e s e rv ic enCJrs,'.I'This microfiche was produced from documents received forinclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercisecontrol over the physical condition of the documents submitted,the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart onthis frame may be used tOe evaluate the document quality.!I 'I'!1.0: ; 111112.8II2511111 .I IIIII II I!I".EIl.I:i1.1 I I; 111111.8111111.25111111.4 111111.6\MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART,INATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A\t. .'.-. -- t' ' .; '1-,., . ;:- Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply witnthe standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504.Points of view or opinions stated in this document arethose of the author(s) and do not represent the officialposition or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice.JI" ''1National Institute of Justice,"''"-United States Department of JusticeWashington, D. C. 2053'10DATE FILMED 10/08/81I . ' ;. iJ\1 .tf"',."( lO'"I' ,- " "" '; -."
-(r,.I. -- . - - - - - -)),,cdmparJ.son0f VJ.'ctims' Reactions Across TraumasAngela BrowneResearch AssistantBattered Women Research CenterDenver, Coloradoconsistent, and three designations will be used:impact, during which some form of assessment and reorgani ;ation takes place;and the recovery phase, during which long-term effects are seen.During impact, the primary focus is on self-protection and survival.Victims experience feelings of shock, denial, disbelief, and fear, andreactions of withdrawal and confusion (Chapman, 1962; Mileti, Drabek, &Haas, 1975).t literature on spousa 1 a b use, little attempt,In the recen,t the literature on psychologJ.calhas been made to J.ntegra es it relates to battered'f victims to trauma areactJ.onsl anadQoestions wereyze from the questionnaire hwomen.u,t the Battered Women Researcadministered to subJects a'emotional and behavioralCenter, which dealt w th m tResults indicated thatresponses to a batterJ.ng J.ncJ. e fter an attack were fairlythe reactions of battered women a't'of trauma.consistent with those of other types of VJ.C J.ms1964; Miller, 1964; Peters, 1973).women come from perspectives such as learning theory, personality theory,and psychoanalysis. Little work has been done, however, to integrate theit' ns of victims across traumas asliterature on the psychological reac t J.OIn a recent artJ.c'1 e, Alexandra Symonds (1979)proposed that the "psychology of catastrophic events" might be a usefulmodel with which to view the emotional and behavioral responses of batteredwomen to the violence they experience.It may be that an abused woman , sreaction to a battering incident, rather than beJ.'ng specific to an intimaterelationship, corresponds more to the general reactions of victims acrossa broad continuum of events and cultures.A review of the literature onvictims does J.'ndJ.'cate that there is consistency in victim reactions.In this paper, "trauma " WJ.'II be defined as an event which inflictsJ.'nJ'ury, either psychic or physical, an d which has some degr.eeIofpain ort is caused bylasting negative impact on the victim, whether this evenaccident or by deliberate action.A "victim" WJ.'II d eno te one who ishimpact of a traumatic event. In boththreatened by or suffers from t ephases :rn-tt1;l.\;N.W",. , ". . ,literature, reactiondisaster literature and crJ.meNCJ RSVictims may denyIn addition, victims of assault sufferfrom the "pain of Violation", or the deliberate intrusion by one human!has been devoted to women who are in abusive relationships with their mateHypotheses about the reactions of these abusedThe primary fear is of injury or death.the threat, leading to a lag in accurately defining the situation (Bahnson,In recent literature on violence and victimization, much discussionrelates to the battered woman.the impact phase, whenthe threat of danger becomes a reality; the inventory phase followingPresented at theRocky Mountain Psychological AssociationTucson, ArizonaApril 11, 1980or a significant other. being on another's personal space (Bard & Sangrey, 1979).In a personaloffense, the victim may offer little or no resistance, in an attempt to\minimize the threat of injury or death.Emotional reactions to becomingJta victim of assault include:tiI'powerlessness or helplessness such as is experienced in early childhood,fear, anger, guilt, shame, a feeling ofa sense of failure, and a sense of being contaminated or unworthy (Bard1[& Sangrey, 1979).Iceptions of vulnerability, loss of control, and self-blame (Burgess &III rt.The experience of rape is reported to lead to per-Holmstrom, 1974; Notman & Nadelson, 1976), and victims have long-termproblems with fear, anxiety, and a sense of inadequacy (Kilpatrick,Veron en , & Resick, 1979).A psychological reaction pattern to disaster, sometimes called,Ithe disaster syndrome, involves an initial stage of dazed or apatheticbehavior (Mileti, et al., 1975; Powell, 1954).The victim is oftenIextremely s .lgge1:ltible or dependent and, during the inventory phase,may minimize the damage and personal loss.This is sometimes followedby a "euphoric" stage, marked by unrealistic expectations about recovery(MileH, et al., 1975).Grinker and Spiegle Q945) described psychiatric casualties inbattle as characterized by passive-dependency, guilt, and depression.Spiegel (1955) also discussed the "battle reaction" of those in combatwho exhibited severe passivity in the face of danger, and a lack ofescape behaviors when those were possible.by Kardiner (1959) asoccu ing"War neuroses" was definedwhen individuals feel overwhelmed bythe danger surrounding them and react by withdrawing from contact withTl isthe outside world.research was supported by NIMH grant #ROlMH30l47.APR 1719'81As defensive strategies are employed by the victim,the individual becomes more and more involved with internal defense2,
.,,))mechanisms, and external activity diminishes, giving the appearance ofextreme apathy (Withey, 1962).Abuse related to captivity or attack differs significantly fromr aainrelatively withdrawn, suggestible, and passive (Chapman, 1962).BardSangrey (1979) wrote that even "normal" recoveries can take months,0.natural disaster in that the captor or assailant has a major influenceand are characterized by lapses into helplessness and fear.on how the victim appraises the situation and the available alternativestension, intense startle reactions, disturbances of sleeping and eating(Biderman, 1967).patterns"Biderman (1964) discussed what he called "antagonistic0.cooperation", where the dimension of conflict dominates the relationshipbut where there is also a degree of mutual dependence.and nightmares may occur (Burgess0.Fatigue,Holmstrom, 1974; HilbermanMunson, 1977-78; Nathan, Eitinger, & Winick, 1964).With all types oftrauma, the fear is of a force that has been out of control.The relationshipIn theis then developed by the captive to facilitate survival and to obtainabsence of a clear explanation for why this occurred, symptoms of psycho-leniency.logical disorder and anxiety often develop (Bard & Sangrey, 1979).He also auggested that a normal human being might be incapableThe self-concept of victims of trauma is a crucial factor in theirof sustaining a totally hostile or antagonistic interaction over a.longperiod of time, and that periods of acquiescence may be necessary forrecovery.physiological and emotional survival.the physical body or to the self-identity of the individual (Jaco, 1970).Some interesting parallels exist,between principles of brainwashing used on prisoners and the experiencesof many battered women.In brainwashing, the keyingredi ntsA perception of danger involves the implication of threat toMartin Symonds (1975) suggested that victims are often reduced to thecoping mechanisms of early childhood, and react in a regressive fashion.are:Isolation, humiliation and degradation by the captor, followed by kindness,Janis (1958) theorized that any threat of damage to the body would becoupled with the threat of a return to the previously degraded stateinterpreted in the same way as were threats of parental punishment, and(Symonds, A., 1979).the individual would try to mitigate the threat by compliance.The victim becomes apathetic, sometimes reacts withA victim of violent crime is also dealing with the implications ofwith despair, and may finally totally submit (Meerloo, 1961)."losing" at self defense (Weis, K.,The selection of defenses, or coping strategies, is partially dependenton the appraisal o the threat (Arnold, 1967).&Weis, S., 1973).Physical injuriesare seen in our society as symbols of ineptness or defeat and victims areSuch appraisal involves anevaluation of whether a method of coping would further endanger the victim,thus stigmatized by their failure to remain in control of themselves andand to what degree (Arnold, 1967; Lazarus, 1967).of the situation.A crucial factor is theperceived balance of power between the force and the victim.be a function of the victim 1 s perceived ability to control the aggressor,in relation to the aggressor 1 s ability to control or harm the victim.situations of extreme helplessness, such asconcentrat on childlike, and unable to make decisions (Bard & Sangrey, 1979).Richard Lazarussuggested that the determination between a response of fear or of anger maycamps,Incomplicity and a sense of loss generalizes to a perception of themselvespI"as "losers".the victims, apart from the guilt of survival (Lifton, 1964; Spiegel, 1955;11ISymonds, M., 1975).IA function of se1f-blrune seems to boo the need to find an explanationare inhibited by this perception, and depression can result, based on theperceived hlpelessness of the situation.Even with natural disasters, where causes are clearly outof their control, researchers note expressions of inappropriate guilt from. .surpr s ngly"Fight or flight" responsesInretrospect, their memory of being helpless may lead to self-accusations of!little anger is shown toward the captors, and this may be a measure of thecaptors' power to retaliate (Lazarus, 1967).The victim may react to this by becoming dependent,for an inexplicable event, and thus regain some perception of control.Martin Symonds (1978) discussedIfthe implications o a "state of terror" which can occur as a result ofvictims designate themselves as the cause, they can hope to change certainthis appraisal.behaviors and thus prevent a reoccunence (BardVictims may perceive the captor as their protector, andSangrey, 1979).This needto find a rational explanation for events is also reflected in society, andbecome ingratiating and appeasing in the hope of saving themselves.leads to a search for ways in which victims contribute to their own victimi-During recovery, victims may still exhibit a partial detachment fromreality and a problem with depression and listlessness.0.zationSome victims(Symonds M., 1975).3If)- 4 . .
f' ,(Applying these concepts to the battered woman leads to thf;l expectationthat such women would report higher levels of fear, anxiety, shock, andactivities such as withholding money, socia.l contacts, or transportation.depression than anger and hostility.Our questionnaire was not designed to adequately measure psychological abuse.We would also predict that abusedwomen would exhibit a post-impact reaction similar to that of othervictims, with a tendency toward withdrawal (Chapman, 1962; Mil ti et al.,CONTROL GROUPNo control group was utilized because of the time and expense involved1955).in matching so large a sample.Alternatives such as resistance or seeking outside help might beComparisons were made through the use ofappraised as too dangerous and in conflict with the woman's basic goal ofnorms on standardized psychological scales.survival.as her own control if she had a non-battering relationship, as we askedThus we would expect a battered woman's activity level to showIn addition, each woman servedan initial decrease after a battering incident, and that seeming apathyidentical questions about both relationships.might result.INTERVIEWERSInterviewers varied in age, ethnic and racial backgrounds, educationalSome degree of impaired functioning could also be predicted, especiallyin terms of decision-making and initiating remedial action (Bard & SangreYr1979).The theories on self-blame (Bard & Sangrey, 1979; Janis, 1958;Lifton, 1964; Spiegel, 1955) would indicate that a woman would assign aIIbackgrounds, and socio-economic levels.They were trained in the administrationof the questionnaire and in advocacy skills.high degree of fault for the incidents to herself, and show some degree ofINSTRUMENTSA 200-page questionnaire was developed specifically for this study.guilt and shame.It measured demographic and psychosocial variables using' the subject'sWe would also expect battered women to feel that theabusive behavior of the batterer was out of their control when the impactself report.It contained both closed (forced-choice) and open-endedphase actually began.response categories.The interview covered general demographics on thesubject and the batterer, information about their childhoods, and informationabout their relationship together.METHODThese questions were also asked if shehad had a non-battering relationship.collected about four battering incidents.SAMPLESelf-identified battered women (n 400) were selected to participatein this project.Subjects were self-referred, responding to public serviceannouncements, or referred by a variety of human services agencies.Inquestions, and if she met the criteria, she was scheduled for an interview.Any cancellations were usually filled by residents of one of the sheltersin Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota.for battered women in the Denver area.A special attemptThe women arrived at 9 AM andwas made to increase the representation of rural women and older womenremained with their interviewer for the entire day,(defined as over 60 years of age).was administered first, followed by the psychological schedules.Women w'ere also interviewed on IndianThe questionnaireItreservations f in high energy-nnpact areas, and in prisons, and a specialtook an average of five hours to administer the questionnaire, andgroup of women who had killed their batterers was obtained.approximately one hour of additional time to complete the psychologicalDEFINITIONStests.assaulted at least two times by a man with whom she had an intimate rela-VARIABLESFor the research on victims' reactions to trauma, questions weretionship or to whom she was married.analyzed from the questionnaire admininstered following the standardPhysical abuse was defined as anyform of coercive physical assault, with or without injury.Psychologicalprocedure a.t the Battered Women Research Center. The first batteringabuse included excessive possessiveness or jealousy; extreme verbalincident (chronologically}, plus a later significant battering, wereharrassment and/or threats; and physical or psychological restraint onchosen for analysis.5IPROCEDUREWhen a battered woman called the proj ect she was asked qualifyingaddition to Colorado, subjects were interviewed in specific populationsA woman was considered battered if she reported that she was physically'1In addition, minute details wereThe later battering was referred to as the "third"because of its position in the questionnaire, but was often the "worst"6
---- ---------------- ----. ,)from the woman's point of view. hefirst incident was chosen for comparisonwith a later batter:i.ng to obtain some measure of change in vict:ims' reactionsafter repeated trauma.The "thirdllshame, and guilt, and showing uncertain or mixed behavior after the firstsignificant incident was chosen for thiscomparison, since it constituted evidence of repeated abuse.The "last"Q incident.incident.As shown by Table 2, those figures decreased after the thirdbattering incident before our interview was not used, as most of the womenin our sample left the relationship after that attack.Unique factors thatInsert Table 2 about hereprecipitated her leaving may be confounded with simple reactions to repeatedInt· :i·'" iewers' ratings of women's behavior in terms of passive versusacd.v ' behavior before and after each incident did show adecrease inactivity after the first incident, as indicated by Tables 3 and 4.trauma in this incident.About one-half of the way through the account of each incident, thewoman was asked:incident?""What was your ePlotional reaction to this batteringResponse categories included fear, anxiety, depression, anger,shock, and hostility.Answers were on a Likert scale, with "1" being "none"and "S" being "overwhelming".Women were also asked:initially, right after the acute battering?"Insert Tables 3 and 4 about here"What did you doPossible answers included:Women attributed most of the responsibility for the abusive incidentsLeft the relationship temporarilYi hid it from others, showed shame andto the abuser, after both the first and third incidents, as indicated'byTable S.quilt; sought outside helpi took offensive action against the man; showeduncertain or miXed behavior.An evaluation of the woman's level of passiveversus active behavior before and after each incident, was provided by anInsert Table S about hereinterviewers' rating in a summary section following each account.At the end of the account of each battering, the woman was asked:Women also felt that they had little control over the batterers' behavior,as shown in Table 6."In you own opinion, who do you think was responsible for this incident?"Response categories ranged from:mainJ.y my fault that it happened".the four battering accounts:"It was mostly his fault" to "It wasA summary question was asked afterInsert Table 6 about here"Generally, to what extent do you think youcan control him or his behavior?".Response categories ranged from:"Never, not a all" to "Anytime I need or want to".DISCUSSIONRESULTSWilson (1'962) noted that human reaction patterns after disaster are"amazingly cong'ruent" with what we already know about human behavior in,As indicated by Table 1, most emotional reactions intensified overtime, with fear, anxiety, depression, anger, and hostility being reportedat higher levels after the third incident.Reported shock decreased.Insert Table 1 about hereFew women made any attempt to leave the relationship after theincidents, to seek outside help, or to take offensive action against thebatterer.Over half repor.ted hiding the incident from others, showing7)general.1II1Iafter an attack ,\ eem fairly consistent with those of other types of victims.'If1Ii{f'Viewetll from this perspective, the responses of battered womenIn our sample, 60% reported that they felt they could never control thebatterer or his behavior.Instead, they concentrated on protecting them-selves during the ,\\t'tack.Walker (1979) found that the women in hersample, like disasb-ar victims, reported a sense of distance from theattack.As one woman in our study said:8
c. n:I wasn't afraid; didn't feel the pain. I was aware ofwhat was going on, but my mind was racing, trying toout-think him. I was always talking to him . . afraidto disagree with a name or an accusation. It workedbest to agree and apologize. I learned quickly thatmy strengt.h did not compare to his and the best optionwas to try and protect myself.amounts of hostility.Thus, the intensity of most emotions appeared toincrease from the first to the third incident, with the exception ofshock, which decreased.Further analysis of these data is needed todetermine if these trends are significant.Because of the perceived balance of power in fav r of the abuser,Escape versus Survivalbattered women often engage in "antagonistic cooperation" as discussedby Biderman (1964).The battered woman, similar to other trauma victims, seems to showThe batterer normally does have greater physicalpower to retaliate
This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used tOe evaluate the document quality. 1.0 :; 111112.8 11111 2. 5 I IIIII I" .E
tubs (purchased for 5.00 each), inmate labor, and technical assis tance from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) Center for Great Lakes Study. An old dairy creamery was converted into a small-scale hatchery at
Appendix A.4: State Ranking Tables: Percentage Change in Violent Crime Rates: 1960-1980-1992 . 33 Appendix AS: State Ranking Tables: Total Crime Incarceration Rates: 1960-1980-1992 . 34 Appendix A6: State Ranking Tables: Percentage Change in Total Crime
(a) Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal (b) Use of the death penalty in a given state may increase the subsequent rate of criminal homicide in that state.
search and detection systems must be successful even in the hands of unskilled personnel. TRANSMISSION With respect to the transmission of information, it is necessary in a number of situations, .such as intruder detection and unmanned surveillance, for the acquired information to be transmitted to users who are not at the . acquis tion scene.
sponsored by the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, and the UAB Department of Psychiatry's Substance Abuse Programs. MISSION To reduce the criminality of drug dependent offenders by maximizing the habilitative aspects of the treatment and criminal justice systems.
3rd Grade – Persuasive Essay . Teachers may want to invest time in reading Kindergarten-Second Grade MAISA Writing Units of study or talk to previous grade level teachers before beginning this unit. If students have not had previous experience in a writing workshop or with aligned units of study, teachers may want to include lessons from previous grade levels as support and build towards .
Reading music from scratch; Easy, effective finger exercises which require minimal reading ability; Important musical symbols; Your first tunes; Audio links for all tunes and exercises; Key signatures and transposition; Pre scale exercises; Major and minor scales in keyboard and notation view; Chord construction; Chord fingering; Chord charts in keyboard view; Arpeggios in keyboard and .
Le fabricant et l’utilisateur d’un additif alimentaire sont tenus: a. de transmettre à l’OSAV toute nouvelle information scientifique ou techni-que susceptible d’influer sur l’évaluation de la sécurité de cet additif; et b. d’informer l’OSAV, sur demande, des usages de l’additif concerné. Art. 11 Modification des annexes L’OSAV adapte régulièrement les annexes de la .
