失根的大樹：從文化觀點探究親密暴力殺人者的生命敘說

The Tree without Root: Exploring the Life Narratives of Intimate Homicide from Cultural Perspectives

邱獻輝(Hsien-Huei Chiou)；葉光輝(Kuang-Hui Yeh)

多元文化諮商 ； 建構主義研究典範 ； 敘說研究 ； 殺人 ； 親密暴力 ； constructivism ； homicide ； intimate partner violence ； multi-cultural counseling ； narrative

中華輔導與諮商學報

37期（2013 / 10 / 01）

89 - 123

繁體中文

本研究想要澄清「平時沒有肢體暴力傾向卻突發嚴重親密暴力（殺死伴侶）」的心理機制；此類罪犯過去在親密暴力分類上並沒有適當的界定，加上探究個體的心理內涵宜有文化考量，故本研究擬從多元文化諮商觀點出發，進行親密暴力殺人者的生命敘說探究。本研究遵循建構主義研究典範，邀請一位無前科、平時無親密暴力、獄中適應良好、然其卻在殺死妻兒後自殺未遂的罪犯參與，進行敘說研究資料的搜集；在資料分析過程中，邀請四位相關領域的研究者擔任協同分析者，以實踐建構主義的知識共構精神。本研究根據訪談逐字稿、判決書、社工訪談紀錄、個性特徵量表施測結果等文本，從文化觀點會同協同分析者進行分析，共整理出四個範疇：「困頓中茁壯的生命毅力」、「山雨欲來風滿樓：殺妻的脈絡」、「男性角色負擔：殺妻的相關信念」、「掙脫過去遠眺未來」。本研究並從親密暴力者的分類架構、性別角色負擔、華人雙元文化等角度進行討論。

This research was designed to probe the psychological mechanisms of a suddenly serious violence criminal (intimate homicide) but with no regular inclination towards physical violence. This kind of crime did not have a suitable category in intimate violence typologies and there were no considerations of cultural influence and cultural change in past litevatuves. The study tried to explore the life narratives of a male who committed intimate homicide from a multicultural counseling perspective. The inquiry followed a constructivism paradigm. A criminal was invited as an interviewee who had no crime record, no intimate violent characteristics, behaved well in jail, but he killed his wife, sons, and then tried to committed suicide. During the data analysis, four graduate students were recruited to co-analyze. The texts included transcripts of interview recordings, written verdicts, records made by social workers, and the result of Chinese Personality Disorders Inventory. The results presented 4 themes, namely: (1) life willpower in difficult situations; (2) the context of intimate homicide; (3) the beliefs related to intimate homicide; and (4) escape from the past and look forward to the future. Results were discussed and suggestions were made from the perspectives of intimate typology, gender role, and Chinese bi-culture phenomena.

1. 林明傑、沈勝昂(2004)。婚姻暴力加害人分類之研究。中華心理衛生學刊，17(2)，67-92。
   連結：
2. 黃宗堅、葉光輝、謝雨生(2004)。夫妻關係中權力與情感的運作模式：以衝突因應策略為例。本土心理學研究，21，3-48。
   連結：
3. 楊國樞(2004)。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究：社會取向與個人取向的觀點。本土心理學研究，22，11-80。
   連結：
4. 葉光輝(2004)。現代華人家人的互動關係及其心理歷程。本土心理學研究，22，81-119。
   連結：
5. 葉光輝(2009)。華人孝道雙元模型研究的回顧與前瞻。本土心理學研究，32，101-148。
   連結：
6. 葉光輝(2009)。華人孝道雙元模型研究的回顧與前瞻。本土心理學研究，32，101-148。
   連結：
7. 葉光輝、黃宗堅、邱雅沂(2006)。現代華人的家庭文化特徵：以台灣北部地區若干家庭的探討為例。本土心理學研究，25，141-195。
   連結：
8. Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. W. (2012). Homicide trends in the United States. Retrieved January 25, 2012 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/intimates.cfm
9. Aldridge, M. L.,Browne, K. D.(2003).Perpetrators of spousal homicide: A review.Trauma Violence Abuse,4(3),265-276.
10. Almgren, G.(2005).The ecological context of interpersonal violence: From culture to collective efficacy.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,20,218-224.
11. Anderson, K. L.(2010).Conflict, power, and violence in families.Journal of Marriage and Family,72,726-742.
12. Anderson, K. L.(1997).Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches.Journal of Marriage and the Family,59,655-669.
13. Annells, M.(1996).Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism.Qualitative Health Research,6(3),379-393.
14. Avakame, E.(1999).Females' labor force participation and intimate femicide: An empirical assessment of the backlash hypothesis.Violence and Victims,14,277-291.
15. Bond, M. H.(Ed.)(1996).The handbook of Chinese psychology.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
16. Browning, C.(2002).The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner violence.Journal of Marriage and Family,64,833-850.
17. Bursik, R. J., Jr.,Grasmick, H. G.(1993).Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control.New York, NY:Lexington Books.
18. Campbell, J. C.,Glass, N.,Sharps, P. W.,Laughon, K.,Bloom, T.(2007).Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy.Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,8(3),246-269.
19. Chen, P. W.(2009).A counseling model for self-relation coordination for Chinese clients with interpersonal conflicts.The Counseling Psychologist,37(7),987-1009.
20. Copenhaver, M. M.(2000).Masculine gender-role stress, anger, and male intimate abusiveness: Implications for men's relationships.Sex Roles,42,405-414.
21. Corbin, J.,Strauss, A.(2008).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
22. Crossley, M. L.(2000).Narrative psychology: Trauma and the study of self identity.Philadelphia, PA:Open University Press.
23. Denzin, N. K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(2005).The sage handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
24. Denzin, N. K.,Lincoln, Y. S.(1998).The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues.London:Sage Publication.
25. Dobash, R. E.,Dobash, R. P.(1979).Violence against wives.New York, NY:Free Press.
26. Dutton, D. G.(2007).The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships.New York, NY:The Guilford Press.
27. Dutton, D. G.(1995).The batterer: A psychological profile.New York, NY:Basic Books.
28. Edleson, J. L.(Ed.),Eisikovits, Z.(Ed.)(1996).Future interventions with battered women and their children.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
29. Eisler, R. M.,Franchina, J. J.,Morre, T. M.,Honeycutt, H. G.,Rhatigan, D. L.(2000).Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of gender relevance of conflict situations on men's attributions and affective responses.Psychology of Men and Masculinity,1,30-36.
30. Holtzworth-Munroe , A.,Meehan, J. C.,Herron, K.,Rehman, U.,Stuart, G. L.(2003).Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time?.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,71(4),728-740.
31. Holtzworth-Munroe, A.,Meehan, J. C.,Herron, K.,Rehman, U.,Stuart, G. L.(1994).Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,68(6),1000-1019.
32. Holtzworth-Munroe, A.,Stuart, G. L.(1994).Typologies of male batters: Three subtypes and the differences among them.Psychological Bulletin,116,476-497.
33. Jacobson, N.,Gottman, J.(1998).When men batter women.New York, NY:Simon & Schuster.
34. Johnson, M. P.(2008).A Typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence.Lebanon, NH:Northeastern University Press.
35. Levant, R. E.(Ed.),Pollack, W. S.(Ed.)(1995).A new psychology of men.New York, NY:Basic Books.
36. Levant, R. F.(1996).The new psychology of men.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,27(3),259-265.
37. Lieblich, A.,Tuval-Masshiach, R.,Zilber, T.(1998).Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
38. Lincoln, Y. S.(1995).Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.Qualitative Inquiry,1(3),275-289.
39. Lincoln, Y. S.,Guba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
40. Lu, L.,Gilmour, R.(2006).Individual-oriented and social-oriented SWB: Conceptual analysis and scale development.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,9,36-49.
41. Lu, L.,Yang, K. S.(2006).The emergence and composition of the traditional-modern bicultural self of people in contemporary Taiwanese societies.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,9,167-175.
42. Markus, H. R.,Kitayama, S.(1991).Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review,98(2),224-253.
43. McAdams, D. P.(1993).The stories we live by: Personal myths and the marking of the self.New York, NY:Guilford.
44. O'Neil, J. M.,Harway, M.(1997).Multivariate model explaining men's violence toward women: Predisposing and triggering hypotheses.Violence Against Women,3,182-203.
45. O'Neil, J. M.,Helms, B. J.,Gable, R. K.,David, L.,Wrightsman, L. S.(1986).Gender-role conflict scale: College men's fear of femininity.Sex Roles,14,335-350.
46. Schwartz, J. P.,Waldo, W.(2003).Reducing gender role conflict among men attending partner abuse prevention groups.Journal for Specialists in Group Work,10(5),355-369.
47. Sue, D. W.,Sue, D.(2008).Counseling the culturally different: Theory & practice(5th ed.).New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.
48. Terence, P. T.(Ed.)(1997).Developmental theories of crime and delinquency.New Jersey, NJ:Transaction Publishers.
49. Thornberry, T. P.(1987).Toward an interactional theory of delinquency.Criminology,25,863-891.
50. Waring, E.(Ed.),Weisburd, D.(Ed.)(2002).Crime and social disorganization.New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishing.
51. White, R. J.,Gondolf, E. W.(2000).Impications of personality profiles for batterer treatment.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,15,467-488.
52. Willig, C.(Ed.),Stainton-Rogers, W.(Ed.)(2008).The sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology.London:Sage.
53. Wilson, W. J.(1987).The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.Chicago, ILL:University of Chicago Press.
54. Wu, B.(2009).Intimate homicide between Asians and non-Asians: The impact of community context.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,24(7),1148-1164.
55. 吳芝儀譯、李奉儒譯、Pattion, M. Q.(2008)。質性研究與評鑑。嘉義:濤石。
56. 邱獻輝(2009)。博士論文(博士論文)。台北，國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所。
57. 邱獻輝(2010)。建構主義典範在多元文化諮商研究的實踐：以台灣遊療師權威教養生命經驗及治療理念的交會為例。2010年臺灣諮商心理學會年會暨學術研討會，台北:
58. 侯崇文(1999)。殺人事件中犯罪者與被害者關係研究。刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集（二）
59. 孫苾卉(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新北，國立臺北大學犯罪研究所。
60. 張凱捷(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園，中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所。
61. 梁耀堅(2003)。個性特徵量表。香港:香港中文大學心理系。
62. 陳向明(2002)。教師如何做質的研究。台北:洪葉文化。
63. 楊士隆(1998)。殺人犯罪：多重面向之殺人犯調查研究。台北:五南。
64. 楊士隆編(2004)。暴力犯罪原因、類型與對策。台北:五南。
65. 楊中芳(2001)。如何研究中國人：心理學研究本土化論文集，台北:
66. 楊國樞編、黃光國編(1991)。中國人的心理與行為（一九八九）。台北:桂冠。
67. 廖健航(2010)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台北，國立臺北大學犯罪學研究所。
68. 謝文彥(2002)。博士論文(博士論文)。桃園，中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所。
69. 魏仲亨(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所。

1. 陳復(2020)。黃光國難題的誤區：由案例反思儒家倫理療癒。本土心理學研究，53，181-224。
2. 黃光國(2013)。儒家文化中的倫理療癒。中華輔導與諮商學報，37，1-54。
3. 賴秦瑩,郭俊巖,王蘭心(2020)。家庭暴力低意願案主服務經驗之研究：保護性社工的角度。臺灣社會福利學刊，16(2)，55-101。
4. 潘淑滿、歐紫彤、陳杏容、林雅容、林東龍(2016)。親密關係暴力：臺灣女性之受暴與求助經驗。臺灣社會工作學刊，17，1-42。
5. 邱獻輝(2013)。男性的夫妻角色期待與實踐：親密暴力者 vs. 無親密暴力者。犯罪學期刊，16(2)，61-92。
6. 邱獻輝(2014)。被歧視與反擊：一位阿美族親密殺人者的生命敘說。臺北市立大學學報，45(2)，69-91。
7. 邱獻輝(2016)。從關係主義文化變遷觀點建構男性親密暴力者的分類架構。中華輔導與諮商學報，46，93-126。
8. 溫錦真、林美珠(2018)。臺灣心理與諮商敘事研究之回顧與展望。中華輔導與諮商學報，53，81-116。
9. 葉光輝、邱獻輝(2014)。臉面在教唆殺妻歷程的心理意涵：華人臉面理論的應用。人文及社會科學集刊，26(3)，483-523。
10. 周俊良,周怡君(2022)。肢體障礙者參與運動團體經驗對社會支持的影響。大專體育，160，1-12。
11. (2022)。家庭暴力被害人後追服務困境與因應之研究：以彰化縣為例。靜宜人文社會學報，16(1)，71-96。
12. (2023)。「反擊型」男性親密暴力者的心理機制：華人關係主義的觀點。教育研究學報，57(1)，49-74。
13. (2023)。社工服務男性相對人之角色與挑戰－以駐地方法案家暴事件法服處為例。東吳社會工作學報，45，35-62。