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

Constructing a Typology for Court-Referred Males of Intimate Partner Violence based on Changing Relationalism Perspectives

邱獻輝(Hsien-Huei Chiou)

文化變遷 ； 家庭暴力 ； 華人 ； 類型學 ； chinese ； cultural change ； domestic violence ； typology

中華輔導與諮商學報

46期（2016 / 08 / 01）

93 - 126

繁體中文

男性親密暴力有其變異性，因此實用有效的分類是理解其心理機制的重要基礎。目前較受關注的國內外分類架構皆未考量華人關係主義及其變遷的影響性，且常植基於受暴女性觀點，以致未能周延反映台灣強制處遇男性親密暴力者的主觀經驗。因此本研究嘗試從華人關係主義文化變遷的適應觀點出發，以強制處遇男性親密暴力者的經驗敘說為主體，佐以司法文件作為校正素材，進行分類建構。為達此目的，本研究在方法學上遵循建構主義典範，邀請24名男性接受半結構深度訪談，其中6人為家暴專監的親密暴力收容人，18人為某地方法院裁定社區親密暴力強制處遇之相對人，所得訪談文本以共識質性研究法進行分析。研究結果綜合出五個分類向度，包括華人父權認同與親密暴行、伴侶角色實踐的省思、從子女關注到伴侶關注、酒精使用、人格與臨床症狀；據此五個向度將受訪者分成四個類型，包括自我調整型、避罰傳統型、混亂再犯型、反擊型。本研究並針對研究結果與其意涵進行討論。

Males who commit intimate partner violence vary across cases, so a practical and valid typological frame work is essential for understanding the psychological mechanisms and characteristics of male perpetra-torsviolence. However, many well-known western typologies have not considered traditional Chinese Relationalism and the changing context within the Taiwanese society. Additionally, existing typologies are often based on female descriptions about male batterers; thus, they are limited in terms of their utility in understanding the subjective phenomenon of male batterers. Therefore, there is an urgent need to construct an indigenous typology according to the narratives of male perpetrators within the context of Chinese Relationalism and its changing situation within the Taiwanese society. In addition, this study also considered the crime diaries of male batterers, forensic documents, and court statements. To achieve this goal, this study followed the constructivism paradigm and adopted the consensual qualitative research approach method to analyze the text. Twenty four interviewees were invited as participants for semi-structural in-depth interviews; they had committed intimate partner violence and violated domestic law. The results indicated that the interviewees could be divided into four types according to the following five dimensions: Reflect related to Relationalism patriarchy; criticism to role duties of partners; concerns about parenting; alcoholic use; and personality disorder and clinical symptoms. The four types are as follows: Self-modification, following-law and tradition, distress, and fighting-back. Based on the results, practical implications and directions for future research were discussed.

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. 邱獻輝、葉光輝(2012)。從傳統華人貞節觀念探討男性殺妻。本土心理學研究，38，43-100。
   連結：
3. 邱獻輝、葉光輝(2013)。失根的大樹：從文化觀點探究親密暴力殺人者的生命敘說。中華輔導與諮商學報，37，89-124。
   連結：
4. 邱獻輝、葉光輝(2014)。臉面在教唆殺妻歷程的心理意涵：華人臉面理論的應用。人文及社會集刊，26(3)，483-523。
   連結：
5. 陳秉華、李素芬、林美珣(2008)。諮商中伴侶關係的自我協調歷程。本土心理學研究，29，117-182。
   連結：
6. 陳高凌(2001)。義與面子在華人家庭暴力理的運作及其對治療之啟示。本土心理學研究，15，3-111。
   連結：
7. 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：
8. 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：
9. 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：
10. 潘淑滿、楊榮宗、林津如(2012)。巢起巢落～女同志親密暴力、T 婆角色扮演與求助行為。台灣社會研究季刊，87，45-102。
    連結：
11. 蕭英玲、利翠珊(2009)。夫妻間的恩情與親密：簡效量表的發展。本土心理學研究，32，3-40。
    連結：
12. 費孝通（1947）：鄉土中國。上海：觀察社。[Fei, H. T. (1947). Local China. Shanghai, China: Observation Society.]
13. American Psychiatric Association(2000).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder.Washington, DC:Author.
14. Anderson, K. L.(2010).Conflict, power, and violence in families.Journal of Marriage and Family,72,726-742.
15. Archer, J.(1999).Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scale: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,14(12),1263-1289.
16. Bond, M. H.(Ed.)(1996).The handbook of Chinese psychology.Hong Kong, China:Oxford University Press.
17. Calton, J. M.,Cattaneo, L. B.,Gebhard, K. T.(2015).Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence.Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,1-16.
18. Cavanaugh, M. M.,Gelles, R. J.(2005).The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,20(2),155-166.
19. Chan, K. L.(2012).The role of Chinese face in the perpetration of dating partner violence.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,27(4),793-811.
20. Chan, K. L.(2009).Protection of face and avoidance of responsibility: Chinese men's account of violence against women.Journal of Social Work Practice,23(1),93-108.
21. Chen, P. W.(2009).A counseling model for self-relation coordination for Chinese clients with interpersonal conflicts.The Counseling Psychologist,37(7),987-1009.
22. Corbin, J.,Strauss, A.(2008).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
23. Denzin, N. K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(2000).Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
24. Denzin, N. K.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(2005).The sage handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
25. Dobash, R. E.,Dobash, R. P.(1979).Violence against wives.New York, NY:Free Press.
26. Dutton, D. G.(1995).A scale for measuring the propensity for abusiveness.Journal of Family Violence,10(2),203-221.
27. Dutton, D. G.,Corvo, K.(2007).The duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy.Aggression and Violent Behavior,12(6),658-667.
28. Elisha, E.,Idisis, Y.,Timor, U.,Addad, M.(2010).Typology of intimate partner homicide personal, interpersonal, and environmental characteristics of men who murdered their female intimate partner.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,54(4),494-516.
29. Giifus, M. E.,Traboid, N.,O'Brien, P.,Fiecif-Henderson, A.(2010).Gender and intimate partner violence: Evaluating the evidence.Journal of Social Work Education,46(2),245-263.
30. Gondolf, E. W.(1988).Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral typology of batterers.Violence and Victims,3,187-203.
31. Graham-Kevan, N.,Archer, J.(2003).Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling.Violence and Victims,18(2),181-196.
32. Hamberger, L. K.,Lohr, J. M.,Bonge, D.,Tolin, D. F.(1996).A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse.Violence and Victims,11,277-292.
33. Hamel, J.(Ed.),Nicholls, T.(Ed.)(2007).Family therapy for domestic violence: A practitioner's guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment.New York, NY:Springer.
34. Hill, C. E.,Knox, S.,Thompson, B. J.,Williams, E. N.,Hess, S. A.,Ladany, N.(2005).Consensual qualitative research: An update.Journal of Counseling Psychology,52(2),196-205.
35. Hill, C. E.,Thompson, B. J.,Williams, E. N.(1997).A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research.The Counseling Psychologist,25,517-572.
36. Ho, D. Y. F.(1998).Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,1(1),1-16.
37. Holtzworth-Munroe, A.,Meehan, J. C.,Herron, K.,Rehman, U.,Stuart, G. L.(2003).Do subtypes of martially violent men continue to differ over time?.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,71(4),728-740.
38. Holtzworth-Munroe, A.,Meehan, J. C.,Herron, K.,Rehman, U.,Stuart, G. L.(2000).Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart (1994) batterer typology.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,68(6),1000-1019.
39. Holtzworth-Munroe, A.,Stuart, G. L.(1994).Typologies of male batters: Three subtypes and the differences among them.Psychological Bulletin,116,476-497.
40. Hsu, F. L. K.(1971).A hypotheses on kinship and culture.Kinship and culture,Chicago, IL:
41. Hwang, K. K.(1987).Face and favor: The Chinese power game.American Journal of Sociology,92(4),945-974.
42. Jacobson, N.,Gottman, J.(1998).When men batter women.New York, NY:Simon & Schuster.
43. Johnson, M. P.(2008).A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence.Lebanon, New Hampshire:Northeastern University Press.
44. Kunda, Z.(1999).Social cognition: Making sense of people.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
45. Levant, R. E(1996).The new psycholoigy of men.Professional psychology : research and practice,27(3),259-265.
46. Li, T. S.,Chen, F. M.(2002).Affection in marriage: A study of marital En-qing and intimacy in Taiwan.Journal of Psychology in Chinese Society,3(1),37-59.
47. Lincoln, Y. S.(1995).Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.Qualitative Inquiry,1(3),275-289.
48. Lincoln, Y. S.,Guba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
49. Lu, L.(2008).The individual-oriented and social-oriented Chinese bicultural self: Testing the theory.The Journal of Social Psychology,148(3),347-373.
50. Lu, L.,Gilmour, R.(2006).Individual-oriented and socially oriented cultural conceptions of subjective well-being: Conceptual analysis and scale development.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,9(1),36-49.
51. Mak, W. W. S.,Chong, E. S. K.,Kwong, M. M. F.(2010).Prevalence of same-sex intimate partner violence in Hong Kong.Public Health,124,149-152.
52. Markus, H. R.,Kitayama, S.(1991).Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review,98(2),224-253.
53. Marsella, A. J.(Ed.),Devos, G.(Ed.),Hsu, F. L. K.(Ed.)(1985).Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives.New York, NY:Tavistock.
54. Nazroo, J.(1999).Uncovering gender difference in the use of marital violence: The effect of methodology.Sociology,29(3),475-494.
55. Nowinski, S. N.,Bowen, S.(2012).Partner violence against heterosexual and gay men: Prevalence and correlates.Aggression and Violent Behavior,17,36-52.
56. Pence, E.,Paymar, M.(1996).Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model.Duluth, Minnesota:Minnesota Program Development Inc.
57. Potter, H.(2008).Black women and intimate partner abuse.New York, NY:New York University Press.
58. Stults, C. B.,Javdani, S.,Greenbaum, C. A.,Barton, S. C.,Kapadia, F.,Halkitis, P. H.(2015).Intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization among YMSM: The P18 cohort study.Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity,2(2),152-158.
59. Sun, K.(2008).Correctional counseling: A cognitive growth perspective.Sudbury, Mass:Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
60. Van Voorhis, P.(Ed.),Braswell, M.(Ed.),Lester, D.(Ed.)(2014).Correctional counseling and rehabilitation.Waltham, MA:Anderson.
61. Vandello, J. A.,Cohen, D.(2003).Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84(5),997-1010.
62. Wu, B.(2009).Intimate homicide between Asians and non-Asians: The impact of community context.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,24(7),1148-1164.
63. Zehr, H.(2014).The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated.New York, NY:Good Books.
64. 李良哲(2000)。維繫婚姻關係重要因素的成人期差異研究。中華心理衛生學刊，13(3)，61-87。
65. 林明傑(2009)。家庭暴力案件危險分級與快速評估之進階實務。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，5(2)，305-316。
66. 陳向明(2002)。教師如何做質的研究。台北=Taipei, Taiwan:洪葉文化=Hungyeh Publishing。
67. 黃光國(2009)。儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究。台北=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological Publishing。
68. 楊國樞、余安邦、葉明華(1991)。中國人的個人傳統性與現代性：概念與測量。中國人的心理與行為（一九八九），台北=Taipei, Taiwan:
69. 羅燦煐(2011)。內政部委託專案報告內政部委託專案報告,內政部=ministry of the interior。

1. 陳姿吟,邱惟真(2019)。優勢觀點應用在家庭暴力相對人之處遇：以親密關係及非親密關係暴力個案為例。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，15(1)，85-109。
2. 林育陞(2018)。男同志親密關係暴力探討。諮商與輔導，386，36-39+55。
3. 葉光輝,陳謙仁(2019)。護親護面型毆妻男性個案多元自我衝突調整理論與介入方案研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，55，59-95。
4. 鍾易廷,劉素華,陳筱萍,林耿樟(2020)。家庭暴力加害人之認知扭曲量表。輔導季刊，56(3)，13-32。
5. (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。
6. (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。