1 / 23

WHAT DO CHILDREN DO DURING INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

WHAT DO CHILDREN DO DURING INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE’S. UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. RECOGNISE HOW CHILDREN RESPOND DURING INCIDENTS. UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE RESPONSES IDENTIFY SAFER RESPONSES . TAXONOMY OF CHILDREN’S

oro
Télécharger la présentation

WHAT DO CHILDREN DO DURING INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WHAT DO CHILDREN DO DURING INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

  2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE’S • UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. • RECOGNISE HOW CHILDREN RESPOND DURING INCIDENTS. • UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE RESPONSES • IDENTIFY SAFER RESPONSES

  3. TAXONOMY OF CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS • Reference Holden G.W. (2003) Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 6 (3) 151-160 page 152

  4. SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCEFacet Analysis and Search Terms

  5. PARTICIPANTS • The child participants were aged 3-15 years. A pictorial representation of thoughts and feelings, under supervision, was used to allow the participation of 4 year olds using previously tested tools. The 3 year olds data was the result of transcribing portions of their counselling sessions.

  6. PROBLEM SOLVING 44%-50% • -DIRECT • - Uses self to distract parents to switch attention/ anger to child i.e. whining, deliberately making music loud, shoots a drink into the air , fidgeting, crying so someone will step in. • - direct intervention ask them to stop, • -physical intervention • -Talk to them about something else • -INDIRECT • go to a neighbour OR family member for help • - call the police

  7. Avoidance 33%-67% • Turning on music - Reading a book • -make up songs • - trying not to listen • - Closing ones ears • - go to a different room ( withdraw) • - seek support from sibling • - Head under the pillow and fingers in ear. • -emotion focused aggression; physical or verbal i.e. – slamming a door, throwing something screaming at sibling.

  8. Non problem solving response • - Cognitive: use fantasy or trying to change way of thinking tells self it is not too bad, act the way you want to feel.

  9. Differences in response 1 • Mullender et al( 2002) identified 12-16 year olds as more likely to directly intervene • Adamson and Thompson 1997 found 35% of children from domestic violence homes used problem solving BUT 27% consisted of aggression interventions with 8-12 year olds becoming physically involved. • DeBoard –Lucas found direct interventions rare.

  10. Differences in responses 2 • A possible explanation for these differences is that in some instances children were asked to report their PROPOSED response to a scenario but, children’s stated responses do not always match their actual response • Sample differences Some children were resident in a refuge and had been subject to physical violence. Others remained at home with both parents

  11. Implications and analysis • Problem solving by the child drawing attention to him/herself may be effective in the short term but in situations of heightened parental conflict may increase the risk of physical violence to the child and so can be considered as both protective and maladaptive.

  12. Implications and analysis 2 • Arguably a pattern of problem solving learnt behaviour may explain the externalising generally antisocial behaviours that are double that of the general population (Sternberg et al 2006)of children subject to domestic violence and why some children, possibly those choosing avoidance coping strategies do not (Clements et al 2008) develop significant behavioural issues.

  13. Gender differences ? • The findings for boys were ambiguous. Martin et al 2002 found no differences • Interparental violence significantly correlated with withdrawal ,anxiety and distraction to stop the conflict and anxiety during observed parent to child hostility (Gordis et al 1997, Adamson and Thompson 1997) with boys being more likely to intervene in high conflict homes(Miller et al 2010)

  14. analysis of findings • Withdrawal for boys from non violent homes when responding to “mild” inter-parental conflict ( Gordis et al 1997) indicates a possible lack of cognition or sensitisation of the likely outcome of a scenario • Miller et al 2010 also found that boys reported more avoidance strategies AFTER the mother co supported the child to identify alternate strategies.

  15. analysis • Arguably a child’s appraisal of interparental conflict affects their response (DeBoard-Lucas and Grych 2011, Overlien and Hyden 2009, Gordis et al 1997, Miller et al 2010) as does the child’s age (DeBoard-Lucas and Grych 2011, Adamson and Thompson 1998, Mullender et al 2002).

  16. Why do children intervene? • Children do NOT blame themselves for parental conflict but feel they should be responsible for stopping the violence with intervention more likely to occur when the topic is related to the child (Overlien and Hyden 2009, DeBoard-Lucas and Grych 2011, Adamson and Thompson 1997, Mullender 2002, Miller et al 2010)

  17. analysis • children have heightened sensitization to inter-parental violence and show increased reactivity above the general population (Martin and Clements 2002, Gordis et al 1997, Adamson and Thompson 1998, Mullender et al 2002) . • Age of onset , chronicity and severity of the abuse is therefore significant in terms of child outcomes

  18. conclusion • Children exposed to interparental aggression or physical abuse may be required to analyse a situation. • Children respond based on asituation and act in a manner that is reflective of their understanding and ability to affect the outcome.

  19. Additional thoughts • Professionals should take into consideration the child’ home environment. Withdrawal is a significant response but may not be available to children living in limited space or age dependently non-mobile. In such situations the emotional impact and thus damage will arguably be increased as will the risk of becoming physically hurt.

  20. children seek to affect their parent’s behaviour. • As demonstrated by Miller et al 2010 children can be supported to choose actions that are less damaging. • Professionals can support parents to recognise the significance of their child’s action • Children should be included in safety planning

  21. Mullender A, Hague G, Imam U, Kelly l, Malos E, and Regan L 2002. Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence . Sage publishing Miller P A, Kliewer W, and Partch J (2010)Socialization of Children’s Recall and Use of Strategies for Coping with Interparental ConflictJournal Child and Family studies 19: 429-443 DeBoard-Lucas R L, Grych J H (2011) Children’s perception of Intimate Partner Violence: Causes, Consequences, and Coping. Journal of family violence 26: 343-354 . Overlien C, Hyden M (2009) Children’s Actions when Experiencing Domestic Violence. Childhood vol 16 (4): 479-496 Adamson J L, Thompson R A (1998). Coping with Interparental Verbal Conflict by Children Exposed to Spouse Abuse and Children from NonViolent Homes. Journal of family violence vol 13, (3) 213-232 Ornduff S, Monahan K (1999) Children’s Understanding of Parental Violence. Child and youth Care Forum 28(5) October 351-364 Martin S E, Clements M L (2002) Young Children Responding to Interparental Conflict: Associations with Marital Aggression andChild Adjustment .Journal of child and family studies vol 11 (2) June 231-244. Gordis EB, Margolin G, John R S (1997) Marital Aggression, observed parental hostility and child behaviour • during triadic family interaction Journal of family psychology Mar 97 vol 11 issue 1 • Sternberg O.K., Baradaran L.P. ,Abbott, C.B., Lamb M.E., GuttermanE.E. (2006)Type of violence, age and gender • differences in the effects of family violence on children’ behaviour problems: A mega- analysis. • Developmental review 26, 89- 112. • Clements C.M.Oxtoby C and Ogle R.L. (2008) Methodological issues in Assessing • Psychological adjustment in Child Witnesses of intimate partner violence. Trauma violence and Abuse 9: 114- 127

More Related