婚姻中严重躯体暴力行为的个人-家庭-社会因素

Personal-family-social factors associated to serious violence behaviors in marriage

目的:探讨婚姻关系中严重躯体暴力行为的个人-家庭-社会综合因素,为家庭暴力的预警和干预提供理论依据。方法:在陕西咸阳选取93名施暴者和92名无暴力者,采用自编调查表、冲突策略量表简版(CTS-2)、儿童期虐待问卷(CTQ)、酒精使用障碍筛查量表(AUDIT)和人格障碍诊断问卷第四版(PDQ-4+)评定婚姻关系中严重躯体暴力行为的个人因素(年龄、受教育程度、工作情况、是否酗酒、是否违法乱纪、人格障碍诊断情况)、家庭因素(儿童期虐待、是否目睹父母动手、夫妻权力分配、是否有经济压力)和社会因素(伴侣角色认知、对家庭暴力的认知)。结果:施暴组酗酒、违法乱纪、人格障碍诊断高分者的比例均高于无暴力组(22.6%vs.6.5%、12.9%vs.4.3%、65.6%vs.45.7%,均P<0.05);施暴组CTQ的情感虐待、身体虐待得分均高于无暴力组[(8.3±2.3)vs.(6.5±2.2)、(7.7±3.0)vs.(6.0±2.3),均P<0.05],目睹父母动手、夫妻一方专权、有经济压力比例均高于无暴力组(78.5%vs.44.5%、57.0%vs.15.2%、44.1%vs.20.7%,均P<0.05);施暴组伴侣角色认知、对家庭暴力认知的得分均高于无暴力组[(19.9±7.2)vs.(15.8±4.8),(15.8±6.9)vs.(13.2±3.9),均P<0.05]。Logistic多因素回归分析发现,有目睹父母动手、酗酒、违法乱纪、经济压力、夫妻一方专权、人格障碍诊断高分、伴侣角色认知高分、情感虐待高分情况的个体,发生严重躯体暴力行为的可能性更高(OR=1.30～16.19)。结论:本研究提示,严重躯体暴力行为与个人特点、家庭环境和社会性认知的各层面综合因素相关。

Objective： To investigate the individual-family-social integrative factors associated with serious physical violence in marital relationships and provide a theoretical basis for early warning and intervention. Methods： Totally 93 people with domestic violence behavior were selected as violence-group and 92 people without domestic violence behaviors were selected in no-violence group. They were assessed with a self-de- signed questionnaire and the Conflict Tactics Scale（ CTS-2）, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire （CTQ）, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification（AUDIT） Test and Personality Diagnosis Questionnaire-4 （PDQ-4 ＋ ） to evalute the related factors to serious physical violence in marriage, including individual factors [ age, education, employment, alcohol abuse, committing crimes, and personality disorders analysis], family factors [ childhood trauma, witness of parental violence, couple rights distribution, and financial pressure], and social factors [ cognition of partner roles, cognition of domestic violence]. Results： The proportions of people with alcohol abuse （22. 6% vs. 6. 5% ）, committing crimes （ 12.9% vs. 4. 3% ） and higher PDQ-4 ＋ scores （ 65.6% vs. 45.7% ） were higher in the violence-group than the no-violence group （Ps 〈0. 05）. The violence group got higher scores in emotional abuse [（8.3 -＋2. 3） vs. （6. 5 -＋2. 2）] and physical abuse [（7.7 -＋3.0） vs. （6. 0 -＋2. 3）] than the no-violence group （Ps 〈0. 05）. The pro- portion of people with witnessing parental violence （78. 5% vs. 44. 5% ）, in relationship of either of the couple be- ing the dictator （44. 1% vs. 20. 7%）, and under financial pressure （57.0% vs. 15.2%） were higher in the vio- lence-group than in the no-violence group （Ps 〈 0. 05）. The violence group got higher scores in cognition of partner roles [（19. 9 ~7. 2） vs. （15. 8 -＋4. 8）] and cognition of domestic violence [（15.8 -＋6. 9） vs. （13.2 -＋3. 9）] than the no-violence group （Ps 〈0. 05）. The equation of logistic regression analysis showed that people with witnessing parental violence, alcohol abuse, committing crimes, under financial pressure, in relationship of either of the couple being dictator, and with higher scores in personality analysis, cognition of partner roles and emotional abuse in childhood were likely to assault their intimate partners seriously （ OR = 1.30- 16. 19）. Conclusion： It suggests that individual traits, family circumstance and social cognition are probably related to the behavior of serious physical assault towards partners in marriage.