Violence, Domestic
Conditions
Keywords
Domestic violence, Attachment, Mentalization, Victimization, Psychic elaboration of the trauma
Brief summary
Attachment and mentalization with a population of domestic violence victims Domestic violence is one of the most common forms of domestic violence. Multiform and complex, it affects all backgrounds and all ages. According to a survey instituted by the government of Emmanuel Macron, 219,000 women were recognized as victims of domestic violence in 2017. This phenomenon is not without questioning the scientific scene. Also, this study focus on the quality of the attachment because if this bond is insecure, it can constitute a point of vulnerability in self-construction and impact on future relational modalities.
Detailed description
The security of the bond of attachment depends on the capacity of the maternal figure, or her substitute, to understand and respond in an adapted and consistent manner to her baby. In addition, it has also been established that when disruptions occur in the security of attachment bond, the quality of mentalization is impacted. But, mentalization is the quality and quantity of psychic representations available to allow someone understanding and thinking about his links to others and to himself. This is an essential asset in the release of situations of violence and in overcoming trauma because it participates in psychic development. That's why this research focuses on early relationships and the quality of mentalization with a cohort of thirty women victims of domestic violence, consultant within the Legal Medicine department of the CHU of Besançon. This research focuses on two groups of subjects: women who managed to get out of violent relationship (15 subjects) and others who did not (15 subjects). The research methodology includes several tools: two projective tests (Rorschach and TAT), ten self-questionnaires (which assess attachment, stress, social support, relational quality with the main attachment figures, the image of the Self-body, quality of mentalization), a clinical research interview and presentation of the AAI. The observation of this population will highlight the impact of the early environment in the psychic construction of the subject and the victim's destiny. Moreover, this study will look at the role of psychotherapeutic follow-up in the quality of mentalization.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSemi-structured interviews
Interview
BEHAVIORALProjective methode
Rorschach + thematic aperception test
BEHAVIORALSelfreported
RSQ - PBI - RFQ - QSCPGS - SSQ6 - ÉCHELLES DE CUNGI - STAI - PCL-S - IES-R
Sponsors
University of Franche-Comté
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besancon
Study design
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
First group : women following a psychotherapy Second group : women unfollowing a psychotherapy
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
20 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Women over 20 years old, victims of domestic violence * With european culture * Separated from their abusive partner * Consulting the Legal Medicine Department in Besançon University Hospital
Exclusion criteria
* Refusal to participate
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Security of the current attachment | Month 12 | Relationship Scale Questionary (RSQ) Description : 30 questions Answers : - 5 (not like me at all to) + 5 (very like me) Cotation : self-model scale : - 4 to + 4 model of others : - 4 to + 4 positive self-model and positive model of others = secure positive self-model and negative model of others = insecure detached negative self-model and positive model of others = insecure worried negative self-model and negative model of others = insecure fearful |
| Security of the early attachment | Month 12 | Adult Attachment Interview (AAI : Main, George & Kaplan, 1984 ; Pierrehumbert et al., 1999) Description : 20 questions Free answers Cotation : Edicode, Pierrehumbert Fluidity = 1 to 9 Coherence = 1 to 9 Reflexive = 1 to 9 Authentic = 1 to 9 Scores have to be high |
| Mentalization | Month 12 | The Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ : Fonagy & al., 2016) The 8-item RFQ Reflective Functioning Questionnaire comprises two subscales each of 6 items (Uncertainty and Certainty about mental states) The two scales operate with a Likert scale of 7 points that evaluate the degree of agreement of the subject with the sentences presented in each item. The items of Uncertainty or RFQ\_U correspond to statements such as Often very strong feelings cloud my thinking, they are recorded to detect extreme levels of uncertainty about mental states, in the following way 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, so that high scores reflect hypomentalization. Scores have to be medium The items corresponding to Certainty of mental states or RFQ\_C contemplate statements such as When I get angry I say things without really knowing why I say them which are recorded as 3, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, in such a way that a 6 low degree of agreement reflects Hypermentalization. Scores have to be medium |
| Quality of early relationship | Month 12 | Parental Bonding Instrument (G. Parker, H. Tupling and R.B. Brown) Two scales termed 'care' and 'overprotection' or 'control', measure fundamental parental styles as perceived by the child. 25 item questions, including 12 'care' items and 13 'overprotection' items. Likert scale : very like (+3) or very dislike (-3). In addition to generating care and protection scores for each scale, parents can be effectively assigned to one of four quadrants: Mothers : care score = 27.0 / protection score = 13.5. Fathers :care score = 24.0 / protection score = 12.5. High care and high protection means affectionate constraint. High protection and low care means affectionless control. High care and low protection means optimal parenting. Low care and low protection means neglectful parenting. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| PTSD | Month 12 | Cungi's Scale 8 items Subject evaluates the importance for him of each of the items with a rating ranging from 1, very little impact at 6, extremely high impact. Score have to be low State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI : Spielberg, 1983) Measures how the subject feels right now on 40 items with answer choices of 1 = not at all / almost never, 2 = somewhat/sometimes, 3 = moderately so / often, and 4 = very much so / almost always. Item scores are added to obtain subtest total scores. The score range for each subtest is 20-80, the higher score indicating anxiety. The cut point of 39-40 has been suggested to detect clinically significant symptoms. Impact of Event Scale Revisited (IES-R : Horowitz, Wilner, & Alvarez, 1979) 7 additional questions and a scoring range of 0 to 88. Scores that exceed 24 can be quite meaningful 33 and above : PTDS |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The self-satisfaction | Month 12 | The self-satisfaction with the body satisfaction and global self-perception questionnaire (QSCPGS) Total score ranges from -100 to +100, each of the 20 items ranging from -5 to +5. The sign of value surrounded is a function of the proposal he has chosen to define himself. The sum of the 20 values gives the total score. If three or more answers lack, the QSCPGS is not valid. For quality analysis, the calculation of the number of hits, negative replies and neutral gives an indication of the perception that the subject of himself. This value is given as a percentage positive, negative and neutral. An item analysis by item, as well as the total and both factors can be considered. |
| The social support | Month 12 | The social support questionnaire SSQ6 (Sarason et al., 1987) 6-item measure of social support. For each of the 6 items, respondents indicate the number of people available to provide support in each of 6 areas and then rate the overall level of satisfaction with the support given in each of the areas. For each item, the respondent makes a list of the people he can count on in the situation described (maximum 9 people) and expresses his degree of satisfaction (from 1 to 6) with this support. We then calculate two total scores, one of availability (N=number of people cited) and the other satisfaction (S), which correspond respectively to the sum of the number (N score) and satisfaction (S score) scores obtained in each of the six items. N score varies from 0 to 54 and the S score from 6 to 36. Both scores must be as high as possible |
Countries
France
Contacts
Primary ContactRose-Angelique Belot, PhD
Backup ContactJustine Cesari, Student
Outcome results
None listed