:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:家庭暴力加害人處遇成效意涵之研究
作者:謝宏林
作者(外文):Hsieh Hung Lin
校院名稱:東海大學
系所名稱:社會工作學系
指導教授:曾華源 教授
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2011
主題關鍵詞:家庭暴力、處遇成效、再犯
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:5
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:278
家庭暴力加害人處遇成效意涵之研究
謝宏林
論文摘要
本研究以「家庭暴力加害人處遇成效意涵之研究」為題,主要目的是瞭解家暴加害人處遇介入系統中之處遇人員、加害人及受害人等,對處遇成效的主觀性認知,期能經由三方對成效的詮釋視角,提升處遇人員對家暴加害人處遇成效的敏感度,增進處遇責信的層次,並建構出適合家暴加害人處遇成效的評估模式。研究訪視對象為處遇人員11人,加害人7人,受害人6人,分別探討處遇人員對處遇成效之意涵、加害人參與處遇過程之反應覺察、受害人對加害人接受處遇之期待等三方向度的異同之處。研究以質性研究之紮根理論進行分析與理論建構,試圖瞭解處遇成效之關聯性,並建構出多元性的評估理論模式。
經研究分析發現,有關家暴加害人處遇成效的評估模式含括多項意涵。如下:
一、處遇人員態度影響處遇成效
當處遇人員以「夥伴平等關係型」介入處遇工作時,因處遇人員較傾向尊重案主自決、主客體相容、貼近案主、互惠學習,以及避免權控複製等態度,加害人對處遇方案有較高的接受度。相對的,如以「專業權威型」介入處遇工作時,處遇人員較以處遇關係階層化、專業性角度、政治立場操作,以及權威影響力的過度使用等,不僅未能提升加害人學習意願,甚而轉向對抗處遇人員,耗損了整體的處遇效果。
二、處遇成效行動模式之評估系統互為正向增強與消弱影響
(一)處遇人員如受到機構支持正向能量將會提升,惟如因機構支持度不佳,導致業務負荷過重、醫療階層化的剝削,塑造出非自願性的工作者時,將會消弱處遇成效。
(二)加害人部分,因非自願性案主的屬性,以及對家暴體制的不滿與司法怨懟,將會消弱處遇的效果。另因加害人自身的改變及成員的異質性等,會影響處遇成效評估偏誤的可能。
(三)司法系統對處遇成效的再犯認知及對加害人的法律性約束,不僅影響到處遇成效的良寙,也干擾了處遇成效評估的精確度。
(四)受害人因家暴所衍生的問題與受暴經驗之創傷,會造成受害人之間對處遇成效期待的差異性,加上仍與加害人同住,且因司法系統的介入,呈現出緊張狀態。此兩造的共變牽連關係,有時會產生消弱處遇效果。
三、改變模式之處遇人員與加害人對處遇成效之間距認知
家暴處遇方案的執行過程,直接或間接受到上述各系統影響,造成處遇人員對成效意涵與加害人對處遇反應覺察產生間距落差。如行動模式之各系統間,存有正向能量時,成效認知間距會逐漸達到一致性,惟如系統間互為消弱時,兩者成效認知間距會逐漸擴大,形成加害人以趨利避害的態度,敷衍整體處遇過程。
基於上述的研究發現,處遇人員態度要以提升加害人的動機為首要,故不僅尊重加害人的自決意志,且要時時以多元位置的思慮,以及避免複製父權的敏感度,並採協同合作取代專業性介入,進行家暴加害人處遇工作。也須考量加害人的個別差異性及需求,給予加、受害人有參與的機會,以設計適切的處遇方案達成責信的務實要求。
A study on the implication of
the domestic violence perpetrators treatment
Hung Lin Hsieh
Abstract
The research of "A study on the implication of the domestic violence perpetrators treatment” is for the main purpose to understand the subjective cognition of the treatment of effectiveness by those who are in the intervention system of the domestic violence perpetrators treatment like the three sides of work staff, perpetrator and victim. That can be expected to enhance the sensitivity of the interpreted treatment of effectiveness, to increase the accountability level of treatment, and to build up a proper assessment model for domestic violence perpetrators treatment. The research visited 11 work staffs, 7 perpetrators, 6 victims, respectively discussed the work staffs’ implication of the treatment of effectiveness, the perpetrators perceived responses to the process, and the victims expectation for the perpetrators treatment to look forward to receiving the three degrees of similarities and differences direction. The research is by the qualitative research study with grounded theory analysis and theory construction, trying to understand the association of the treatment of effectiveness, and to construct the assessment theoretical model with diversity.
The research found that there were a number of implications in the assessment model of the treatment of effectiveness as follows:
First, the attitude of work staffs affected the treatment of effectiveness. When work staffs intervened with "type of equal partners " during the treatment, they were more likely to respect the clients self-determination, subject and object compatibility, close to the client, mutual learning, and to avoid replication of right & control and so on, all these made perpetrators have a higher acceptance to the treatment.
On the contrast, if work staffs intervened with the "type of professional authority" for the treatment, the intervention by the hierarchical relationship, professional point of view, political manipulation, and excessive use of authoritative influence, not only failed to improve perpetrators learning willingness, and even turn against the work staffs, the overall would consume the treatment of effectiveness.
Second, for the treatment of effectiveness, the action modes and the assessment system would be mutually positive reinforcement and weakened effectiveness.
(A) When work staffs were supported by the institution, the positive energy would increase, but when the institutional support was not good enough, it would result in business overloaded, hierarchical medical exploitation, the non-voluntary workers created, it would weaken the treatment of effectiveness.
(B) For perpetrators, due to non-voluntary client's property, dissatisfaction with the domestic violence system and the justice complaints, the treatment of effectiveness would be weakened. In addition, due to perpetrators self-change and their heterogeneity, etc., it would affect the assessment of treatment of effectiveness at the possibility of bias and mistakes.
(C) Justice system on the recidivism cognition of the treatment of effectiveness and the legal constraints of perpetrators, not only affected the effectiveness, but also interfered with the accuracy of the assessment.
(D) For victims, because of the problems arising from domestic violence and the trauma from battered experience, which would cause them to have the differences on the expectations of effectiveness, and they still lived with the perpetrators, and owing to the involvement of the judicial system, it was a tension condition. Both perpetrators and victims Implicated in such covariant relations, would sometimes weaken the effectiveness.
Third, the changed model for work staffs and the cognition distance of effectiveness for perpetrators.
The execution of the domestic violence treatment was directly or indirectly affected by the above systems, and would cause the distance differences between work staffs and perpetrators on the implication of effectiveness and the perceived responses. If the action modes of the systems were with positive energy, the cognition distance of effectiveness would gradually achieve consistency, but when systems weakened each other mutually, their cognition distance of effectiveness would gradually expand, and make the perpetrators with the attitude approaching profit and avoiding loss, half-hearted to the overall process of treatment.
According to the above findings, most importantly, work staffs should require their attitude to promote perpetrators motivation, not only to respect the will of perpetrator's self-determination, and to think all times by multiple positions to concern, and to avoid copying the sensitivity of paternity, and to adopt collaboration against professional intervention for perpetrators of domestic violence to proceed the treatment, but also need to consider the perpetrator's individual differences and needs and give perpetrators and victims opportunities to participate to design proper treatment programs to achieve accountability of the pragmatic requirements.
參考書目
王行、鄭玉英 (2002)。毛毛蟲與變形蟲:為「施虐者輔導」之行動研究中知識建構的「變」。東吳大學社會工作學報,8,153-181。new window
王行、鄭玉英 (2004)。對「案主」的輔導行動。載於王行、仇立琪、黃元亭、鄭玉英合著。親職暴力處遇-介入與省思(頁265-302)。台北:心理。new window
王行 (2005)。兒少保護工作中降低施暴風險的策略初探:以強制性親職教育輔導的執行為例。臺大社工學刊,12,139-198。new window
王行 (2007)。文化與政治下的權力與暴力:輔導被認定的施虐者之思辨敘事。應用心理研究,34,229-252。new window
王佳煌、潘中道(譯)( 2002)。當代社會研究法:質化與量化途徑。(原作者:W. L. Neuman)。台北:學富。(原著出版年:2002)。
王佩玲、黃志中 (2005)。家庭暴力加害人處遇模式成效評估之研究。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會委託研究報告。(PG9403-0368)。
王秀雯、呂勻琦、郭世豐、陳玫伶、曾華源、黃俐婷、黃韻如、趙善如、劉珠利(譯)( 2006)。社會工作直接服務-理論與技巧(第六版)。(原作者:D. H. Hepworth, R. H. Rooney & J. A. Larsen)。 台北:洪葉。(原著出版年:2002)。
王翠彬、陳雯婷 (2005)。運用認知治療於重鬱症患者之護理經驗。護理雜誌,52(1),74-79。new window
王慧玲、連雅慧(譯)( 2002)。家族治療概論。(原作者:M. P. Nichols & R. C. Schwartz)。台北:洪葉。(原著出版年:1998)。
王叢桂 (2004)。家暴事件中助人工作者的專業判斷與和諧價值的關聯。本土心理研究,21,127-161。new window
方紫薇、馬宗潔(譯)(2001)。團體心理治療的理論與實務。(原作者:I. D. Yalom)。台北:桂冠。(原著出版年:1995)。
史卉、樊富珉 (2007)。一個成長性團體的治療性因素。中國臨床心理學雜誌,15(1),108-110。
古永利、張永源、唐子俊、龍佛衛、陳能清、孫家瑞 (2010)。Beck憂鬱認知模式中不同認知因子關係之檢驗。中華心理學刊,52(1),47-56。new window
司法院 (2010)。統計調查資料。hhtp://www.judicial.gov.tw/
伍育英、鄭玉英、杜長齡 (2009)。多重夫妻支持性團體模式效果之初探—以高風險家庭為例。教育心理學報,41,(諮商實務與訓練專刊),185-204。new window
成蒂 (2004)。終結婚姻暴力:加害人處遇與諮商。台北:心理。
成蒂 (2008)。台北縣家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心—以「受害人安全至上」為目標的家庭暴力加害人處遇系統。全國家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁66-104)。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會主辦。
朱惠英(譯)( 2007)。家庭暴力加害人處遇團體方案手冊:Emerge模式。(原作者:Emerg)。台北:張老師。(原著出版年:1996)。
肖凌燕 (2008)。女性遭受家庭暴力的原因分析及心理治療。西北農林科技大學學報,8(6),132-135。
宋麗玉、施教裕 (2009)。優勢觀點—社會工作理論與實務。台北:洪葉。new window
宋麗玉 (2009)。優勢觀點社會工作概論。載於宋麗玉、施教裕合著。優勢觀點—社會工作理論與實務(頁41-68)。台北:洪葉。new window
宋鎮照 (2000)。團體動力學。台北:五南。
李立維、梁瑞芸、黃玉蓮、黃柏蒼、游勝翔、劉于涵、潘元健、韓德彥、蘇逸人、龔怡文(譯)(2009)。心理疾患衡鑑與治療計畫手冊。(原作者:M. M. Antony & D. H. Barlow) 。台北:心理。(原著出版年:2002)。
李文瑄 (2000)。婚姻暴力的客體關係觀(七)。諮商與輔導,175,24-28。
李中澤、黃澤云 (2008)。性別的巨大差異—全球女性從屬特徵的文化、認知與社會基礎。國外社會科學,2008(2),32-37。
李芳雅 (2009)。從生態系統的觀點探討婚姻暴力與再犯預防策略。諮商與輔導,283,37-44。
李茂興、余伯泉(譯)( 1995)。社會心理學。(原作者:E. Aronson, T. D. Wilson & R. Akert)。台北:揚智、弘智文化。(原著出版年:1994)。
李雅琪 (2008)。高雄縣私立高雄仁愛之家附設慈惠醫院家庭暴力加害人認知輔導團體處遇模式。全國家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁105-123)。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會主辦。
李清茵 (2004)。家庭互動行為、心理需求滿足、關係滿意度與幸福感之相關研究。屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文。
李靜 (2004)。性別角色刻板印象與女性發展的民族學研究。貴州民族研究,24(2),22-27。
李娟娟、張達人、謝宏林、王梅麗、張芳榮 (2005)。婚姻暴力加害人認知教育與情緒支持團體之療效探討。中華團體心理處遇,11(3),1-18。new window
邱美華、謝麗紅 (2009)。焦點解決團體諮商領導者意圖與成員知覺一致性分析。中華輔導與諮商學報,25,1-38。new window
邱紫珚 (2001)。受暴婦女接受處遇相關因素之研究。暨南大學社會政策與社會工作系碩士論文。未出版。
沈慶鴻 (2004)。從保護令聲請經驗思考大陸配偶婚姻暴力上的處境。社區發展季刊,105,309-317。new window
沈慶鴻、郭豐榮(2005)。強制戒癮家暴加害人飲酒經驗、戒癮態度及暴力行為之研究。中華心理衛生學刋,18(4),31-53。new window
何淵 (2006)。親密與傷害:美國家庭暴力中受害婦女的法律保護。婦女研究論叢,1~70,59-62。
周玉真 (2007)。焦點解決親職團體之團體效果與療效因素分析。教育心理學報,39(1),1-21。new window
周群英、周文蓮 (2006)。就業性別歧視的文化機制分析。中國礦業大學學報,3,90-95。
周詩寧(譯)( 2004)。預防家庭暴力。(原作者:K. Browne & M. Herbert)。台北:五南。(原著出版年:1997)。
吳芝儀、廖梅花(譯)( 2001)。質性研究入門:紮根理論研究方法。(原作者:A. Steauss & J. Corbin)。嘉義:濤石。(原著出版年:1998)。
吳武典、洪有義、張德聰 (2005)。團體輔導。台北:心理。
吳慈恩、黃志中 (2008)。婚姻暴力醫療處遇。台北:復文。
林世棋、陳筱萍、張鳳卿、周煌智 (2007)。家庭暴力加害人處遇執行現況。台灣精神醫學,21(3),208-217。new window
林彥如、陳祐蓉、曾雯琦、周桂如 (2007)。團體凝聚力的概念分析。護理雜誌,54(5),82-87。new window
林家興 (2010)。哪些因素最能預測親職教育團體的效果?教育心理學報,41(4),847-858。new window
林明傑 (2000)。美加婚姻暴力之治療方案與技術暨其危險評估。社區發展季刊。90,197-215。new window
林明傑 (2001)。家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫-美國與我國之現況探討。律師雜誌,267,63-76。
林明傑 (2004)。婚姻暴力犯之心理病理及危險評估。載於林明傑、沈勝昂、陳慧女、曾冬勝、鄭添成、潘昱萱、李連冀、董子毅、曾姿雅、張晏綾、陳美燕、周茜苓、范兆興合著。法律犯罪心理學(頁149-182)。台北:雙葉。new window
林明傑、黃志中 (2008)。家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導模式之流程與課程—以現實療法與再犯預防為取向之認知行為療法。全國家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁177-225)。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會主辦。new window
林娟如、周桂如、夏一新 (2010)。認知行為治療於精神分裂症患者的運用。長庚護理,21(1),41-48。new window
林佩瑾 (1998)。女性主義社會工作的實踐與婚姻暴力防治,社區發展季刊,84,86-94。new window
林瑞欽 (2004)。認知重構團體療法對吸毒者戒治成效之研究。行政院衛生署九十三年度科技研究計畫。DOH93-TD-M-113-027
林麗珊 (2001)。女性主義的發展與意義。學生輔導通訊,27,86-89。
洪鎌德 (2004)。西方馬克思主義。台北:揚智文化。new window
柯麗評、張錦麗 (2007)。醫療系統回應家庭暴力。。柯麗評、王佩玲、張錦麗著。家庭暴力—理論政策與實務。台北:巨流。
柯麗評 (2007)。婦女難以離開虐待關係因素之探討與暴力循環介紹。載於柯麗評、王佩玲、張錦麗著。家庭暴力—理論政策與實務(頁44-57)。台北:巨流。
胡幼慧、姚美華 (1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。載於胡幼慧主編。質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁141-158)。台北:巨流。
馬品懿、劉斌 (2006)。 家庭暴力犯罪問題與研究。河北師範大學學報,29(5),38-42。
孫碧霞、劉曉春、邱方晞、曾華源(譯)(2000)。社會團體工作。(原作者:C. D. Garvin)。台北:洪葉。(原著出版年:1997)。
孫蕾揚、鍾海燕 (2005)。家庭暴力問題的解決機制分析。徐州工程學院學報,20(4),56-57。
施教裕 (2005)。系統理論觀點。載於宋麗玉、曾華源、施教裕、鄭麗珍著。社會工作理論---處遇模式與案例分析(頁215-247)。台北:洪葉。
施教裕 (2009)。優勢觀點的思想淵源和理論基礎。載於宋麗玉、施教裕合著。優勢觀點—社會工作理論與實務(頁135-150)。台北:洪葉。new window
郝大海(譯)( 2006)。社會研究法—定性和定量的取向。(原作者:W. L. Neuman)。北京:中國人民大學出版社。(原著出版年:2003)。
郝雁麗 (2007)。家庭暴力對婦女心理健康和社會支持水平的影響及小組輔導效能探討。陝西教育學院學報,23(3),60-63。
徐宗國(1996)。紮根理論研究法:淵源、原則、技術。胡幼慧主編。質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
翁樹澍&王大維(譯)(1999)。家族治療-理論與技術。(原作者:I. Goldenberg & H. Goldenberg)。台北:揚智文化。(原著出版年:1996)。
唐子俊、謝碧玲、唐慧芳、戴谷霖、黃詩殷(譯)( 2007)。人格障礙的認知行為治療。(原作者:A. T. Beck, A. Freeman, D. D. Davis & Associates)。台北:心理。(原著出版年:2004)。
唐子俊、唐慧芳、唐慧娟、黃詩殷、戴谷霖、孫肇玢、李怡珊、陳聿潔(譯)( 2008)。憂鬱症的內觀認知治療。(原作者:Z. V. Segal, J. M. Williams & J. d. Teasdale)。台北:五南 。(原著出版年:2002)。
郭玲妃、馬小萍 (2002)。雙重家鎖:受虐婦女的母職經驗。女學學誌-婦女與性別研究,13,47-90。new window
梁雅舒、張育嘉、羅振豐、趙文煜(譯)( 2003)。認知治療—基礎與進階。(原作者:J. S. Beck)。台北:揚智文化。(原著出版年:1995)。
陳志賢、徐西森、連廷嘉 (2008)。團體諮商對大學生人際困擾輔導效果及其治療性因素之研究。中華心理衛生學刊,21(1),1-25。new window
陳若平、張祐綾(譯)( 2007)。社會工作研究法。(原作者:A. Rubin & E. R. Babbie)。台北:五南。(原著出版年:2007)。
陳若璋 (1992)。台灣婚姻暴力之本質、歷程與影響。婦女與兩性學刊,3,117-147。new window
陳若璋、鍾明勳、陳筱萍、沈勝昂、林正修、唐心北、吳嘉瑜、黃健、黃介良、施志鴻、張盛堂、林佩芸 (2004)。本土性侵害加害人團體氣氛變化及療效因子。中華團體心理治療,10(3),1-15。new window
陳若璋、劉志如、林烘煜 (2007)。比較強暴犯與兒童性侵害犯接受團體治療之療效評估。中華輔導學報,22,1-31。new window
陳若璋 (2009)。大學諮商中心對親密關係暴力處遇內涵與倫理議題之探討。輔導與諮商學報,31(1),39-53。new window
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北:五南。new window
陳高凌 (2001)。義與面子在華人家庭暴力裡的運作及其對處遇之啟示。本土心理學研究,15,63-111。new window
陳正元、陳怡君 (2001)。從家庭關係探討老年婦女受虐問題。社區發展季刊,94,158-169。new window
陳金燕、張貴傑、羅明華、張歆祐、洪慧涓、王大維、曾仁美、吳百能、羅幼瓊、邱美華、李旻陽、黃聖桂、楊淑娥、彭秀玲、游淑華(譯)( 2000)。諮商與心理處遇—多元文化觀點。(原作者:A. E. Ivey, M. B. Ivey & L. Simek-Morgan )。台北:五南。(原著出版年:1997)。
陳怡青 (2006)。整合性別平等與人本學派之輔導教育模式。95年度家庭暴力及性侵害犯罪加害人處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁1-96)。內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會主辦。
陳怡青 (2010)。從社會環境與文化價值的觀點談酒精濫用與家庭暴力。家庭暴力加害人處遇觀摩研討會手冊(頁49-52)。主辨單位:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
陳明志 (2001)。探討警察人員處理家庭暴力事件之問題。社區發展季刊,94,317-329。new window
陳明珠、陳俊宏 (2009)。聯合治療在婚姻暴力的應用。諮商與輔導,283,45-49。
陳秋山、王玉馨、郭慧琳(譯)(2008)。社工質性研究。(原作者:S. Ian & G. Nick)。台北:華都文化。(原著出版年:2001)。
陳健志 (2002)。人力資本差異或性別歧視?就業市場性別階層化之探討。人文及社會科學集刊,14(3),363-407。
陳雅英 (2008)。發展與非自願個案工作的原則與重點—以家暴個案為例。全國家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁298-337)。主辦單位:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
陳婉真、吳國慶 (2006)。焦慮處理訓練團體之有效性評估。中華心理衛生學刊,2,149-176。new window
陳筱萍、卓紋君 (2009)。婚姻互動、飲酒行為與暴力行為之分析—以一對婚姻暴力夫妻為例。諮商輔導學報,21,1-38。new window
陳曉逸 (2008)。婚姻暴力事件中對受暴者處遇之倫理議題—以受暴婦女作出發—甜密的負擔不是罪?諮商與輔導,268,37-42。
陳婷蕙 (1997)。婚姻暴力中受虐婦女對脫離受虐關係的因應行為之研究。東海大學社會工作系碩士論文。未出版。
賀羡、林美卿 (2008)。我國女性遭受家庭暴力的根源與對策分析-以馬克思主義異化理論為視角。青島農業大學學報,20(4),67-71。
彭韻治 (2006)。攻擊背後的真相—與男性暴力行為相關之內在特質因素。諮商與輔導,251,43-47。
張如杏 (2009)。台灣精神醫療社會工作專業發展與危機。臺灣社會工作學刊,6,119-145。new window
張傳琳 (2003)。現實治療法理論與實務。台北:心理。
張錦麗 (2007)。家庭暴力防治成效評估。載於柯麗評、王佩玲、張錦麗著。家庭暴力—理論政策與實務(頁310-335)。台北:巨流。
張錦麗、柯麗評 (2007)。醫療系統回應家庭暴力。載於柯麗評、王佩玲、張錦麗著。家庭暴力—理論政策與實務(頁137-165)。台北:巨流。
曾華源、翁毓秀、趙善如、李自強、胡慧嫈、龍紀萱、張秀玉、謝宏林(譯) (2010)。社會工作直接服務—理論與技巧(第八版)。(原作者:D. H. Hepworth, R. H. Rooney, G. D. Rooney, K. Strom-Gottfried & J. Larsen)。台北:洪葉。(原著出版年:2010)。
黃煜文(譯)( 2004)。錯的是我們不是我—家暴的動力關係。 (原作者:L. G. Mills)。台北:商周。(原著出版年:2003)。
黃志中 (2002)。現實治療之家庭暴力加害人認知輔導教育團體。中華團體心理治療,8(2),2-8。new window
黃志中、吳慈恩、陳筱萍、周煌智 (2005)。家庭暴力加害人處遇之「無酒害教育團體」方案。社區發展季刊,109,500-513。new window
黃彥宜 (2009)。保護性業務一線社會工作者職場暴力之初探:權力的觀點。臺灣社會工作學刊,6,79-118。new window
黃明慧、黃宗堅 (2004)。婚姻暴力受虐婦女療癒歷程:以Bowen代間系統理論之處遇為例。輔導季刊,40(2),42-53。new window
黃怡瑾 (2002)。婚暴問題:停與走出。性別與權力的省思—從家庭暴力與性侵害議題出發(頁2-6)。主辦單位:內政部家庭暴力暨性侵害防治委員會、財團法人現代婦女教育基金會。
黃惠雯、童琬芬、梁文蓁、林兆衛(譯)( 2003)。質性方法與研究。(原作者:W. L. Miller & B. F. Carbtree)。台北:韋伯。(原著出版年:1999)。
黃瑞琴 (1994)。質的教育研究方法。台北:心理。
董屹 (2006)。對加拿大魁北克省夫妻暴力干預實踐及其特點的分析。中華女子學院學報,18(6),52-58。
湯琇雅 (1993)。婚姻暴力中婦女受虐狀況與其因應過程之初探。東吳大學社會工作研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鳳笑天(譯)( 2007)。定性研究方法論基礎。(原作者:N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln)。重慶市:重慶大學出版社。(原著出版年:2003)。
翟宗悌(譯)( 2001)。青少年團體治療-認知行為互動取向。(原作者:S. d. Rose)。台北:學富。(原著出版年:2001)。
楊連謙、葉光輝、董秀珠、胡訓慈 (2004)。弱勢婚暴加害人的困獸之鬥:論述進入醫療體系婚暴夫妻的權力歷程與處遇模式。行政院衛生署九十三年委託研究計畫。DOH93-TD-M-113-020。
楊筱華(譯)(1999)。動機式晤談法—如何克服成癮行為戒除前的心理衝突。(原作者:R. W. Miller & S. Rollnick)。台北:心理。(原著出版年:1991)。
蔡欣茹 (2005)。遭受婚姻暴力婦女在婚姻關係中自我認定之初探。諮商與輔導,233,20-22。
蔡宗晃、鄭瑞隆、吳岳秀(2005)。男性憂鬱、酒癮及暴力之相關性及評估。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,1(1),163-186。new window
趙幸福、張業林、付文清、周雲飛、李鶴展、袁國楨 (2008)。家庭暴力循環影響因素分析。中國公共衛生,24(5),631-632。
趙曉娟 (2010)。家庭暴力加害人處遇團體中各種衝突面貌與因應方式。家庭暴力加害人處遇觀摩研討會手冊(頁53-74)。主辨單位:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
鄧惠泉、湯華盛(譯)(2001)。團體心理治療。(原作者:S. Vinogradov & I. D. Yalom)。台北:五南。(原著出版年:1989)。
鄭青玫 (2010)。男性婚暴加害人處遇團體療效因素變化歷程之初探研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,6(1),239-252。new window
鄭麗珍 (2005)。增強權能理論與倡導。載於宋麗玉、曾華源、、施教裕、鄭麗珍著。社會工作理論---處遇模式與案例分析(頁407-440)。台北:洪葉。
鄭瑞隆、王文中 (2002)。家庭暴力加害人特質與處遇評估工具之研究。內政部委託研究計畫。MOI-DVP-090-003。
鄭瑞隆 (2004)。家庭暴力社工員專業服務困境與改進措施之研究。犯罪學期刊,7(2),129-163。new window
劉小菁(譯)(2002)。理情行為治療。(原作者:A. Ellis)。台北:張老師。(原著出版年:1998)。
劉秀娟 (2001)。臺灣教師婚姻暴力意象的研究。國立臺灣師範大學家庭教育所博士論文。未出版。new window
劉素芸、洪秀汝 (2008)。整合性別平等與人本學派之輔導教育模式—以團體經驗分享為例。全國家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁132-155)。主辦單位:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
劉耀文 (2005)。簡評認知—行為療法。焦作師範高等專科學校學報,21(4), 40-42。
廖梓辰 (2002)。家庭人際互動與家庭和諧、幸福感之相關研究。屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文,未出版。
潘雅惠 (2007)。婚暴婦女增權展能的學習—從女性主義教育學的觀點談起。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊,3(2),63-87。new window
潘淑滿 (2003)。婚姻暴力的性別政治。女學雜誌,15,195-253。new window
潘淑滿 (2007)。親密暴力—多重身分與權力流動。台北:心理。new window
歐吉桐、黃耀興、林曉卿(譯)( 2009)。物質濫用的團體治療—改變階段的治療手冊。(原作者:M. M. Velasquez, G. G. Maurer, C. Crouch & C. C. DiClemente)。台北:心理。(原著出版年:2001)。
盧靜芬(譯)(2005)。理性情緒行為治療—抗拒的處理。(原作者:A. Ellis)。台北:心理。(原著出版年:2002)。
魏希聖、鄭怡世(譯)( 2005)。方案評估—原理與實務。(原作者:C. Robson)。台北:洪葉。(原著出版年:2000)。
顏農秋 (2007)。家庭暴力的預防救助體系建設當議。佛山科學技術學院學報,25(5),87-90。
謝金鳳 (2005)。認知療法案例研究。荊門職業技術學院學報,20(6),59-61。
謝宏林 (2003)。家庭暴力加害人與受害人互動關係探討。行政院衛生署所屬醫院研究發展計畫。編號:92146。
謝宏林 (2008)。親密暴力加害人認知輔導教育團體本土經驗之回顧與展望。全國家庭暴力加害人認知教育輔導處遇模式觀摩研討會手冊(頁226-297)。主辦單位:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
謝宏林 (2010)。家暴加害人認知行為取向評鑑研究初探—論「再犯」合適性。家庭暴力加害人處遇觀摩研討會手冊(頁83-102)。主辨單位:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會。
蘇益志 (2003)。家庭暴力加害人在處遇過程中的抗拒現象之解析與因應。社區發展季刊,103,207-212。new window
簡春安、鄒平儀 (2004)。社會工作研究法。台北:巨流。new window
簡瑞良、張美華 (2004)。認知行為處遇在處理憤怒問題的運用。諮商與輔導,231,34-38。
羅國英、張紉(譯)( 2008)。方案評估--方法及案例討論。(原作者:E. J. Posavac & R. G. Carey)。台北:雙葉。(原著出版年:2003)。
Adams, D. (2000). The emerge program. In J. Hanmer & C. Itzin, Home truths about domestic violence: Feminist influences on policy and practice a reader(pp. 310–322). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: an empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 4(2), 163–191.
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research7th (Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self control. New York: Freeman.
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford Press.
Becvar, D. S., & Becvar, R. J. (2006). Family therapy—A systemic integration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Belknap, J., & Potter, H. (2005). The trials of measuring the “success” of domestic violence policies. Criminology & Public policy, 4(3), 559-566.
Blacker, J., Watson, A., & Beech, A. (2008). A combined drama-based and CBT approach to working with self-reported anger aggression. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18, 129-137.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Gardner.
Bowen, E., & Gilchrist, E. (2004). Do court- and self-referred domestic violence offenders share the same characteristics? A preliminary comparison of motivation to change, locus of control and anger. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 279-294.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Brown, J. (1999). Bowen family systems theory and practice: Illustration and critique. A.N.Z.J. Fam. Ther, 20(2), 94-103.
Brown, J. (2005). The therapy triangle: Empowering you with the knowledge to heal/emotional cutoff: Bowen family systems theory. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 26(2), 115-116.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Violence against women. Washington, DC: Author.
Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cho, H., & Wilke, D. J. (2005). How has the violence against women act affected the response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(4), 125-139.
Corey, M. S. & Corey, G. (1997). Groups: Process and practice5th (Ed.). California: Brooks/Cole.
Corey, G., Corey, M. S. & Callanan, P. (2003). Issues & Ethics in the helping professions6th(Eds.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
Corey, G.(2005). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy7th
(Ed.)., Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learing.
Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. B. (1998). The deterrent effect of prosecuting domestic violence misdemeanours. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 434-442, as cited in Bowen, E. & Gilchrist, E. (2004). Do court- and self-referred domestic violence offenders share the same characteristics? A preliminary comparison of motivation to change, locus of control and anger. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 279-294.
Davies, L., Ford-Gilboe, M., & Hammerton, J. (2009). Gender inequality and patterns of abuse post leaving. J Fam Viol, 24, 27-39.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral approaches to anger reduction. In K. S. Dobson & K. D. Craig (Eds.)., Advances in cognitive-behavioral therapy (pp. 31-61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2001). Co-constructing cooperation with mandated clients. Social Work, 46(4), 361–374.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (2000). Confronting violent men. In J. Hanmer & C. Itzin, Home truths about domestic violence: Feminist influences on policy and practice a reader(pp. 289–309). New York: Routledge.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (2000). Evaluating criminal justice interventions for domestic violence. Crime an Delinquency, 46, 252-270, as cited in Freeman, M. (2008). Domestic violence(pp. 249–267). London: Ashgate.
Dobash, R. E. (2003). Domestic violence: Arrest, prosecut, and reducing violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(2), 313-318.
Dominelli, L. (1997). Sociology for social work. London: Macmilian.
Donigian, J. & Hulse-Killacky, D. (1999). Critical incidents in group therapy2th (Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learing.
Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego navy experiment: An assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 468-476, as cited in Bowen, E. & Gilchrist, E. (2004). Do court- and self-referred domestic violence offenders share the same characteristics? A preliminary comparison of motivation to change, locus of control and anger. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 279-294.
Dutton, D. G. (1995). The batterer: A psychological profile. New York: Basic Books.
Eckhardt, C. I., & Dye, M. L. (2000).The cognitive characteristics of martially violent men: Theory and evidence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(2), 139-158.
Ellis, A. (1995a). Fundamentals of rational emotive behavior therapy for the 1990s. In W. Dryden (Ed.)., Rational emotive behaviour therapy: A reader (pp. 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ellis, A. (1995b). Rational-emotive therapy approaches to overcoming resistance. In W. Dryden (Ed.)., Rational emotive behaviour therapy: A reader(pp. 184-211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Engel, R. J. & Schutt, R. K. (2005). The practice of research in social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fall, K. A., & Howard, S. (2004). Alternatives to domestic violence: A homework manual for battering intervention groups. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Fals-Stewart, W. (2003). The occurrence of partner physical aggression on days of alcohol consumption: A longitudinal diary study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 41-52.
Feder, L., & Forde, D. R. (2000). Test of the efficacy of court Mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The broward experiment, executive summary. Washington: National Institute of Justice, as cited in Bowen, E., & Gilchrist, E. (2004). Do court- and self-referred domestic violence offenders share the same characteristics? A preliminary comparison of motivation to change, locus of control and anger. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 279-294.
Finn, J. L., & Jacobson, M. (2003). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work. Peosta, IA: Eddie Bowers.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines3th (Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2000). When ending the relationship does not end the violence: women’s experiences of violence by former partners. Violence Against Women, 6(12), 1363–1383.
Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes, and recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Partner violence typologies. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment(pp. 145–163). New York: Springer.
Hamel, J. (2007). Gender-inclusive family interventions in domestic violence: An overview. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment(pp. 247–273). New York: Springer.
Hanson, B. (2002). Intervention for batterers: Program approach, program tensions. In A. R. Roberts (Eds.) Handbook of domestic violence intervention strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hazlewood, L. (2007). Systems considerations in working with court-ordered domestic violence offenders. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment(pp. 341–361). New York: Springer.
Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H., & Larsen, J. A. (2010). Direct social work practice : Theory and skills 8th. Wadsworth: Thomson.
Hilton, N. Z., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Predicting wife assault: A critical review and implications for policy and practice. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(1), 3-23.
Holden, D. J., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2009). Evaluation planning here and now. In D. J. Holden, & M. A. Zimmerman (Eds.) A practical guide to program evaluation planning(pp. 7–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jansson, B. S. (2008). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy to social justice5th (Ed.), Belmont, CA: Thomson Books.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Kagle, J. D. (1994). Should systematic assessment, monitoring and evaluation tools be used as empowerment aids for clients? Rejoiner to Dr. Jayaratne. In
W. W. Hudson & P. S. Nurius (Eds.) Controversial issues in social work research (pp. 88–92). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Koenig, M. A., Stephenson, R., Anmed, S., Jeieebhoy, S. J., &Campbell, J. (2006). Indivdual and contextual determinants of domestic violence in North India. American Joural of Public Health, 96(1), 132-138.
Lawson, D. M., & Rivera, S. (2008). Male partner abusers’ perceptions of family relationship functioning: A comparison of clinically derived abuser types. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(1), 59-79.
Lewis, R., Dobash, R., Dobash, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. (2000). Protection, prevention, rehabilitation or justice? Women’s use of the law to challenge domestic violence. International Review of Victimology, 7, 179-205, as cited in Freeman, M. (2008). Domestic violence (pp. 171–197). London: Ashgate.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Lutze, F. E., & Symons, M. L. (2003). The evolution of domestic violence policy through masculine institutions. Criminology & Public, 2, 319-328.
Mahoney, M. (1991). Legal images of battered women: redefining the issue of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 1–94.
Malley-Morrison, K., & Hines, D. A. (2004). Family violence in a cultural perspective : defining, understanding, and combating abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Malley-Morrison, K., & Hines, D. A. (2005). Family violence in the United States—defining, understanding, and combating abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Marcus, R. F., & Swett,B. (2003). Violence in close relationship: The role of emotion. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 313-327.
Marsh, J. C. (2002). Learning from clients. Social Work, 47(4), 341–342.
Mignon,S.I.(2002). Family abuse: consequences, theories, and responses. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Morris, A., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2000). Re-visioning men’s violence against female partner’s. Howard Journal of Penal Reform, 39, 412-428, as cited in Freeman, M. (2008). Domestic violence (pp. 455–471). London: Ashgate.
Mullender, A. (2002). Rethinking domestic violence: The social work and probation response(3th). New York: Routledge.
Murphy, B. C., & Dillon, C. (1998). Interviewing in action: Process and practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory. New York: Macmillan.
Pence, E. L., & McDonnell, C. (2000). Developing policies and protocols in Duluth, Minnesota. In J. Hanmer & C. Itzin(Eds.), Home truths about domestic violence: Feminist influences on policy and practice a reader(pp. 249–268). New York: Routledge.
Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2001). Assessment and evaluation of men who batter women. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(4), 38-41.
Pinard, G., & Pagani, L. (2001). Clinical assessment of dangerousness. Unite Kingdom: Cambridge University.
Posavac, E. J. (1995). Program quality and program effectiveness: A review of evaluations of programs to reduce excessive medical diagnostic testing. Program Planning and Evaluation, 18, 1-11.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2007). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies7th (Eds.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Potter-Efron, R. T. (2007). Anger, aggression, domestic violence, and substance abuse. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 437–456). New York: Springer.
Reamer, F. G. (1995). Malpractice claims against social workers: First facts. Social Work, 40(5), 595–601.
Richards, J. C., MacLachlan, A. J., Scott, W., & Gregory, R. (2004). Understanding male domestic partner abusers: Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. Australian Institute of Criminology, 283, 1-6.
Romito, P. (2008). A deafening silence: Hidden violence against women and children. Bristol : Policy.
Rooney, G. D. (2009). Oppression and involuntary status. In R. H. Rooney (Ed.). Strategies for work with involuntary clients (2nd Ed.). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach7th (Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Royse, D. (1995). Research methods in social work2th (Ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall, Inc.
Roy, M. (1992). Children in the crossfire: Violence in the home: How does it affect our children? Deerfield Beach: Health Communications, Inc.
Saarni, C. (1999).The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.
Salamon, S. (2003). Newcomers to old towns: Suburbanization of the heartland. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Scott, M. J., & Dryden, W. (1996). The cognitive-behavioural paradigm. In R. Woolfe, & W. Dryden (Eds.). Handbook of counseling psychology. London: Sage.
Serin, R. C., & Preston, D. L. (2001). Designing, implementing and managing treatment programs for violent offenders. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leshied (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation implementing in practice and evaluating effective programs. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Sheldon, B. (1995). Cognitive-behavioural therapy: Research, practice and philosophy. London: Routledge.
Sheridan, D. J., Glass, N., Limandri, B. J., & Poulos, C. A. (2007). Prediction of interpersonal violence: An introduction. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by batterers and child abusers (pp. 1–23). New York: Springer.
Smith, M. E. (2007). Self-deception among men who are mandated to attend a batterer intervention program. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 43(4), 193-203.
Stanford, M. S., Houston, R. J., & Baldridge, R. M. (2008). Comparison of impulsive and premeditated perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 709-722.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sue, D. W. (2006). Multicultural Social Work Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, M. (2007). Treatment of family violence: A systemic perspective. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 417–436). New York: Springer.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Tulloch, R. (1991). Anger and violence. In W. Dryden, & R. Rentoul (Eds.)., Adult clinical problems: A cognitive behavioural approach (pp. 86-113). New York: Routledge.
Van Ecke, Y., Emmelkamp, P. M., & Chope, R.C. (2006). Bowlby and Bowen: Attachment theory and family therapy. Counselling & Clinical Psychology Journal, 3(2), 81-108.
Varcoe, C. (1996). Theorizing oppression: implications of nursing research on violence against women. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 28, 61–78.
Varcoe, C. (2008). Inequality, violence and women’s health. In B. S. Bolaria, & H. Dickinson (Eds.), Health, illness and health care in anada4th(pp. 259–282). Toronto: Nelson.
Vetere, A., & Cooper, J. (2004). Wishful thinking or occam’s razor? Aresponse to dancing on a razor’s edge: Systemic group work with batterers’. Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 163-166.
Wallace, H. (2002). Family violence: legal,medical,and social perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Evaluating the economic efficiency of correctional intervention programs. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leshied (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation implementing in practice and evaluating effective programs. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Whitaker, D. S. & Lieberman, M. A. (2008). Psychotherapeutic change through the group process. New Jersey: Transaction.
White, W. (2004). Substance use and violence: Understanding the nuances of the relationship. The Addiction Professional, 13-19.
Wuest, J., Ford-Gilboe, M., Merritt-Gray, M., & Berman, H. (2003). Intrusion: the central problem for family health promotion among children and single mothers after leaving an abusive partner. Qualitative Health Research, 13(5), 597–622.
Yegidis, B. L. & Weinbach, R. W. (2006). Research methods for social workers5th (Eds.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE