What do the Public Understand About Intimate Partner Violence in the Context of Military Veteran Status and PTSD?

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychological Reports Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-29 DOI:10.1177/00332941231180104
Jessica Mackinnon, Rachel Paskell, Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis
{"title":"What do the Public Understand About Intimate Partner Violence in the Context of Military Veteran Status and PTSD?","authors":"Jessica Mackinnon, Rachel Paskell, Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis","doi":"10.1177/00332941231180104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) represents a significant public and social health concern and may present particular complexities in military veteran relationships which are subject to unique stressors including separations, transition to civilian life and increased risk of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Public understanding is vital in terms of ensuring access to services and appropriate intervention. However, little is known about the public perception of IPV in this context. This study sought to assess how public recognition and discourse is affected by military veteran status and a diagnosis of PTSD. Community participants (<i>N</i> = 269) were randomly allocated to one of four conditions and presented with a story containing IPV in which the profession (military veteran/civilian worker) and diagnostic status (PTSD/No PTSD) were manipulated. All participants rated the extent to which they felt the story contained IPV; additionally, half (<i>n</i> = 123) took part in a story completion task designed to elicit qualitative data with regards to public discourse. The mean scores in all conditions were weighted towards IPV recognition. Results indicated a small interaction between job role and PTSD (F[1265] = 7.888, <i>p</i> < 0.01, partial <i>n</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.029) meaning that the public are more likely to recognise IPV when it is perpetrated by a military veteran than a civilian with PTSD. Diagnostic status made no difference to recognising abuse perpetrated by a military veteran. However, the fit of the model was weak (<i>r</i><sup>2</sup> = .040) meaning that the large majority of variance was due to factors not accounted for. Qualitative findings indicated that in a military population trauma may be assumed even where not indicated and the public appear less likely to consider current stressors or acknowledge that PTSD cannot justify abuse. Victims of IPV in military relationships may therefore be particularly vulnerable to discourses that prioritise the victim status of the perpetrator.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"1708-1735"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11977833/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231180104","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) represents a significant public and social health concern and may present particular complexities in military veteran relationships which are subject to unique stressors including separations, transition to civilian life and increased risk of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Public understanding is vital in terms of ensuring access to services and appropriate intervention. However, little is known about the public perception of IPV in this context. This study sought to assess how public recognition and discourse is affected by military veteran status and a diagnosis of PTSD. Community participants (N = 269) were randomly allocated to one of four conditions and presented with a story containing IPV in which the profession (military veteran/civilian worker) and diagnostic status (PTSD/No PTSD) were manipulated. All participants rated the extent to which they felt the story contained IPV; additionally, half (n = 123) took part in a story completion task designed to elicit qualitative data with regards to public discourse. The mean scores in all conditions were weighted towards IPV recognition. Results indicated a small interaction between job role and PTSD (F[1265] = 7.888, p < 0.01, partial n2 = 0.029) meaning that the public are more likely to recognise IPV when it is perpetrated by a military veteran than a civilian with PTSD. Diagnostic status made no difference to recognising abuse perpetrated by a military veteran. However, the fit of the model was weak (r2 = .040) meaning that the large majority of variance was due to factors not accounted for. Qualitative findings indicated that in a military population trauma may be assumed even where not indicated and the public appear less likely to consider current stressors or acknowledge that PTSD cannot justify abuse. Victims of IPV in military relationships may therefore be particularly vulnerable to discourses that prioritise the victim status of the perpetrator.

在退伍军人身份和PTSD的背景下,公众对亲密伴侣暴力的理解是什么?
亲密伴侣暴力是一个重大的公共和社会健康问题,在退伍军人的关系中可能特别复杂,这种关系受到独特的压力因素的影响,包括分离、向平民生活的过渡以及创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)风险增加。在确保获得服务和适当干预方面,公众的理解至关重要。然而,在这种情况下,公众对IPV的看法知之甚少。本研究旨在评估退伍军人身份和PTSD诊断对公众认知和话语的影响。社区参与者(N = 269)被随机分配到四种情况中的一种,并呈现一个包含IPV的故事,其中职业(退伍军人/文职工作者)和诊断状态(创伤后应激障碍/无创伤后应激障碍)被操纵。所有参与者都对他们认为故事包含IPV的程度进行了评分;此外,一半(n = 123)参与了一个故事完成任务,该任务旨在获得有关公共话语的定性数据。所有条件下的平均得分都向IPV识别方向加权。结果表明,工作角色与创伤后应激障碍之间存在较小的交互作用(F[1265] = 7.888, p < 0.01,偏n2 = 0.029),这意味着公众更容易识别退伍军人而非患有创伤后应激障碍的平民犯下的IPV。诊断状态对识别退伍军人的虐待行为没有影响。然而,模型的拟合很弱(r2 = 0.040),这意味着大部分方差是由于未考虑的因素造成的。定性研究结果表明,在军人群体中,即使没有指出创伤,也可能被认为是创伤,公众似乎不太可能考虑当前的压力源,也不太可能承认创伤后应激障碍不能成为虐待的理由。因此,军事关系中IPV的受害者可能特别容易受到优先考虑加害者受害者地位的话语的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信