EXAMINING CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ELEMENT OF EMPOWERMENT IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICE PROVISION
By
Sara McGirr

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Psychology—Master of Arts
2014

ABSTRACT
EXAMINING CRITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ELEMENT OF EMPOWERMENT IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICE PROVISION
By
Sara McGirr
Most domestic violence (DV) service agencies work to raise DV survivors’ consciousness—
not just about the abuse they have experienced, but also about the systems they often face.
Critical consciousness-raising is one component of “empowering practices,” which is a related
goal of domestic violence programs. Despite the significance of these concepts to DV service
delivery, little is known about how consciousness-raising practices in the DV shelter context
impact survivors. For instance, the literature is not yet clear regarding how critical consciousness
is related to psychological outcomes such as self-efficacy among survivors of DV. In order to
explore these effects, 98 women were interviewed shortly after they left a DV shelter about their
experiences while accessing services. Results demonstrated that women who reported shelter
staff engaging in more DV consciousness-raising practice also reported greater shifts in their DV
critical consciousness, and subsequently their self-efficacy during their time in shelter. This
finding lends support to the assertion that gaining greater understanding of the effects of societywide oppression on one’s personal experiences can lead to a greater belief in one’s general
ability to meet one’s goals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

v

INTRODUCTION

1

LITERATURE REVIEW
Empowerment Theory
Empowering Practice in Domestic Violence Services
Critical Consciousness
Critical Consciousness and Domestic Violence Service Provision
Self-Efficacy as an Outcome of Critical Consciousness
Self-Efficacy Among Domestic Violence Survivors
Building Self-Efficacy
The Current Study

4
4
6
9
12
14
16
17
18

METHOD
Measures

21
21

RESULTS
Description of the Sample
Staff Engagement in Critical Consciousness-Raising
Relationship between Consciousness-Raising and Critical Consciousness
Relationship between Critical Consciousness and Self-Efficacy
Test of Mediation
Alternate Mediation Hypotheses

23
23
23
25
25
26
29

DISCUSSION
Limitations of the Study
Directions for Further Research

31
32
34

CONCLUSION

38

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B

39
40
41

REFERENCES

42

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Participant Demographics

40

Table 2. Average Scores on the Empowering Practices Scale Items by Shelter Sample

41

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Test of Mediation

28

Figure 2. Test of Alternate Mediation Model

30

v

INTRODUCTION
Domestic violence (DV), otherwise known as intimate partner violence (IPV) against
women, or woman battering, is described as “a pattern of physical, psychological, and often
sexual violence perpetrated by men against their female partners and ex-partners as a means of
exerting power and control over them” (Sullivan, 2003, p. 295). 1 Millions of women are abused
by male partners or ex-partners each year in the United States (Browne & Williams, 1993;
Johnson, 1995; Straus & Gelles, 1986). These violent assertions of power and control by
individual men against individual women are not isolated incidents. Instead, these private,
intimate interactions are sites of gender politics that result from and reproduce systemic
patriarchy and widespread sexist oppression (Connell, 2009). As was commonly said in the
Women’s Liberation movement, “the personal is political” (Hanisch, 1970).
Domestic violence committed by men against their female partners is a form of social control
that upholds a system of male dominance. Men’s position within the hierarchy of hegemonic
masculinity is in part dependent upon their ability to dominate women, particularly in
heterosexual relationships (Hill Collins, 2005; Pascoe, 2007). For some men, inflicting violence
is a logical or necessary aspect of this assertion of masculinity. The threat of or actual
perpetration of physical, sexual, or psychological violence is an attempt to strip women of their
power and agency, thus rendering them subject to the control of their partners (Hill Collins,

1

The author specifically speaks about violence against women because women disproportionately represent

survivors and men disproportionately represent abusers. Therefore, moving forward she will refer to survivors as
female and perpetrators as male. However, it is important to acknowledge that this is not intended to diminish the
experiences of male survivors, and does not absolve female perpetrators of violence against men or women.

1

2005). Domestic violence is a major social problem that demands widespread action to both
support survivors and work toward ending all violence against women.
Thousands of service and advocacy programs have been developed since the 1970s in
response to women’s experiences of intimate partner violence. These programs offer a variety of
services that support battered women in meeting the variety of needs they and their families may
have. Staff commonly engage in activities such as assisting survivors in developing safety plans,
connecting women to desired supports, and talking with survivors about the dynamics of abuse.
While these services and related impacts are certainly important in their own regard, many
programs also aim to support the long-term well being of women and their children through the
promotion of survivors’ empowerment (Kasturirangan, 2008). This involves interacting with
survivors in particular ways with the goal of helping them to increase their own personal,
interpersonal and sociopolitical power (Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999).
The empowerment approach is popular in domestic violence service delivery and is
commonly incorporated into models of practice (Kasturirangan, 2008). When engaging in
empowering practice, the staff member’s role is shifted from that of a professional helper or
expert to one of a facilitator or partner (Rappaport, 1987; Zimmerman, 2000). Those seeking
services are viewed as collaborators that have a primary, active role in the change process and in
agenda setting (Zimmerman, 2000). Many empowerment models describe the development of
critical consciousness as a necessary component of empowerment. Developing critical
consciousness (often through a process called consciousness-raising) involves learning to see
reality in a new critical way that reveals existing structures of inequity and one’s place in these
systems (Hopper, 1999). Despite the presence of this construct in empowerment theory, very
little is known about the extent to which programs actually incorporate consciousness-raising

2

into their practice or how this impacts participants.
This study proposes to explore consciousness-raising practices and the development of
critical consciousness in the DV shelter context by empirically examining four questions: 1) To
what extent do staff engage in activities designed to raise consciousness? 2) Are the
consciousness-raising practices of staff at domestic violence shelters related to the development
of critical consciousness among survivors of domestic violence? 3) Is the development of critical
consciousness related to the development of self-efficacy? and 4) Does the development of DV
critical consciousness mediate the relationship between consciousness-raising practices and the
development of self-efficacy?
The following literature review examines the role of critical consciousness as an element of
empowering practice in domestic violence service delivery. The review begins with a brief
introduction to the community psychology and domestic violence literature on empowerment, as
well as the literature on critical consciousness and its hypothesized impacts on well-being.
The relationship between critical consciousness and empowerment is considered, and current
practices in domestic violence programs are examined. Finally, hypotheses are presented for a
study examining the connections among empowerment, critical consciousness and women’s
sense of self-efficacy in domestic violence service delivery.

3

LITERATURE REVIEW

Empowerment Theory
Empowerment involves the development of individuals’ personal, interpersonal and
sociopolitical power. It has long been a key concept in community psychology, as well as in
related disciplines such as social work and critical, liberation, multicultural and feminist
psychology. Empowerment is central to the work of improving individual, organizational and
community well-being. It highlights material, social and political resources and injustices, while
focusing on the strengths of individuals and communities to work toward positive change
(Zimmerman, 2000). This concept is compelling in nature and broadly discussed in research,
practice and social action, yet there remains a great deal of ambiguity and inconsistency in the
ways the literature has defined or measured it (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). Although a
comprehensive examination of the empowerment literature is beyond the scope of this review,
key concepts of empowerment theory as discussed in community psychology are outlined below
to provide a basic understanding of its tenets.
Empowerment is a multilevel construct (Rappaport, 1987), including individual,
organizational and community elements (Zimmerman, 2000). The levels of analysis impact each
other (Rappaport, 1987), such that characteristics of each level and/or changes in each level are
both a cause and a consequence of other levels’ characteristics or changes (Zimmerman, 2000).
At every level, empowerment includes both processes (means by which people learn, develop
skills, and grow) and outcomes (measureable consequences of the processes that can be studied)
(Zimmerman, 2000).
On an individual level, the outcomes of “psychological” empowerment may include change
in intrapersonal, interactional and behavioral outcomes (Zimmerman, 2000). Intrapersonal
4

changes include improvements in self evaluation and self esteem (Worrell & Remer, 2003), selfefficacy (Busch & Valentine, 2000; Kasturirangan, 2008; McDermott & Garofalo, 2004; Peled,
Eisikovits, Enos, &Winstock, 2000; Song, 2012), and sense of mastery of
environment/influencing the outside world (Kaminski, Kaufman, Graubarth, & Robins, 2000;
Kasturirangan, 2008; Lamb, 2001; McDermott & Garofalo, 2004; Peled, Eisikovits, Enos,
&Winstock, 2000; Song, 2012). Interactional changes involve taking a more active approach to
problem solving (Kaminski, Kaufman, Graubarth, & Robins, 2000; Lamb, 2001), improvements
in assertiveness (Song, 2006; Wright, Perez, & Johnson, 2010), and increased political
understanding or group consciousness (Busch & Valentine, 2000; Kaminski et al., 2000; Perez,
Johnson, & Wright, 2012). Finally, behavioral changes proposed by the literature include taking
personal or collective action against systems of oppression (Song, 2012) through socially
constructive activism (Perez et al., 2012). These outcomes are purported to be the result of
empowering individual processes, including participation in community organizations, managing
one’s own resources, or learning new skills (Zimmerman, 2000).
While empowerment theory has been a significant force in shaping community psychology
thought, social service practice, and education over several decades, these ideas have also come
under scrutiny. A recurring critique of empowerment theory challenges its lack of specificity
regarding its application to real world situations. Even a simple internet search of the term
“empowerment” demonstrates the incredible range of programs with vastly differing goals and
practices that all claim to be empowerment based (Busch & Valentine, 2000). While the
flexibility to tailor content to be specific to context is purported to be one of the key tenets in
facilitating the effectiveness of such processes (Zimmerman, 2000), studies have demonstrated
that, even within the same context, practices that may be empowering for one individual in a

5

population may not be empowering for another (Foster-Fishman, Salem, Chibnall, Legler, &
Yapchai, 1998). Therefore researchers, practitioners and policy-makers hoping to incorporate
principles of empowerment into programs and initiatives struggle to know how individually
tailored a program needs to be in order to promote empowerment processes across participants.
Despite the relatively ambiguous meaning of this term and the challenges of the approach, the
movement to end violence against women has largely embraced empowerment as a key tenet of
much of its work.
Empowering Practice in Domestic Violence Services
Many programs designed to help domestic violence survivors strive to engage in
“empowering practices,” and/or name empowerment as one of the goals of their programs
(Kasturirangan, 2008). When seeking help from domestic violence services, women often
receive assistance with things such as safety planning (Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012;
McDermott & Garofalo, 2004), developing coping strategies (Johsnon, Worell, & Chandler,
2005; Kulkarni et al., 2012), and connecting with resources (Busch & Valentine, 2000; Johnson
et al., 2005; Kasturirangan, 2008). In addition to helping women with practical assistance and
advocacy, programs that use an empowerment framework may aim to promote empowered
outcomes. Empowered outcomes include psychological changes or behaviors that demonstrate
mastery over one’s environment or affairs (Rappaport, 1987), gaining power (Cattaneo &
Chapman, 2010; Kasturirangan, 2008), exerting control (Zimmerman, 2000), “taking an active
stance toward problems,” or “fighting against ones own oppression” (Lamb, 2001, p. 179).
For survivors of domestic violence, empowerment can be summarized as “giving choice back
to victims whose choice has been taken away by their batterers” (McDermott & Garofalo, 2004,
p. 1248). Domestic violence scholars Gutierrez and Lewis (1999) have suggested that

6

empowered outcomes in this context can be categorized into three primary changes, including
increased 1) Confidence (greater self-efficacy), 2) Connections (stronger interpersonal
relationships and connection to one’s community), and 3) Critical Consciousness (greater
understanding of one’s identity and position within one’s sociopolitical context).
The manner in which women are treated while they are seeking help and working toward
empowerment is the focus of empowering practice. Ultimately, the process by which women
receive assistance or advocacy is often as important as the specific services or resources they
receive, if not more so (Kulkarni et al., 2012). Several researchers and practitioners in the DV
movement have crafted models for describing empowering practice with survivors. Most of these
models point to practices that have four qualities: Empowering practice should be individualized
(Kasturirangan, 2008; Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012), survivor-driven (Kasturirangan, 2008;
Kulkarni et al., 2012; McDermott & Garofalo, 2004), transparent (Kasturirangan, 2008;
Kulkarni et al., 2012), and egalitarian (Kasturirangan, 2008; McDermott & Garofalo, 2004;
Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1994; Worell & Remer, 2003).
First, empowering practice must be individualized. Services will vary from individual to
individual based on each woman’s personal qualities and the characteristics of her environment
(Kasturirangan, 2008). When developing and employing interventions for survivors of violence,
it is important to attend to both the larger sociopolitical environment (Wright et al., 2010) and the
individual needs and goals of the survivor. The key is providing flexible services that can be
tailored to each woman’s unique strengths, challenges, resources and context (Kasturirangan,
2008; Kulkarni et al., 2012).
In addition to providing flexible services, empowering programs should be survivor-driven,
meaning that the program upholds each survivor’s rights to set her own goals, to be educated

7

about her options, to make her own decisions and to have her decisions honored by those
assisting her (Davies & Lyon, 2013; Kasturirangan, 2008; Kulkarni et al., 2012; McDermott &
Garofalo, 2004). Each woman is in control of her own life and directs her own help-seeking
process (Kulkarni et al., 2012). Transparency demands that practitioners be clear and consistent
in communicating what services and resources are available, the procedures to access them, and
how decisions are made about allocating them when they are limited (Kulkarni et al., 2012).
They should also be clear about what impact they can actually make on women’s lives given
programmatic and contextual constraints (Kasturirangan, 2008). Finally, DV services should
utilize egalitarian practices in which service providers work collaboratively with participants,
value women’s perspectives and skills, and do not presume to know the women’s best interests
(Kasturirangan, 2008; McDermott & Garofalo, 2004; Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1994; Worell &
Remer, 2003).
Busch and Valentine (2000) also propose that empowering practice activities can occur on
several ecological levels, asserting that power and control must be addressed by service
provision at the micro/intrapersonal, meso/interpersonal and macro/institutional systemic levels.
For example, connecting women with resources could include providing economic assistance to
an individual survivor (micro level), creating new financial literacy programs (mezzo), and
awarding grants to address gender inequalities (macro).
Some domestic violence programs target the development of critical consciousness as one
element of their empowering practices. Many theorists position consciousness as a first (and
often necessary) step toward empowerment or as a vehicle for its development (Chronister &
McWhirter, 2006; Goodman & West-Olatunji, 2009; Hedrick, 2006; Ratts, Anthony, & Santos,
2010). Others subsume critical consciousness as an element of empowerment itself, including it

8

among empowered outcomes (Busch & Valentine, 2000; Kaminski et al., 2000; Perez, Johnson,
& Wright, 2012; Zimmerman, 2000; Guiterrez & Lewis, 1999). Before examining the
relationship between these two elements, a review of the general concept of critical
consciousness is warranted.
Critical Consciousness
The concept of critical consciousness was first developed by Paulo Freire in 1970. Freire
defined critical consciousness (also referred to as the process of conscientization) as ‘‘learning to
perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive
elements of reality’’ (1970, p.19). Becoming aware of and ultimately overcoming oppression is
the primary purpose of critical consciousness. Oppression is a complex phenomenon—it is both
a state and a process, both psychological and political, and truly multifaceted. The process of
developing critical consciousness involves critically examining and understanding the various
causes of oppression in the world and in one’s own life (Freire, 1970). In order to begin this
critical reflection, individuals must work to understand how their society distributes power, as
well as economic, legal and social resources (Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999). This requires
examination of their social identity in terms of race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexual
orientation (among other social identities) and an assessment of their position in the social order
(Hernández et al., 2005). Individuals come to a growing awareness of existing and historical
processes of oppression (such as policies, practices or roles) that lead to outcomes of oppression
(such as exploitation of and dysfunction in individuals and communities) (Alschuler, 1986;
Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003). This evaluation often leads to feelings of discontent with the
status quo, a rejection of the current power structures, and an enhanced identification with one’s
group or groups (Gurin, 1985; Gurin, Miller & Gurin, 1980). Finally, some theorists and

9

practitioners suggest that this process necessarily includes liberation behavior, or engagement in
social action and community development (Goodman & West-Olatunji, 2009; Watts et al., 1999)
often with other members of oppressed groups (Alschuler, 1986). This process is cyclical, with
individuals undergoing a process of praxis, or action and reflection (Watts et al., 2003). As
individuals take part in these liberated actions, they then engage in greater self-discovery and
become more sophisticated in their political analysis, which ultimately results in more skillful
liberation behavior.
Critical consciousness also exposes individuals to ways in which they may have internalized
oppression (Freire, 1970) or victimized themselves by actively participating in oppressive
processes (Alschuler, 1986). Internalized oppression may often be the root cause of problems
among some oppressed groups, including intragroup violence and division, emotional instability,
and negative self-concepts (Freire, 1970; Sowards & Renegar, 2004). Critical consciousness is
an avenue by which individuals can challenge internalized oppression as they realize that they
are not to blame for their plight (Ratts, Anthony, & Santos, 2010). They begin to define their
own identity and to see themselves in a positive light (Watts et al., 1999).
Developing critical consciousness can be beneficial in a variety of ways to individuals,
communities and societies. In addition to the benefits discussed thus far, critical consciousness
can increase an individual’s awareness of his or her abilities; knowledge of the control he or she
can exert in transforming his or her relationships, life situations, and the environment; as well as
greater use of these abilities (Chronister & Davidson, 2010; Martin-Baro, 1994). Friere described
this as a process of moving from object (those outside of the dominant class who are acted upon
by oppression) to subject (those who are actors that may either support or challenge the status
quo). In psychology, the belief in one’s capability to achieve goals is also known as self-efficacy

10

(Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy influences cognition, affective processes, and one’s operational
ability to perform tasks (Bandura, 1984, 1986); therefore changes to an individual’s self-efficacy
may have reverberating effects, influencing consequent choices, goals, persistence (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992), motivation, and behavior (Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999).
At the community level, a connection to others with similar experiences can help members of
oppressed groups feel less isolated, find comfort and power in realizing they are not alone (Enns,
1992; Sowards & Renegar, 2004) and craft productive responses to discrimination (Gutierrez &
Lewis, 1999). Developing greater critical consciousness can lead to greater sociopolitical
empowerment (Gutierrez & Ortega, 1991). Problem-solving may become more active, creative
and effective, and individuals can move from being pessimistic victims of oppression to being
optimistic creators of alternative liberating situations (Alschuler, 1986). Finally, increased
individual and collective liberatory action can work toward creating a more equitable and just
system of distribution in society (Chronister & Davidson, 2010).
Survivors of domestic violence have described numerous benefits from consciousness-raising
related activities within domestic violence programs. Women who had come to accept the
abusers’ critical messages may realize that they are not alone (Davis & Srinivasan, 1995) and
that they are worth something (Morales-Campos, Casillas, & McCurdy, 2009). They may learn
information about the dynamics and prevalence of domestic violence (including that they are not
to blame for their victimization), and to challenge stereotypical beliefs about the roles of men
and women in relationships and the family (Tutty, Bidgood, & Rothery, 1993). Such realizations
may provide comfort and inspire confidence as they work toward maximizing the safety of their
families and achieving long-term well-being. While the perpetrator of violence is ultimately
responsible for whether a woman or her children are abused again (Davies & Lyon, 2013), the

11

expectation is that improvements to empowerment (including critical consciousness) will
contribute to movement on a positive trajectory toward well-being (Sullivan, 2012).
Attempts at empowerment that do not involve critical consciousness development (including
an understanding of the limitations on access to resources) may not be as successful
(Kasturirangan, 2008). For instance, without an understanding of how legal rights and access to
resources can be impacted by sexist oppression, survivors of domestic violence may be less
likely to develop a greater sense of control and are less able to develop successful strategies for
reaching their goals (Kasturirangan, 2008). This suggests that further research on critical
consciousness-raising as a component of empowering practice is needed if DV service providers
are truly invested in the authentic promotion of empowerment.
Critical Consciousness and Domestic Violence Service Provision
Despite the historical centrality of ”empowerment” to the Domestic Violence movement, and
the significance of critical consciousness as an element of empowerment, there is a perplexing
absence of in-depth discussions of critical consciousness practice in the violence against women
practice literature. Existing literature on critical consciousness among survivors of domestic
violence is principally theoretical, with very few empirical examinations. For instance, at the
present date no studies were found that examined consciousness-raising as a specific element of
shelter-based domestic violence programs.
The only known published experimental study to date involving critical consciousness and
survivors of domestic violence examined the effectiveness of a group career counseling
intervention called ACCESS that was designed specifically for this population (Chronister &
McWhirter, 2006). In this study, ACCESS was administered either with or without a critical
consciousness component. The critical consciousness component of the intervention included a

12

variety of elements, including a focus on “development in social context” through journaling
assignments, “clarification of individual goals with group assistance,” information about
domestic violence, and an examination of the power dynamics of domestic violence experiences
(Chronister & McWhirter, 2006, p.153)
Participants in the critical consciousness condition had higher critical consciousness scores
and had made more progress toward achieving their goals than those in the non-critical
consciousness condition five weeks after they completed the program (Chronister & McWhirter,
2006). This study suggests that introducing consciousness-raising elements into an intervention
could be effective both in shaping survivors’ awareness of oppression and in supporting progress
in other areas of life.
Although there are almost no empirical studies about raising critical consciousness with
domestic violence survivors, there are models in the broader social work literature. Practices
identified include: non-hierarchical critical dialogue as part of a reciprocal action-reflection cycle
(Friere, 1970) collaborative problem solving (Alschuler, 1986), cognitive reframing of
oppression (Ratts et al., 2010), and narrative approaches that help individuals “re-author” their
understanding of their life stories (Ratts et al., 2010), among many others. These processes can
be implemented using a variety of methods in many different settings. For instance, a group in
South Africa used a peer education model (that included arts-based techniques such as drama
productions) to encourage participants to develop critical consciousness around gender norms
that endanger young people’s sexual health (Campbell & MacPhail, 2002). Feminist bloggers
build gender critical consciousness via rhetoric in the public sphere, utilizing online media to
encourage story sharing and internal and interpersonal dialogue about oppression in a way that is
well suited to our culture’s increasing preference for technology-mediated communication

13

(Sowards & Renegar, 2004). “Self Esteem Groups” aim to blend techniques of consciousnessraising groups (sharing of personal testimonies) with assertiveness training to encourage social
awareness while promoting personal development (Enns, 1992). Finally, practitioners in low
income urban neighborhoods have used movies and music as a launching point for youth to
critique the messages of popular culture and undergo a critical reflection and action process
(Watts, Abdul-Adil, & Pratt, 2002).
Whether or not these techniques or others would be effective in working with survivors of
domestic violence remains to be tested. Given the emphasis on creating empowering programs
that are specific to the population and context, some adaptation of these models might be
necessary to fit the experiences, needs and concerns of domestic violence survivors.
Self-Efficacy as an Outcome of Critical Consciousness
As was discussed above, one of the results of developing critical consciousness may be
increased self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is commonly defined as an individual’s belief in his or her
capability to achieve a goal (Bandura, 1977). This construct is sometimes understood as being
domain-specific, such that an individual’s self-efficacy may be greater in one arena than in
another (e.g. confidence in sports abilities versus tax preparation abilities). However, some
researchers have conceptualized a more global sense of self-efficacy that describes an
individual’s confidence in their ability to cope or solve problems across a range of challenging,
stressful or novel situations (Sherer & Maddux, 1982; Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988;
Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999). While general self-efficacy scholars agree that the construct
should be examined in a situation-specific manner when possible, they argue that the appropriate
degree of specificity varies with the context (Scholz, Guitierrez-Dona, Sud & Schwarzer, 2002).

14

Generalized assessments are most appropriate when broad self-beliefs are critical, such as when
individuals under stress have to deal with new life experiences over an extended period of time.
Self-efficacy is an important outcome of critical consciousness because 1) it is associated
with psychological and physical well-being, and 2) it may be essential for enabling critically
conscious individuals to translate their knowledge into action for personal, social or political
change.
Relationship between self-efficacy and well-being. Feeling incapable of affecting one’s
world (as is the case with individuals with low generalized self-efficacy), can result in
heightened feelings of futility, depression, and anxiety. Conversely, improvements to selfefficacy can help individuals overcome these challenges, and promote greater effectiveness in
problem-solving, persistence in the face of obstacles, and overall ability to make desired changes
in one’s environment (Bandura, 1982). Perceived self-efficacy has also been shown to affect
health-promotive behavior (Bandura, 1995). When individuals lack a belief in their own ability
to deal with stress in their lives, they are more susceptible to bacterial and viral infections, the
development of physical disorders and increase in the rate of progression of disease
(Schneiderman, McCabe, & Baum, 1992; Steptoe & Appels, 1989 in Bandura, 1995). Selfefficacy also impacts individuals’ openness to considerations of personal change to their health
habits as well as their ability to make effective and lasting changes (Bandura, 1992).
Self-efficacy as necessary for social and political action. Self-efficacy may also be a
necessary precursor to social and political change. Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy
are more likely to endorse collective change efforts than those with low levels of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1982). Likewise, self-efficacy provides the basis for collective efficacy (the belief that
a group has the capabilities to reach a goal; Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999). Self-efficacy may also be

15

the extra needed boost that connects critical reflection with critical action. Evidence has
suggested that a shift in understanding or analysis of the world does not, in and of itself, predict
greater participation in activism (Peterson et. al, 2002). Rather, researchers suggest that the
relationship between analysis of oppression and action for social change may in fact be mediated
or moderated by political efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to affect political or social change
through individual or collective efforts; i.e. self-efficacy in the political domain; Watts, Diemer,
& Voight, 2011). In short, without the presence of self-efficacy, the development of critical
consciousness may not result in greater action toward social change (Watts et al., 1999).
Self-Efficacy Among Domestic Violence Survivors
Greater self-efficacy is a particularly important outcome of critical consciousness in
domestic violence services because survivors may have decreased self-efficacy due to having
been abused and isolated by their batterers. Some scholars suggest that survivors’ self efficacy
may be constricted and/or prevented from developing by the impacts of abuse, including such
factors as declining health, lessened opportunities to develop skills and accomplish goals, and
restricted access to information and role models (Chronister & McWhirter, 2003). This process
may be self-reinforcing. People who have come to believe that they lack the ability to
accomplish their goals often further constrict their activities, have less motivation to undertake
new tasks that might broaden their skills, and are more quick to give up when they face
challenges (Bandura, 1995). This process may result in survivors having fewer positive efficacyrelevant experiences, thereby providing behavioral validation of their belief that they do not have
what it takes to accomplish their goals. In addition to the physical, psychological, sexual and/or
financial abuse that is perpetrated by abusers seeking power and control, women also experience
negative effects from the inadequate and sometimes dangerous community and systemic

16

responses to their battery. These unhelpful or even victim-blaming responses may result not only
in re-victimization but in a decreased sense of self-efficacy (Campbell, 2006, 2008; Rivera,
Sullivan, & Zeoli, 2012).
Building Self-Efficacy
Given the potential for this construct to benefit survivors’ well-being and sociopolitical
development, it is critical to understand how survivors assess their self-efficacy and how the
development of self-efficacy can be supported by domestic violence service programs. Selfefficacy beliefs are dynamic, and change over time as an individual’s assessment of their
capacity and the requirements of the task shifts (Bandura,1988; Bandura & Wood 1989, Wood &
Bandura, 1989).
There are four main ways through which individuals build self-efficacy: enactive mastery
(successfully accomplishing a goal), vicarious experiences (seeing another person similar to
yourself succeeding), verbal persuasion (someone else asserting that you have the necessary
abilities), and recognizing one’s physiological and emotional states that may accompany taking
risks (e.g., butterflies in the stomach) (Bandura, 1995). Domestic violence advocates engage in
these various instructional methods when working with survivors. They may applaud the
survivor’s past accomplishments, model new behavior, encourage new behavior, and/or help
survivors recognize and deal with the physiological responses to advocating for oneself.
Consciousness-raising practice is one example of a verbal persuasion experience that
could ultimately lead to greater self-efficacy. As shelter staff speak with women about the
individual and society-wide dynamics of domestic violence, survivors may engage in critical
reflection and build greater critical consciousness, coming to a new understanding of the impact
their abusers’ actions have had on their lives. They may begin to see how racist and sexist

17

systems make it difficult for women to protect themselves and their children and that they are not
to blame for the abuse they have experienced. This new found critical consciousness may alter
women’s self-efficacy by providing them with a more realistic assessment of the hurdles that
have stood in their way in the past, and the resources they have to overcome them. They may
begin to understand how their partners’ psychological, physical, economic or sexual assertions of
power and control, in concert with larger systems of oppression, have worked to interfere with
their success in previously unseen ways. This could include the recognition that continual
ridicule and discouragement from their partners and disparaging societal messages about women
have negatively affected their perceptions of their ability to achieve their goals. Lessening the
presence and/or impact of such damaging messages in women’s self assessments could
positively impact their perceptions, leading to realizations that they actually do have the
knowledge, skills, and/or resources that are necessary to achieve their goals.
The Current Study
Despite the significance of critical consciousness as an element of empowerment in DV
service delivery, little is known about what these practices might look like, whether or not they
are being utilized, if they are successful in promoting critical consciousness, or how the
development of critical consciousness in the DV shelter context impacts survivors’ self-efficacy.
In order to explore some of these effects, the current study analyzed data from a larger project
(the Survivor Empowerment Study) funded by the National Institute of Mental Health to
examine the empowerment model in DV shelters and to develop measures of empowering
practice and empowered outcomes to be used broadly in the violence against women field.

18

In this project, 98 adult women were interviewed shortly after they left a DV shelter about
their experiences while accessing services. The researcher examined the following hypotheses
and explorations:
1) To what extent do staff engage in activities designed to raise consciousness?
2) Are the consciousness-raising practices of staff at domestic violence shelters related to the
development of critical consciousness among survivors of domestic violence? The study
hypothesized that women who report experiencing more consciousness-raising practices
would report greater development of DV critical consciousness.2
3) Is the development of critical consciousness related to the development of self-efficacy?
The study hypothesized that women who reported greater development of DV critical
consciousness would report greater development of self-efficacy.

2

Many feminist scholars emphasize the importance of considering how individuals’ multiple social identities

impact their experience, attending to a concept known (among other names) as intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989).
In the context of this study, an “intersectional” analysis would explore how women’s cultivation of critical
consciousness and self efficacy was impacted by the intersection of their sex with other social identity categories.
For instance, such an analysis might examine if the proposed relationship between consciousness-raising practices
and DV critical consciousness was moderated by women’s racial identification. Other intersectional considerations
could include the moderation of this relationship by socioeconomic status, nativity, native language, sexual
orientation, and/or gender identity, among other key variables. This assumes that not all female survivors of violence
would experience this process identically, and that potential differences might be systematically variable according
to one’s positionality. While such an analysis would add depth to this examination, a fairly small sample size and
general lack of variability in the values of these key group variables limits my ability to appropriately and
adequately investigate such questions.

19

4) Does the development of DV critical consciousness mediate the relationship between
consciousness-raising practices and the development of self-efficacy? The study
hypothesized that the development of DV critical consciousness would be a significant
mediator of this relationship.

20

METHOD

Participants in the Survivor Empowerment Study were recruited from two domestic violence
shelter programs in two mid-sized cities in the Midwest. Each of the programs provided
comparable services to women and had similar organizational models. Inclusion criteria stated
that women were eligible to participate if they were at least 18 years old and had exited the
shelter program within the last 30 days. Recruiters at each of the sites approached every shelter
resident at the beginning of her stay to provide information about the study. Women who were
potentially interested in taking part were contacted upon their exit from the shelter. Women who
participated in an interview were paid $25. All interviews took place in private settings that were
both safe and convenient for the women. The researchers trained a team of interviewers to
conduct the 90-minute mixed-method interviews. The training emphasized the importance of
understanding violence against women and utilizing feminist interviewing principles.
Measures
The current study used three subscales of the two validated measures created from the
Survivor Empowerment Study —the Empowering Practices scale and the Survivor
Empowerment scale. Specifically, the Consciousness-raising Practice subscale measured the
extent to which staff engaged in consciousness-raising with participants. Critical consciousness
and self-efficacy were measured by two subscales of the Survivor Empowerment measure.
Domestic Violence Consciousness-Raising Practice. The Raise Consciousness subscale (6
items; M=1.75, SD=1.12; α=.95; CITC=.72-.89) of the Empowering Practices scale was used to
assess consciousness-raising practices by staff at the shelter. Respondents indicated the degree to
which staff used certain practices, including “The shelter staff talked with me about how
domestic violence related to other types of violence against women” and “The shelter staff talked
21

to me about why some people are abusive.” Subscale scores were created by averaging responses
across the items (0= not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = somewhat, 3 = very much).
Domestic Violence Critical Consciousness. The Critical Consciousness subscale (8 items;
M=3.22, SD=.84, α = .91; CITC=.57-.85) of the Survivor Empowerment scale was used to assess
the extent to which women’s domestic violence critical consciousness had developed because of
their experience sat shelter. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed with
statements such as “I have a greater understanding of how sexist systems make it difficult for
women to protect themselves and their children” and “I have a greater understanding of the
causes of domestic violence.” Subscale scores were calculated by averaging responses across the
items (1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree).
Self-Efficacy. The Self Efficacy (9 items; M=3.18, SD=.85, α = .96; CITC=.77-.86) subscale
of the Survivor Empowerment scale was used to measure the extent to which women’s selfefficacy had grown because of their time in the shelter program. Respondents indicated the
degree to which they agreed with items such as “I am more able to achieve goals I set for
myself” and “I have a greater understanding that I have the ability to make changes in my own
life.” Subscale scores were calculated by averaging responses across the items (1=strongly
disagree to 4=strongly agree).

22

RESULTS

Description of the Sample
The sample was comprised of 98 women who had recently exited a domestic violence
shelter. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 60 (M=34.41, SD= 10.09), and stayed an average
of 40 days (SD=45.61; Range= 3 to 300; Median= 30) in the shelter program. Forty-six of the
women identified as African American, 33 as White, 4 as Hispanic/Chicana/Latina/Mexican, 1
as Asian-Pacific, and 1 as Native American. Thirteen of the participants identified as
Multiracial/Other, and 6 of these women reported some African American heritage. The
participants had a variety of educational experiences. Most of the participants were mothers
(84%; range of 1 to 8 children), and most were unemployed at the time of the interview (69.7%).
This data set excludes four additional women who were interviewed for the study that did not
complete the relevant measures due to interviewer error.
Staff Engagement in Critical Consciousness-Raising
To explore the extent to which staff engaged in activities designed to raise consciousness,
(Hypothesis 1), the author examined the descriptive statistics of the Domestic Violence
Consciousness-raising Practice scale. The sample had an average scale score of 1.75 (range of
0= Not at All to 3= Very Much) with a standard deviation of 1.12. Women most commonly
“agreed very much” that staff spoke with them about “the effects of domestic violence on their
lives,” (48%) and about “different types of abuse” (46%). The most common topic that women
reported staff had not spoken about was “how domestic violence relates to other types of
violence against women” (35%). The distribution was somewhat bimodal, as 38 of the
participants (39% of the sample) were clustered at either the very top or very bottom of the scale.

23

Fifteen participants (15% of the sample) received a scale score of 0 (indicating that shelter staff
had not talked with them about any of the topics), and 23 participants (23%) received a scale
score of 3 (indicating they very much agreed that shelter staff talked with them about all of the
topics).
While women from each of the two shelters included in the study received scale scores that
ranged from 0-3, the subsamples differed in their average Critical Consciousness-raising Practice
scale scores. An ANOVA revealed significant differences between the two samples, F (1, 96) =
7.36, p = .008. The mean score for Shelter One (45 participants, M = 1.43, SD= 1.09) was
significantly lower than the mean score for Shelter Two (53 participants, M= 2.03, SD= 1.09).
This suggests that staff at Shelter Two may have engaged in more domestic violence
consciousness-raising practices than did staff at Shelter One, at least from the survivors’
perspective.
These shelter differences likely contributed to the bimodal distribution of the overall
sample. Frequencies revealed that women from Shelter One comprised 66% (n=10) of those
participants who reported no consciousness-raising practice (a “0” on the scale), and only 17%
(n=4) of those who had very high consciousness-raising practice scores (a “3” on the scale).
Conversely, women from the larger Shelter Two sample represented only 33% (n=5) of the
women with a score of “0” and 83% (n=19) of those with a score of “3” in the overall sample. In
other words, 22% of the women in Shelter One reported experiencing no consciousness-raising
practice, compared to only 9% of Shelter Two participants. Over a third (36%) of the women
from Shelter Two reported high consciousness-raising practice, compared to only 9% of women
from Shelter One. See Table 2 in the appendices for comparisons of the whole sample and each
of the shelter samples on each of the items of the scale.

24

Relationship between Consciousness-Raising and Critical Consciousness
To test whether women who reported experiencing more consciousness-raising practices
would report greater development of DV critical consciousness (Hypothesis 2), participants’ DV
critical consciousness scores were regressed onto their DV consciousness-raising practice scores.
To reduce mild negative skew and better meet the normality assumptions of the analysis, a
square root transformation was used on the DV critical consciousness scores. As hypothesized,
DV consciousness-raising practice significantly predicted DV critical consciousness scores, b=
0.187, t (96)= 9.881, p < .001. DV consciousness-raising practice also explained a significant
proportion of variance in DV critical consciousness development, R2= 0.504, F ( 1, 96 )= 97.63,
p < .001. To test for influential outliers, the analysis was conducted again with cases with
residuals greater than two standard deviations (5 cases) removed. The effect was similar and the
results remained significant. This finding supports the prediction that women who reported
experiencing more consciousness-raising practices would also report greater development of DV
critical consciousness.
Relationship between Critical Consciousness and Self-Efficacy
To examine whether women who reported greater development of DV critical
consciousness would also report greater development of self-efficacy, (Hypothesis 3),
participants’ self-efficacy scores were regressed onto their DV critical consciousness scores. To
reduce mild negative skew and better meet the normality assumptions of the analysis, a square
root transformation was used on the DV critical consciousness scores and the self-efficacy
scores. DV critical consciousness significantly predicted self-efficacy, b= .743, t (96)= 10.582, p
< .001. DV critical consciousness also explained a significant proportion of variance in selfefficacy, R2= 0.538, F( 1, 96 )= 111.972, p<.001. The analysis was conducted again with cases

25

with residuals greater than two standard deviations (6 cases) removed to test for influential
outliers. Once again, the effect was similar and the results remained significant. This outcome
supports the hypothesis that women who reported greater development of DV critical
consciousness would also report greater development of self-efficacy.
Test of Mediation
In order to determine whether DV critical consciousness mediated the relationship between
DV consciousness-raising practice and self-efficacy (Hypothesis 4), bootstrapping analyses using
methods described by Preacher and Hayes (2008) for estimating direct and indirect effects with
mediators were employed. Self-efficacy was entered as the dependent variable, DV
consciousness-raising practice was entered as the predictor variable, and DV critical
consciousness was entered as a proposed mediator in the SPSS macro created by Preacher and
Hayes for bootstrap analyses. Mediation was tested by assessing the significance of the cross
product of the coefficients for the predictor variable to mediator relation (the a path), and the
mediator to outcome relation (the b path; See Figure 1). An ab cross product test examines the
statistical significance of the difference between the unconditional direct effect, or c path, and the
conditional direct effect, or c′ path. (The method used in the current study solves the distribution
problems in the data through bootstrapping, in which k samples of the original size are taken
from the obtained data and meditational effects are calculated in each sample. In the present
analyses, parameter estimates were based on 1000 bootstrap samples.)
Figure 1 shows the t values and significance of the a, b, c, and c′ paths, and the significance
of the indirect effect. The analyses revealed with 95% confidence that the total indirect effect of
consciousness-raising on the outcome variable through the mediator was significant, with a point
estimate of .130 and a 95% bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence interval of .081

26

to .179. As these confidence intervals do not contain zero, the point estimate is significant at the
level indicated. Furthermore, the analyses indicated that the unconditional direct effect of DV
consciousness-raising practice scores on participants’ self-efficacy (unconditional direct effect, t
= 6.52 p <.001) became nonsignifcant when the critical consciousness mediator was included in
the model (conditional direct effect of consciousness-raising, t = 0.067, p = 0.50, ns). Thus,
critical consciousness fully mediated the association between consciousness-raising and selfefficacy.

27

Figure 1. Test of Mediation

Consciousness Raising
Practice

Self-Efficacy
c*
t = 6.52 p < .001

Critical Consciousness
a*
t= 9.88, p < .001

b*
t = 6.95, p < .001

Consciousness Raising
Practice

Self-Efficacy

c’
ns
t = .067 , p = 0.5025

28

Alternate Mediation Hypotheses
Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, the study cannot determine definitively the
temporal ordering in which the constructs of interest may have emerged. In lieu of examining the
order suggested by theory using longitudinal data, the study explored an alternate mediation
model in which self-efficacy mediates the relationship between DV consciousness-raising
practice and DV critical consciousness. Once again, bootstrapping analyses using methods
described by Preacher and Hayes (2008) for estimating direct and indirect effects with mediators
were employed. DV critical consciousness was entered as the dependent variable, DV
consciousness-raising practice was entered as the predictor variable, and self-efficacy was
entered as a proposed mediator in the SPSS macro created by Preacher and Hayes for bootstrap
analyses.
Figure 2 shows the t values and significance of the a, b, c, and c′ paths, and the significance
of the indirect effect. The analyses revealed with 95% confidence that the total indirect effect of
consciousness-raising on the outcome variable through the mediator was significant (point
estimate of .071 and a 95% bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence interval of .038
to .118). However, the results indicated that the unconditional direct effect of DV
consciousness-raising practice scores on participants’ DV critical consciousness (unconditional
direct effect, t = 9.88 p <.001) remained significant when the self-efficacy mediator was included
in the model (conditional direct effect of consciousness-raising, t = 6.20, p < .001). Thus, selfefficacy only partially mediated the association between DV consciousness-raising and DV
critical consciousness. While a more formal analysis of goodness of fit is not within the scope of
the current study, these results suggest that the original model with complete mediation is likely
superior to the alternate model with partial mediation.

29

Figure 2. Test of Alternate Mediation Model

Consciousness Raising
Practice

Critical Consciousness
c*
t = 9.88, p < .001

Self-Efficacy
a*
t= 6.52, p < .001

b*
t = 6.95, p< .001

Consciousness Raising
Practice

Critical Consciousness

c’*
t = 6.20, p < .001

30

DISCUSSION

Study results supported the author’s hypotheses regarding the relationships among
consciousness-raising practices in domestic violence shelters, the development of critical
consciousness, and its impact on the self-efficacy of survivors of domestic violence. Women
who reported that shelter staff engaged in more DV consciousness-raising practice also reported
greater shifts in their DV critical consciousness. Participants who reported greater shifts in DV
critical consciousness also reported developing greater self-efficacy during their time in shelter.
This finding lends support to the assertion that gaining greater understanding of the effects of
society-wide oppression on one’s personal experiences can lead to a greater belief in one’s
general ability to meet one’s goals.
These results also support Chronister and McWhirter’s (2006) work that demonstrated that
survivors of domestic violence who experience critical consciousness-raising practice will build
greater critical consciousness, and will be better at making progress to reach their goals.
Somewhat contrary to the present study’s results, Chronister & McWhirter (2006) did not find
significant differences in career-search self-efficacy for those in the critical consciousness
condition at any time point. Failure to find an effect in this previous study could have been a
function of the small sample size, the intervention, the focus on career-search self-efficacy, or
other study design elements. Further research with more rigorous design is needed to explore the
relationship between a variety of different consciousness-raising practices and various domains
of self-efficacy. Furthermore, while Chronister & McWhirter (2006) did not find a significant
difference in self-efficacy between the groups, they did find a significant increase in this
construct from posttest to follow-up for those women in the critical consciousness condition. The

31

researchers suggest that this increase may be due in part to their increased critical consciousness,
but additional research is needed to understand how these processes unfold over time.
The relationships among these variables were replicated in both shelter samples. While the
samples demonstrated significantly different levels of consciousness-raising practice, DV critical
consciousness development, and self-efficacy among the participants, the patterns of
relationships described above remained in both settings. The replication of this pattern in two
different shelters lends credibility to the generalizability of this study to other comparable
domestic violence shelters.
These findings also support the argument that how services are delivered may be as important
as the type of services offered. While no two settings can ever be exactly alike, at face value the
shelters involved in this study are very similar. They offer seemingly comparable services to
relatively comparable populations. Despite these apparent similarities, the two different
subsamples reported significant differences in self-esteem development. This suggests that a
factor other than the concrete services themselves may have impacted women’s belief in their
ability to accomplish their goals. The significant differences in DV consciousness-raising
practice and DV critical consciousness development suggest that when shelter staff utilized more
empowering practices (such as consciousness-raising), women experienced more empowered
outcomes (including critical consciousness), which may in turn have influenced their selfefficacy.
Limitations of the Study
The study has a number of limitations that are worth noting. First, the data used in this study
were collected using a cross-sectional design, as each woman was interviewed at only one time
point following the end of her stay in the shelter. Although a causal model is proposed based on

32

theory and previous research, the relationships are strictly correlational and therefore their
directionality cannot be determined conclusively. While the study provided some support for the
ordering of the variables through a mediation model, a restricted range of the DV critical
consciousness measure (with values clustered at the top of the scale) may have impacted the
variable’s variance and therefore the full exploration of the alternative hypothesis.
The sample size was small (N=98) and limited to two shelters in one state. The limited
sample prevented the examination of potential moderators of these relationships, including
socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Additionally, the study’s results may only be
generalized to survivors of domestic violence who accessed shelter services, and not other types
of domestic violence services.
The scales used in the study also have limitations. First, the Domestic Violence
Consciousness-Raising Practice Scale focuses on one type of practice, namely staff speaking
with survivors about different topics. Therefore the study’s examination of the effect of
consciousness-raising practice does not include other types of practice that may be influential.
Next, the items on the Domestic Violence Critical Consciousness Scale focus largely on
knowledge about domestic violence, asking women if they have a greater understanding of a
particular dynamic of abuse because of their time staying in shelter. Consequently, this scale
does not delve very deeply into other elements of Domestic Violence Critical Consciousness,
such as knowledge of sexism, or into other systems of oppression that shape survivors’
experiences, such as racism, classism, heterosexism, etc. Additionally, the study did not use a
standardized measure of self-efficacy. Finally, the scales used in the study depend on survivors’
recall of experiences and mindset changes that may have occurred weeks or months before the

33

interview. While this data may be imperfect based on the limitations of human memory, it does
provide insight into survivors’ perceptions of experiences and changes that may have occurred.
Directions for Further Research
The empirical examination of empowerment in domestic violence service delivery is a
growing area of study. As was discussed previously, there is a great deal of debate in the field
(and in social science more broadly) about the nature and processes involved in promoting
empowerment among vulnerable populations. While domestic violence scholars have learned a
great deal from the research on empowerment in other contexts, there is still work to be done in
tailoring these practices to the unique needs of survivors of domestic violence. As this line of
inquiry unfolds, researchers should further refine and develop their definitions and measures of
empowering practice and empowerment-related outcomes.
In order to ensure these measures are as closely aligned to women’s real experiences as
possible, qualitative studies with survivors who have accessed services are needed. Listening to
women who have been through the experience of seeking services would inform researchers’
understanding of what supports women would like as they move toward claiming or building
greater power in their personal, social and political lives. Potential topics to explore could
include how survivors would like to be treated by staff; implicit messages the shelter’s rules or
programming might be sending without staff’s knowledge; or how to best help women balance
the challenges of meeting their basic needs while they are also discovering and enacting their
power. While no two women’s experiences or needs will be the same, the field has a
responsibility to understand existing patterns and to prepare staff with the skills to help women
as they help themselves.

34

Within the broader topic of empowerment, the examination of consciousness-raising as an
element of empowering practice in the domestic violence shelter context is a relatively new
research arena. As such, existing measures of DV consciousness-raising and DV critical
consciousness development are still in their infancy. Future research should further develop these
measures to help scholars and practitioners better understand these processes as they unfold in
the shelter context. For example, DV consciousness-raising scales should be expanded to include
other types of practice that might be important in supporting survivors’ critical consciousness
development. This could include asking participants if staff worked to engage women in groupbased consciousness-raising processes, coordinated peer mentorship, or provided opportunities to
engage in sociopolitical action in the broader community, among other activities. Furthermore,
future studies should utilize improved scales or more nuanced response options in measuring DV
critical consciousness to ensure all the variation present among individuals is captured and to
avoid issues with restricted range in the analyses. Finally, future research should explore the
relationship between consciousness-raising and critical consciousness development and other
known empowering practices and empowered outcomes, as well as its effect on other significant
mental health and well-being outcomes beyond self-efficacy.
Researchers should also consider how women’s experiences with domestic violence service
provision and empowerment might vary due to their race and/or socioeconomic status. Future
studies should recruit larger samples of women from more diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds and
socioeconomic statuses to allow for a more powerful and nuanced examination of women’s
experiences from an intersectional lens. Likewise, future studies of critical consciousness
development among shelter users should include measures that tap into women’s growing

35

awareness of other forms of oppression that may shape their unique experiences, such as racism,
classism, heterosexism, etc.
In addition to studying women’s experiences from an intersectional perspective, future
studies should also attend to diversity in service delivery context. For instance, such studies
could examine the impact of DV consciousness-raising practice in different types of domestic
violence service contexts, such as counseling centers, support groups, etc., to see how
empowering practices and outcomes in these service settings may differ from the shelter context.
Furthermore, future research could examine the impact of the service organization’s dynamics on
empowerment. By using an organizational framework approach, researchers could study what is
happening within various levels and settings in the organization that may be promoting or
inhibiting consciousness-raising practice and the development of critical consciousness. For
example, are all parties in the organization in agreement with the empowerment approach, from
the board of directors and the administrators to the shelter staff and security staff? Do the
policies and procedures in place at the organization create barriers to empowering practice? Are
mechanisms in place for women using services to give timely and honest feedback to the
organization? The answers to these questions and many more like them could provide great
insight into why women may or may not find a particular service context to be empowering.
Finally, future studies should employ longitudinal research techniques, following women
from the time they enter shelter to the time they leave shelter and beyond. Such studies would
provide more information about the long-term impacts of shelter practice on women’s well-being
and empowerment. A longitudinal study would also provide empirical insight into the now
theoretically-based causal model, demonstrating if consciousness-raising practice at shelter does
in fact lead to critical consciousness development, and then self-efficacy. Finally, such a design

36

would also correct for any biases in memory that may be present in a cross-sectional examination
of a process that truly unfolds over time.

37

CONCLUSION
Domestic violence is a life threatening manifestation of gender inequality and a major social
problem that demands intervention and social change. One technique for promoting survivor
well being and working toward the creation of a just society is critical consciousness
development. If domestic violence service delivery truly aims to assist women in taking control
of their lives, recognizing and using their own abilities, and ultimately fostering empowerment to
participate in creating a more equitable society, DV service providers and administrators should
not let consciousness-raising practice be pushed to the wayside. Attempts at empowerment that
do not involve the component of critical consciousness are simply not likely to be as successful
in achieving these aims. Domestic violence service delivery and the violence against women
movement must take up this mantle in order to ensure survivors are receiving the best support
possible to promote their long-term well-being.

38

APPENDICES

39

APPENDIX A

Table 1. Participant Demographics
Variable
Age
Current relationship status
Married, Living Together
Married Separated
Divorced
Involved/Dating, Not living together
Living Together
Ex-Girlfriend/Ex-Boyfriend
Other
Ex-Involved

Mean (SD) or N (%)
34.39 (10.14)
2 (2.0%)
12 (12.2)
4 (4.1)
6 (6.1)
4 (4.1)
51 (52.0)
6 (6.1)
12 (12.2)

Education Level
Less than High School
High School Grad/GED
Some College
Associate’s Degree (2-year)
Bachelor’s Degree (4-year)
Graduate or Professional Degree

17 (17.3%)
32 (32.7)
38 (38.8)
7 (7.1)
3 (3.1)
1 (1.0)

Current employment
Employed
Unemployed

30 (30.6%)
68 (69.4)

Number of Children

2.22 (1.70)

Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/Straight
Lesbian/Gay
Bisexual

92 (93.9%)
2 (2.0)
3 (3.1)

Race
Black/African-American
White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Chicana/Latina/Mexican
Asian-Pacific
Native American
Other
Multiracial

45 (45.9%)
33 (33.7)
4 (4.1)
1 (1.0)
1 (1.0)
1 (1.0)
12 (12.2)

Number of Days Stayed at Shelter

39.91 (45.83)

*Note: One participant did not complete the demographic information.
40

APPENDIX B

Table 2. Average Scores on the Empowering Practices Scale Items by Shelter Sample
Item

Mean (SD)
Whole
Sample

Shelter
One

Shelter
Two

Talked with me about why some people are
abusive

1.68 (1.23)

1.31 (1.28)

2.00 (1.11)

Talked with me about the dynamics of
domestic violence

1.70 (1.27)

1.33 (1.28)

2.02 (1.18)

Helped me learn about the effects of
domestic violence on my life

1.86 (1.26)

1.71 (1.32)

1.98 (1.20)

Helped me learn more about different types
of abuse

1.87 (1.22)

1.69 (1.18)

2.02 (1.25)

Talked with me about how domestic
violence relates to other types of violence
against women

1.59 (1.31)

1.11 (1.19)

2.00 (1.29)

Talked to me about how common domestic
violence is

1.82 (1.25)

1.42 (1.25)

2.15 (1.67)

Shelter staff…

41

REFERENCES

42

REFERENCES
Alschuler, A. (1986). Creating a world where it is easier to love: Counseling applications of
Paulo Freire’s theory. Journal of Counseling & Development, 64, 492–496.
Andersen, M. L. (2005). Thinking about Women: A Quarter Century’s View. Gender & Society,
19(4), 437-455.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37: 122147.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 8: 213-229.
Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V.
Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and
motivation: 37-61. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bandura, A. (1992). Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. In R. Schwarzer
(Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 355–394). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, in
Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance
standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56: 805-814.
Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976
through 1987. Gender & Society, 7(1), 78-98.
Busch, N. B., & Valentine, D. (2000). Empowerment Practice: A Focus on Battered Women.
Affilia, 15(1), 82–95.
Campbell, C., & MacPhail, C. (2002). Peer education, gender and the development of critical
consciousness: participatory HIV prevention by South African youth. Social Science &
Medicine (1982), 55(2), 331–45.
Campbell, R. (2006). Rape survivors' experiences with the legal and medical systems Do rape
victim advocates make a difference?. Violence Against Women, 12(1), 30-45.

43

Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims. American Psychologist, 63(8),
702.
Cattaneo, L. B., & Chapman, A. R. (2010). The process of empowerment: A model for use in
research and practice. The American Psychologist, 65(7), 646–59.
Chronister, K. M., & Davidson, M. M. (2010). Promoting distributive justice for intimate partner
violence survivors with group intervention. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work,
35(2), 115–123.
Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimental examination of two career
interventions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 151–164.
Connell, R. (2009) Short introductions: gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Davies, J. M. & Lyon, E. (2013). Domestic violence advocacy: Complex lives/difficult choices,
2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Davis, L. V., & Srinivasan, M. (1995). Listening to the voices of battered women: What helps
them escape violence. Affilia, 10, 45-69.
Enns, C. Z. (1992). Self-Esteem Groups: A Synthesis of Consciousness-Raising and
Assertiveness Training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(1), 7–13.
Foster-Fishman, P.G., Salem, D.A., Chibnall, S., Legler, R. & Yapchai, C. (1998). Empirical
support for the critical assumptions of empowerment theory. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 26 (4), 507-536.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183-211.
Goodman, R. D., & West-Olatunji, C. a. (2009). Applying critical consciousness: Culturally
competent disaster response outcomes. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(4), 458–
465.
Gurin, P. (1985). Women's gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 143-163.
Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 30-47.
Gutiérrez, L. M., & Lewis, E. A. (Eds.). (1999). Empowering women of color. Columbia
University Press.
Gutierrez, L., & Ortega, R. (1991). Developing methods to empower Latinos: The importance of
groups. Social Work with Groups, 14(2), 23-24.
Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. Notes from the Second Year, 76-78.
44

Hedrick, M. (2006). Self , other and the sociopolitical in politically active women survivors of
domestic violence. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Hernández, P., Almeida, R., & Dolan-Del Vecchio, K. (2005). Critical consciousness,
accountability, and empowerment: Key processes for helping families heal. Family Process,
44(1), 105–119.
Hill Collins. P. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and the new racism.
New York: Routledge.
Hopper, K. (1999). John Berger and Erick Holtzman. Social Policy, 30(2), 13-21.
Johnson, D.M., Worell, J., & Chandler R.K. (2005). Assessing psychological health and
empowerment in women: The Personal Progress Scale Revised. Women and Health, 41,
109–129.
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.
Kaminski, M., Kaufman, J., Graubarth, R., & Robins, T. (2000). How do people become
empowered? A case study of union activists. Human Relations, 53(10), 1357–1383.
Kasturirangan, A. (2008). Empowerment and programs designed to address domestic violence.
Violence against women, 14(12), 1465–75.
Kulkarni, S. J., Bell, H., & Rhodes, D. M. (2012). Back to basics: essential qualities of services
for survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence against women, 18(1), 85–101.
Lamb, S. (2001). The secret lives of girls. New York: Free Press.
Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as social institution. Social Forces, 82(4), 1249-1273.
McDermott, M. J., & Garofalo, J. (2004). When advocacy for domestic violence victims
backfires: Types and sources of victim disempowerment. Violence Against Women, 10(11),
1245–1266.
Morales-Campos, D.Y., Casillas, M., & McCurdy, S.A. (2009). From isolation to connection:
Understanding a support group for Hispanic women living with gender-based violence in
Houston, Texas. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 11, 57-65.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Peled, E. L., Eisikovits, Z., Enosh, G.,&Winstock, Z. (2000). Choice and empowerment for
battered women who stay: Toward a constructivist model. Social Work, 45, 9-25.
45

Perez, S., Johnson, D. M., & Wright, C. V. (2012). The attenuating effect of empowerment on
IPV-related PTSD symptoms in battered women living in domestic violence shelters.
Violence Against Women, 18(1), 102–17.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879-891.
Prilleltensky, I., & Gonick, L. (1994). The discourse of oppression in the social sciences: Past,
present, and future. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity:
Perspectives on people in context (pp. 145-177). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121–148.
Ratts, M. J., Anthony, L., & Santos, K. N. T. (2010). The Dimensions of Social Justice model:
Transforming traditional group work into a socially just framework. The Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 35(2), 160–168.
Rivera, E. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Zeoli, A. M. (2012). Secondary victimization of abused
mothers by family court mediators. Feminist Criminology, 7(3), 234-252.
Schneiderman, N., MacCabe, P. M., & Baum, A. (Eds.). (1992). Stress and disease processes.
Routledge.
Scholz, U., Doña, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal
construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. European journal of psychological
assessment, 18(3), 242.
Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (Eds.) (1999). Scales for the assessment of teacher and student
characteristics. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universitat Berlin.
Sherer, M., & Maddux, J.E. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation.
Psychological reports, 51, 663-671.
Skinner, E.A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P.B. (1988). Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A
new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 117-133.
Song, L.Y. (2012). Service utilization, perceived changes of self, and life satisfaction among
women who experienced intimate partner abuse: the mediation effect of empowerment.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6), 1112–36.
Sowards, S. K., & Renegar, V. R. (2004). The rhetorical functions of consciousness‐raising in
third wave feminism. Communication Studies, 55(4), 535–552.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to
1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465–479.
46

Sullivan, C.M. (2003). Using the ESID model to reduce intimate male violence against women.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3), 295-303.
Sullivan, C.M. (2012, October). Examining the work of domestic violence programs within a
“Social and Emotional Well-being Promotion” conceptual framework, Harrisburg, PA:
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence at www.dvevidenceproject.org.
Tutty, L. M., Bidgood, B. A., & Rothery, M. A. (1993). Support groups for battered women:
Research on their efficacy. Journal of Family Violence, 8(4), 325-343.
Watts, R. J., Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Pratt, T. (2002). Enhancing critical consciousness in young
African American men: A psychoeducational approach. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,
3(1), 41–50.
Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1-2), 185–94.
Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and
future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 43-57.
Watts, R., Griffith, D., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for
oppression--theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology. 27(2), 255–271.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review, 14: 361-384.
Worrell, J., & Remer, L. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: empowering diverse women.
Hoboken: Wiley.
Wright, C. V., Perez, S., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). The mediating role of empowerment for
African American women experiencing intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma!:
Theory, Research, Practice And Policy, 2(4), 266–272.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory :Psychological, organizational, and
community levels of analysis. In J.Rappaport& E.Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community
psychology (pp. 43–63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

47