. . . a:
fir.”

 

“em

and; 1-43.34”:

n. m

.H¢<1‘|:(l ..

$.54 . t
E “ ,e....s...é...
1,: manna.“ A: a

Jana—.0. a I..."

uw-v -<

 

 
 

‘ i, V

 
 

f ‘ . . 3 a...» .75.. 3?: “P.P.»7....\wl,ux

.

.4
‘
V

 

W LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

How Family Support Affects Depression In Psychologically
Abused Warren: An Analysis Of sultural Differences
Between Black And White Women

presented by
Shallimar M. Jones

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Arts]egree in Psychology

 

 

W

Magor professor

Date

 

9’20’62

0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

__...— ..-.--_ -.__._ .. .__ ~~_—.——¢

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE | DATE DUE DATE DUE

12170$
APR 9. 0 .2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:lC|FiC/DatoDuo.pS5—p.15

 

HOW FAMILY SUPPORT AFFECTS DEPRESSION IN
PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSED WOMEN: AN ANALYSIS OF CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES
by

Shallimar M. Jones

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

2002

ABSTRACT
HOW FAMILY SUPPORT AFFECTS DEPRESSION IN
PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSED WOMEN: AN ANALYSIS
OF RACIAL DIFFERENCES
By

Shallimar M. Jones

The present study investigated the relationship between family support and depression in
a community sample of psychologically abused women. This study also examined how
family support may differentially affect depression in abused Black and White women.
A total of 138 participants (39 Black and 99 White) were obtained from the third time
period of a longitudinal study examining the effects Of domestic violence on women.
The Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory was used to assess psychological
abuse. The Beck Depression Inventory and the Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire
were used to assess depression and social support, respectively. Results indicated a main
effect for emotional support on depression for all women (t = -2.11; p_ < .05) and for
White women (t = -2.34; p_ < .05), but significant results were not found for Black
women. Implications from this study not only highlight the need for further research on
the role of family support in the lives of psychologically abused women, but also the need

to incorporate cross cultural perspectives when examining this issue.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank God for giving me strength to complete
this process. Secondly I would also like to thank all Of my family and friends, for
providing me with encouragement and support when I needed it. I would also like to
give a special thanks to my advisor Dr. Bogat, for leading me through this process.
Without your help and guidance this thesis would have been impossible. In addition, I
would also like to give a special thanks to my classmates; your encouragement was
greatly appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank Aaron, your love and understanding

made this process easier to complete.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ l
IPV ..................................................................................... 4
PsychologicalAbuse........................; ........................................ 5
Risk Factors for IPV ................................................................. 6
Mental Health Consequences ........................................................ 8

Depression ..................................................................... 8
Depression, Race, and SES ................................................. 11
Social Support ........................................................................ 12
Family Support .............................................................. 15
Family support and IPV .................................................... 17
Rationale ............................................................................. 19
Hypotheses ........................................................................... 22

METHODS ................................................................................... 25
Participants ........................................................................... 25
Measures .............................................................................. 25

Demographics ............................................................... 25

Depression ................................................................... 26
Psychological Abuse ........................................................ 26

Social Support ................................................................ 26

Procedure ............................................................................. 27
RESULTS .................................................................................... 29
Hypotheses ............................................................................ 30
DISCUSSION .................................................... » ........................... 32
Limitations .................................................................. 37

Implications and Future Research ........................................ 39
REFERENCES ............................................................................... 41
APPENDICES ................................................................................ 52
Appendix A: Demographics ........................................................ 52
Appendix B: Beck Depression Inventory ......................................... 57
Appendix C: Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory .............. 61
Appendix D: Norbeck Social Support Scale ...................................... 63

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Means of demographic variables .............. . ....................................... 72
. Table 2. ANOVA of racial differences on PMWI ........................................... 73
Table 3. ANOVA of racial differences on BDI ................................................ 74
Table 4. ANOVA of racial differences on demographic variables ......................... 75
Table 5. Chi square of racial differences on demographic variables ...................... 76
Table 6. MANCOVA of racial differences on social support variables .................. 77
Table 7. Pearson correlations of variables for all women ................................... 78
Table 8. Pearson correlations of variables for White women ............................... 79
Table 9. Pearson correlations of variables for Black women ............................... 80
Table 10. Regression for total family support and frequency for all women. . . . . . . . . .81
Table 11. Regression of total family support and frequency for White women ........... 82
Table 12. Regression of total family support and frequency for Black women. . . . . . ...83
Table 13. Regression of non-nuclear family for Black women ............................... 84
Table 14. Regression of non-nuclear family for White women .............................. 85
Table 15. Regression of emotional support and practical support all women .............. 86
Table 16. Regression of emotional support and practical support Black women. . . . . .....87 ‘
Table 17. Regression of emotional support and practical support White women. . . ..88

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the relationship between depression and
family support in psychologically abused women and explore the differential impact
cultural aspects of family support may have on the mental health of abused Black and
White women.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV—defined here as males’ violence toward their
female partners) has gained increased attention over the last three decades. Research
estimates that between 8 and 12% of adult women who are married or cohabitating
experience male-to-female violence (Morse, 1995). IPV can encompass physical,
psychological, or even sexual abuse.

There are a myriad of consequences that women face when they are the victims of
IPV. Though bodily injuries are common results of physical abuse, negative mental
health consequences such as post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, and low
self esteem have also been documented from all forms of abuse (Follingstad, Brennan,
Hause, Polek, & Rutledge, 1991; Goodman, Koss, & Russo 1993; Hampton Concr-
Edwards, 1993; Walker, 1984; Zlotnick, Kohn, Peterson, & Pearlstein 1998). However
across all mental health consequences, depression by far, is one of the most common
symptoms (Follingstad, et al., 1991; Goodman, Koss, & Russo 1993; Walker, 1984;
Zlotnick, Kohn, Peterson, & Pearlstein 1998). For example, Follingstad, et a1. (1991),
reported that 76.6% Of women who experienced physical and psychological abuse in their
lives also reported depression. Although all types of abuse can cause depression, in

comparison to physical abuse, psychological abuse is thought to be the most damaging,

l

particularly since it involves continuous attacks on a woman’s sense of self (F ollingstad,
et al., 1990; Marshall, 1999; O’Leary, 1999; Sackett & Saunders, 1999).

One way to help prevent the development of depression is through social support.
Researchers have demonstrated that quality social support in the lives of women
experiencing abuse can decrease rates of depression (Coker, Smith, Paige, Thompson,
McKeown, Bethea, & Davis, 2002; Tan, Basta, Sullivan, & Davidson, 1995), especially
for women who are experiencing severe abuse (Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Tan etal.,
1995). Support networks can be composed of many types of individuals, such as family,
friends, co- workers, or clergy members. While family support is cited more frequently
than any other source (Bowker, 1983; Tan et al., 1995), most research on social support
in abused populations only focuses on the quality of support provided by friends or the
entire network. Few studies have examined the contributory influence that family
support has on depression in abused women.

For some cultural groups, the presence Of specific individuals within the support
network may be highly valued and beneficial to an individual’s mental health. In
particular, family support in the lives of Afiican Americans has been identified as an
important link to decreased reports of depression (Adams, 1999; Belgrave et al., 2000;
Maton et al., 1996; Utsey etal., 2000). Consequently, family support may be of even
greater importance for Black women experiencing IPV. Although their study did not
examine depression as an outcome, Cazenave and Straus (1979) found that family
support was important in reducing violence in Afiican American couples.

Aside from Cazenave and Straus (197 9), who only examined the quantity of

2

family support, few researchers (with the exception of Fraser, McNutt, Clark, Williams-
Muharnmed, & Lee, 2002; Huang & Gunn, 2001) have conducted studies to examine
how the quality and quantity of family support impacts depression in abused Black
women. Since income has been associated with higher rates Of IPV (Hall, Sachs, Rayens,
& Lutenbacher, 1993; Lutenbacher, 2000) and depression, SES was controlled in this
study. This thesis addressed the current gap in the violence literature and examined the
role of family support in the lives of psychologically abused women, as well as cultural
differences in family support for abused Black and White women.
m Partner Violence

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a social problem that has gained increased
attention over the past decades. The majority of studies examining IPV have primarily
focused on physical violence between couples. Straus & Gelles (1990) define physical
violence as “an act canied out with the intention or perceived intention of causing
physical pain or injury to another person.” Using this definition as a basis, data compiled
from the National Crime Victimization Survey (N CVS) revealed that in 1998; nearly 1
million incidents of IPV occurred between spouses, dating couples, or cohabitating
partners (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Of these incidents, the majority (nearly 85%)
were committed against women. Since the NCVS was administered within the context of
a crime survey, the actual incidents of IPV are probably underestimated The National
Violence Against Women Survey (NVW S), which randomly sampled men and women

across the US, estimated that nearly 1.5 million women and 835,000 men experience

IPV annually (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; 2000). Given these findings, it is apparent that
women comprise the majority of IPV victimizations. .
Psychological Abuse

Although physical abuse occurs at a fairly high rate within the population, it
rarely occurs alone. In fact, research suggests that most physical abuse tends to occur
simultaneously with psychological abuse (Follingstad et al., 1990; Marshall, 1999;
O’Leary, 1999; Sacket & Saunders, 1999). Currently there is considerable debate within
the field of violence regarding the actual inclusion criteria for psychological abuse. Even
though the criteria may vary, research definitions of psychological abuse usually include
acts of control, isolation, or ridicule (Goodman, Koss, & Russo, 1993; Katz & Arias,
1999) directed towards an individual.

Psychological abuse can fall into different categories (Goodnian et al., 1993;
Marshall, 1992; Marshall, 1999; Hamby & Sugarman, 1999). One category is expressive
aggression where name-calling or shouting occurs as an expression of distress. Another
is instrumental aggression where an individual destroys another’s property to display
anger. A third is insults or humiliation, which can also be labeled as malicious
aggression. Finally, the most severe category of psychological abuse includes physical
threats such as threatening to hurt or kill someone (Hamby & Sugarman, 1999).

Because psychological abuse involves continuous attacks on a woman’s character,
many experts feel that psychological abuse is just as emotionally damaging, if not more
so, than physical abuse (Follingstad, et al., 1990; Marshall, 1999; O’Leary, 1999; Sackett
& Saunders, 1999). In one of the first reports of psychological abuse, Lenore Walker

4

(1979) interviewed 400 self-identified mild to severely physically abused women and
found that the majority of women reported that the psychological abuse they experienced
was much worse than the physical abuse. Unfortunately, because the qualitative data was
gathered from a nonrandomized sample, these reports were not statistically analyzed and
may not be generalizable to the abused population at large. Follingstad et a1. (1990) also
examined the relationship between psychological and physical abuse. Using a
community sample of women with various histories of physical abuse (some had only 1
incident while the majority were in long term abusive relationships), they found that 72%
of the women reported that emotional abuse was worse than physical abuse. Using the
same sample, Follingstad et a1. (1991) reported that depression was more strongly
correlated to psychological abuse than to physical abuse.

Psychological abuse within a relationship can occur by itself or concurrently with
physical abuse (Follingstad et al., 1990; Murphy & O’Leary, 1989; O’Leary, 1999).
When psychological abuse occurs in isolation, it is thought to act as a precursor for future
physical violence (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989; O’Leary, 1999). As psychological abuse
becomes more severe, it can occur in tandem with mild or severe physical violence
(Follingstad et al., 1990; Follingstad etal., 1991; Marshall, 1999; O’Leary, 1999; Sacket
& Saunders, 1999). Interestingly, many experts believe that the occurrence of physical
violence without a psychological component is rare (O’Lear'y, 1999). For example,
Follingstad et a1. (1990) reported that 99% of their physically abused community sample
also reported psychological abuse. Regardless of the type of abuse experienced, there are

some factors which are thought to increase the likelihood of experiencing abuse.

5

_Rl_'s_kfgctors for IPV

Studies examining both physical and psychological abuse across community and
shelter populations have found that certain demographic variables increase the probability
of a woman experiencing IPV. Socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, marital status, and
age of the woman are all related to increased incidents of IPV (Bachman & Saltzman,
1995; Brush, 2000; Craven, 1996; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Lutenbacher, 2000;
Sullivan & Rumptz 1994; Zlotnick, Kohn, Peterson, & Pearlstein, 1998; Vivian & Malone,
1997). However, for the purposes of this study only SES and ethnicity are discussed.

Research on SES and IPV reveals that women in lower SES positions are at risk
for experiencing more incidents of IPV than higher SES women (Bachman & Saltzman,
1995; Brush, 2000; Craven, 1996; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Lutenbacher, 2000;
Vivian & Malone, 1997). Data fiom the General Accounting oniee, that synthesized
reports fi'om various government social service agencies, found that 22 to 80% of female
welfare recipients report current physical abuse (Raphael, 1997). Using a community
sample to examine risk factors for IPV, Aldarondo and Sugarrnan (1996) reported that
low SES was associated with higher incidents of IPV. In addition to SES, ethnicity is also
seen as a risk factor for IPV. Currently there are a limited number of studies examining
racial differences in IPV among both community and shelter populations. The research
that is available in this area is mostly obtained from survey research. Available data
suggests that minority women, particularly Black women, are at greater risk for not only
for experiencing IPV, but also for experiencing more severe IPV (Lutenbacher, 2000;

Sullivan & Rumptz 1994; Zlotnick et al., 1998) than White women. For example, analysis

6

of the 1993 and 1998 NCVS survey revealed that Black women were 35% more likely to
experience IPV than White women (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). And Greenfeld et a1.
(1998) reported that Black women are 3 times more likely to be killed by their partner
than are White women.

Some researchers believe that Black women face more IPV because of their
economic position. The 2001 US. Census reported that 5% of all married households
were below the poverty rate while 26% of all female-headed households were. When
examined individually by race, nearly 8% of all Black two person homes and 34% of
female headed homes were poor. Compared to 4.5% and 20% (respectively) of White
families. Because of the lower economic position Black women face, income may well
be a significant contributory factor in their experience of abuse.

Cazenave and Straus (1979) controlled for income when they examined data from
the 1975 NCVS survey. Analysis revealed that when SES was controlled, incidents of
IPV for Blacks and Whites were comparable in every SES group except the $6;OOO-
$11;OOO range. It was only in this group that Blacks reported more incidents of IPV than
Whites. In a separate study, using a community sample matched for marriage status and
SES, Lewis (1988) also found that after controlling for SES, Blacks were not more likely
to experience abuse than Whites.

Aside from between group differences in SES for Blacks and Whites, there are
also within group differences for Blacks as well. For example, in a study examining IPV
in Black women, Lockhart and White (1989) found that low SES Black women reported
more incidents of IPV than high SES Black women. Wyatt, Axelrod, Chin, Carmona, &

7

Loeb (2000) also reported similar findings. Given this data and the previously mentioned
studies, it is apparent that when examining racial differences in IPV, SES must be taken
into consideration. Otherwise, the results may not adequately represent group differences
in the rates of IPV.

Mental Hefl Consguences of IPV

Regardless of the type Of abuse, SES status, or ethnicity, all abused women are at
risk for mental health problems associated with their abuse. Some problems abused
women experience are post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, and
low self esteem (Agular & Nightingale, 1994; Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992; F ollingstad et
al., 1991; Gerlock, 1999; Gleason, 1993; Goodman et al., 993; Hampton & Concr-
Edwards, 1993; Sato & Heiby, 1992; Walker, 1984; Zlotnick et al., 1998). However,
when compared to other mental health consequences, depression is, by far, one of the
most commonly reported symptoms of abused women (F ollingstad, et al., 1991; Cascardi
& O’Leary, 1992; Gerlock, 1999; Goodman, et al., 1993; Sato & Heiby, 1992; Walker,
1984; Zlotnick et al., 1998).

Depression. Depression is one of the most fi'equently reported mental health
problems for women in general (W eisman, Bruce, Leaf, F lorio, & Holzer, 1991; Kessler,
McGonagle, Zhao, Nelson, Hughes, Eshleman, et al., 1994). It is estimated that the
lifetime prevalence for depression in women is between 10.2% (W eisrnan et al., 1991)
and 21.3% (Kessler et al., 1994). However, the rate is significantly higher for physically
and/or psychologically abused women. In a meta-analysis of IPV studies using shelter

and community samples, Golding (1999) reported that the mean prevalence of depression

8

in abused populations was 47.6%. To further examine the rates of depression in abused
women, J affe, Wolfe, Wilson, and Zak (1986) compared depression scores from a
physically abused shelter sample to a non-abused community sample. They found that
physically abused women had significantly more depressive symptoms than non-abused
women. Gleason (1993) also found similar results when he examined the rates of
depression in abused women from a battered women’s shelter and women seeking
services from a domestic violence agency. He compared their depression scores to a
control sample Obtained from the National Institute of Mental Health Epidemiological
Catchment Area Program (ECA) survey, which was designed to “ascertain the incidence
and prevalence of mental disorders in the US.” (p 56). Results from the data analysis
supported previous research by demonstrating that the prevalence of major depression for
both samples of battered women was significantly higher than the nOn-battered ECA
women (shelter = 81%, agency = 69%, ECA = 17%).

There are also within group differences for depression in abused women as well.
Specifically, women who experience more severe forms of IPV are more likely to be
depressed than women who experience less severe forms of IPV (Aguliar & Nightingale
1994; Campbell & Socken, 1999; Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992; Cascardi, O’Leary, &
Schlee, 1999; Follingstad et al., 1990; Follingstad et al., 1990; Gelles & Harrop, 1989;
Golding, 1999; Vivian & Malone, 1997; Sato & Heiby, 1992; Zlotnick et al., 1998).
Gelles and Harrop (1989) analyzed data from the National Family Violence Survey and
found that women who experienced severe physical violence reported higher levels of

psychological distress, when compared to women who experienced mild violence. Other

9

studies examining this issue within shelter samples (where IPV is typically most severe),
also found elevated reports of depression for severely abused women. For example,
Campbell, Kub, Belknap, & Templin, (1997) examined depression in a community
sample of abused women. Results showed that women who were more severely abused
experienced also higher levels of depression.

Some studies show that rates of depression decrease as the amount of time from
the last IPV incident increases (Aguliar & Nightingale, 1994; Campbell, Sullivan, &
Davidson, 1995; Campbell etal., 1994; Follingstad et al., 1991; Golding, 1999; Zlotnick
et al., 1998). In a shelter sample, Campbell et a1. (1994) measured depression across
three time periods: immediately following shelter exit, 10 weeks later, and again at 6
months. Overall results illustrated that depression decreased as the time fi'orn the last IPV
incident increased. Specifically, analysis of depression at shelter exit (when all women
had recently experienced abuse) revealed that 83% of the women were depressed.
However 10 weeks later, reports of depression for women who did not experience an IPV
incident following shelter exit were lower than for women who did experience IPV. The
same pattern was also shown at the 6-month follow up. In a separate longitudinal study
examining a community sample, Campbell et al., (1995) found a similar pattern. Results
demonstrated that for women who were no longer battered at time 2; their levels of
depression were lower when compared to their depression at time 1. However there was
no change in depression for women who were continuously abused across both time

periods, suggesting that depression is influenced by the recency of abuse.

10

Depression, Race, and SES. Similar to the relationship between SES, race, and

IPV, research has documented that depression and SES are associated as well (King,
1991; Murphy, Olivier, Monson, Sobol, 1991). A longitudinal study examining
depression and SES found a negative correlation between depression and income
(Murphy et al., 1991). Using a national sample, Miech & Shannon (2000) found that
adults in low SES positions were more depressed than adults in higher SES positions.

Additionally, in the general population, depression differs among racial groups.
Although research is limited, some studies suggest that Blacks in general, may be less
likely to be depressed than Whites (Adams, 1999; Belgrave et a1, 2000; McKelevy &
McKenry, 2000; Pickett et al., 1993). For example, Black parents of mentally ill children
had higher feelings of self-worth and lower levels of depression than White parents
(Pickett, Vraniak, Cook & Cohler, 1993). McKelvey and McKenry (2000) examined the
psychological well-being Of divorced women and found that, after controlling for SES,
black women tended to have lower levels of depression and higher personal mastery than
White women. Maton, Teti, Corns, Vieria—Baker et a1. (1996) found similar results when
they examined racial differences in psychological well-being of Blacks and Whites
between the ages of 15 and 29. After controlling for SES, they found that Blacks had
lower levels of depression and higher levels of self-esteem than their White peers.

Currently few studies have examined racial differences in rates of depression for
abused women. It is unclear why researchers have generally ignored this issue. In some
studies, the size of the sample may preclude such analyses, or it could be that some

researchers are unaware of the differential rates of depression among racial groups. One

11

of the few studies to examine racial differences in depression for abused women was
carried out by Campbell and Soken (2000). Using a community sample drawn fiom a
heterogeneous SES background, they conducted a longitudinal study examining women’s
responses to abuse over time. They found that the average score on the Beck Depression
Inventory (BDI) for non-Black women who were no longer abused was 13.8; compared
to 24 for non-Black women who experienced abuse across all time periods. On the other
hand, Black women who were no longer abused and those who were abused across the
time periods, scored 16.6 and 18.2 respectively on the BDI. In other words, this means
that depression for non-Black women was significantly influenced by abuse status, while
depression in Black women was not. It may be that other culturally related variables
differentially affect depression across racial groups. One factor that may explain this
difference is social support.
Social Support

Research has demonstrated that social support plays a significant role in the
development of depression (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kelly, Kelly, & Brown, 1999;
Kleinke, 1998; Maton et al., 1996; Pearlin et al., 1981; Utsey et al., 2000). Social support
refers to the people in one’s life who can be relied upon for guidance, practical support
(e.g., loan money), and/or emotional support (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Gottlieb, 1983;
Kleinke, 1998; Maton et al., 1996; Pearlin et al., 1981). Social support can be obtained
from formal support sources such as professional agencies, or informal sources such as

family or fiiends. Individuals who possess good social support networks, compared to

12

those who do not, are less likely to be depressed and anxious (Kelly et al., 1999; Kleinke,
1998; Maton et al., 1996; Pearlin et al., 1981; Turner & Turner, 1999; Utsey et al., 2000)

According to Turner and Turner (1999), social support should be viewed as a
multifactorial concept with three distinguishable aspects: quantity of support, quality of
support received, and perceived support. Quantity refers to the number of people within
the network. Quality refers to the amount of support given. Perceived support is the
belief that the support network would provide different types of support (e.g. emotional
or practical support) if needed (Cutrona, Suhr, & McFarlane, 1990). Studies have shown
that each aspect of social support is related to mental health (Bisconti & Bergeman, 1999;
Hall, Schaffer, & Greenberg, 1987; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983).

Currently there are two models used to explain the manner in which social
support influences mental health: the main effect model and the buffering model. As
reviewed by Cohen and Wills (1985), the main effect model purports that social support
is always beneficial to an individual’s well being, regardless of life circumstances.
According to this model, the benefits of social support work via individual integration
into the support network. Specifically, qualities of integration (also referred to as
structural aspects of support) such as the quantity of supporters, source of support, or the
number of interactions with the support network are seen as beneficial because they
influence self worth, provide a sense of belonging, and promote well-being within an
individual (Cowen, 2000; House, 1988; Laireiter & Baumann, 1992; Turner & Turner,
1999). In fact, several studies have shown that there is a connection between integration

within the support network and mental health (Anotonucci & Akiyama, 1997; Cassel,

l3

1976; Glass & Maddox, 1993; Hall et al., 1987; Hammer, 1981; Levinger & Huesmann,
1980; Moos & Mitchell, 1982). ‘

Although beneficial to general mental well being, this model may not be
applicable when individuals are under stress. According to a review by Turner and
Turner (1999), social support may matter most when an individual is exposed to high
levels of stress; that is, social support buffers the individual from the harmful effects of
the stress or stressors. When people experience high levels of life stress (such as the
death of a loved one or IPV), social support functions to help the person cope with the
situation. Specifically, through perceived emotional support or practical aid, social
support helps to alter an individual’s perception Of the stressor, thereby decreasing the
likelihood of the individual experiencing depression (Dunkel-Schetter, Folkman, &
Lazarus, 1987; Ennis, Hobfoll, & Schroder, 2000; Israel & AntonucCi, 1987; Pearlin,
Menaghan, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981).

Studies examining social support in abused samples have found that the
functional aspects of social support are related to decreased depression (Bowker, 1984;
Coker et. al., 2002; Fraser et al., 2002; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Tan et al., 1995). For
example, Tan et al. (1995) examined functional support in the networks of Black and
White women leaving shelters. They found that the quality of support was related to
decreased depression. Using the same sample, Sullivan and Rumptz (1994) examined
social support exclusively for Black women. Results were comparable to those in the
larger study; women who had good supportive relationships also had better psychological

well being. In other words, by altering their perception of abuse the quality of the

14

support served as a buffer against the women experiencing depression. Unfortunately,
neither study conducted separate analyses to determine if Social support differentially
affected the mental health outcomes of Black and White women.

Another limitation of the IPV literature is that only certain sources of social
support are examined. Specifically, even though studies have shown that family support
is cited more fi'equently than any other source of support for battered women (Bowker,
1984; Tan et al., 1995), most studies only examine the quality of support provided by
friends or the entire network. This could be problematic, because for some women, the
support given by family may be equally if not more important than support given by 1
friends. For example, Bowker (1984) not only reported that family support was cited
more often than any other informal support, it was also found to be as at least fairly
helpful in 80% of IPV incidents. Work by Coker et a1. (2002) supports this. Specifically,
they examined abuse in a community sample of women and found that family support
was related to decreased depression. However, similar to previous studies, racial
differences in support and mental health outcomes were not examined. Since family
support is important to Black women (Coley & Bekcett, 1988; Huang & Gunn, 2001;
Vandewater & Antonucci, 1998) this analysis is of particular importance.

_F_amileupport. Cross-cultural research shows that family support is more
important for Blacks than Whites (Mutran, 1985; Sagrestano et al., 1999). Mutran
(1985), using a national aging survey, found that elderly Blacks received and gave more
support to their family than did elderly Whites. Other studies on younger populations

have demonstrated similar findings. Examining racial differences in social support

15

during pregnancy, Sagrestano, Feldman, Killingsworth, Woo, Dunkel, & Schetter (1999)
found that Black women reported higher quality relationships with their family in
comparison to White women. Additionally, Black women also reported receiving
significantly more support from family members than did White women. One
explanation for this difference may be the important role that family plays within Black
culture.

It has been historically documented that Black culture traditionally focuses on the
importance of family in an individual’s life (Blassingame 1979; Hill, 1972; Scott &
Black, 1989; Smith, 1989; Utsey et al., 2000). Originating from West Afiican culture,
the importance of family gained new meaning during slavery. It was at this time that
many families were split apart and sold to various plantations across the western
hemisphere (Blassingame 1979; Smith, 1989; Franklin, 1997). In response to this
separation, the bonds between remaining relatives became strengthened. Given this
social structure, both the nuclear and extended families were essential to the support
network of Blacks during slavery.

Researchers have shown that the bond with extended family still remains an
important aspect in the present day lives of Blacks (Barker, Morrow, Mitteness, 1998;
Hill, 1971; Jackson, 1973; Seelback & Sauer, 1977). One reason for this occurrence may
be the types of support provided by the family. The most common types of support given
by the family are emotional support or practical aid (Ball, 1983; Dilworth-Anderson,
1992; Malson, 1983; McAdoo, 1978; Padgett, 1997; Scott & Black, 1989; Stack, 1974;

Taylor, 1986). For example when one family member is in a difficult financial situation,

16

it is not uncommon for other relatives to Open their home and allow the individual or
family to stay with them.

One aspect of Black families that facilitates this exchange is the close proximity
with which Black families live (Ball, 1983; Dilworth-Anderson, 1992; Malson, 1983;
Padgett, 1997). Examining the supportive networks of Black families from the 1980
National Survey of Black Americans Hunter (1997) found that the majority of
respondents reported that they had relatives either within the household, neighborhood, or
city that could be counted on in times of need. The supportive network of Black families
is also influenced by the fi'equency of interaction between relatives. For instance, several
studies have shown that families interact anywhere fi'om once a month to everyday
(McAdoo, 1982; Padgett, 1997; Taylor, 1986). Data from the 1980 NSBA survey shows
that 37% of respondents reported that they interacted with their relatives on a daily basis
(Taylor, 1986); almost 82% had monthly contact.

Studies find that frmctional aspects of family support were positively correlated
with psychological well-being (Adams 1999; Belgrave et al., 2000; Coley & Beckett,
1988; Maton et a1, 1996; McKelevy & McKenry, 2000; Pickett et al., 1993) and lower
levels of depression for Blacks, but not Whites (Belgrave et al., 2000; Coley & Beckett,
1988; Pickett et al., 1993). For example, using a college sample, Jung and Khalsa ( 1989),
found that perceived family support and race was related to lower levels of depression in
Blacks and Whites. Harris and Molock (2000) also used a college sample and found that
family support was related to lower levels Of depression for Blacks.

_I_"_amilLsupD0rt amd IPV. Although it has been documented that fimctional and

17

structural family support is important to abused women (Coker, 2002; Frazer et al., 2002;
Tan et. al., 1995), few studies have analyzed racial differences in family support for
abused women. Some studies do suggest that these types of support have a differential
impact on IPV for Blacks. Using data from the 1975 NCVS survey, Cazenave & Straus
(1979) examined the role of family in IPV. After controlling for SES, they found that
structural support such as closeness to family was correlated with lower levels of spousal
abuse for Blacks and not Whites. Specifically they found that the number of non-nuclear
adult family members in the household and the proximity of relatives were related to
decreased violence for Blacks and not Whites. Huang and Gunn (2001) also examined
family and IPV using a sample of Black college students. They found that students who
had a close relationship with their family were less likely to be involved in a violent
relationship.

Other studies have also demonstrated the importance of family support for abused
women. Using a community sample, Fraser et a1. (2002), reported that abused Black
women feel more comfortable talking about abuse with family members who have also
experienced abuse. Further Nabi and Mehan (1998) conducted a telephone survey for
Blacks directed at addressing attitudes and beliefs about IPV. Their results show that the
majority Of Black men and women would feel more comfortable talking to a family
member rather than a close fiiend about abuse. Given these findings, functional and
structural aspects of social support may differentially relate to depression in Black

women as well.

18

mm

The purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between family support
and depression for women who have experienced IPV. Research has shown that women
who experience physical and/or psychological abuse are at greater risk for depression
than non-abused women (F ollingstad, et al., 1991; Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992; Gerlock,
1999; Goodman, et al., 1993; Sato & Heiby, 1992; Walker, 1984;Z10tnick et al., 1998).
However for women who possess quality social support, the risks Of depression are
greatly attenuated (Bowker, 1984; Coker et. al., 2002; Dobash et al., 1985; Frazer et al.,
2002; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Tan et al., 1995). Unfortunately, most studies on social
support and [PV have drawn their samples from shelter populations where violence is the
most severe (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). These results may not generalize to women who
live in the community and experience abuse. According to Johnson and Ferraro (2000),
this could be problematic since severe violence is relatively rare within the population at
large.

Johnson and Ferraro (2000), assert that Common Couple Violence (CCV) has a
much higher prevalence. Found within community or survey populations, CCV “has a
low couple frequency, is not as likely to escalate over time, (and) is not as likely to
involve severe violence” (949). However most research with community samples
focuses primarily on physical abuse. This is problematic because many studies have
shown that psychological abuse may be more damaging to mental health than physical
abuse (Follingstad, et al., 1990; Marshall, 1999; O’Leary, 1999; Sackett & Saunders,

1999). Given this, social support may be essential for psychologically abused women.

19

Currently though, no study has ever examined the connection between social support and
psychological abuse within a community sample. Therefore the present study focused on
understanding the role of social support among a community sample of psychologically
abused women.

Research on social support and IPV has often overlooked the contributory role of
family support. The majority of studies conducted on this topic have primarily focused
on the connection between depression and the quality of emotional and critical support
provided by fiiends or the entire support network. However some research in this area
suggests that family support may also be important (Bowker, 1983; Coker et al., 2002;
Frazer et. al., 2002; Tan et al., 1995). Because family represents the majority of
supporters in these women’s network, family support may be essential in decreasing the
risk of depression for abused women. It may be that the results fi'om studies examining
the relationship between the entire support network and depression are really just
reflecting the effect of family support.

In conjunction with the analysis of farmly support, another focus of this study was
to examine possible racial differences in depression and family support for abused
women. Research has documented that after controlling for SES, levels of depression
(McKelvey & McKenry, 2000; Manton et al., 1996) and IPV were lower for Blacks than
Whites (Cazenave & Straus, 1979; Lockhart, 1985). Several studies have shown that not
only do Blacks interact more frequently with their family than do Whites (Mutran, 1985;
Sagrestano et al., 1999), but also that family support is highly correlated with decreased

levels of depression in Blacks and not Whites (Adams 1999; Belgrave et al., 2000; Coley

20

& Beckett, 1988; Maton et al , 1996; McKelevy & McKenry, 2000; Pickett, et al.,l993).
In light of this, it may be that family support is particularly important for abused Black
women.

- To date, very few studies have examined the relationship between family support
and depression for abused Black women. Some studies that do show a connection have
found that family support is related to decreased levels of IPV for Blacks and not Whites
(Cazenave & Straus, 1979; Fraser et. al., 2002; Huang & Gunn, 2001; Nabi & Mehan,
1998). However, because some of these studies did not control for SES and one
examined a college sample, the results may not generalize to the population at large.
Thus, a definitive connection between IPV and family support cannot be established.

In spite of their limitations, these studies do offer evidence that the quantity and
quality of family support influences IPV for Blacks. Given this, it stands to reason that
these aspects of family support may also differentially affect depression in abused Black
and White women.

Research on social support among abused women typically considers abuse as a
severe stressor; therefore, most researchers use aspects of the buffering model to explain
the relationship between social support and depression. Specifically it has been found
that the quality of emotional support moderates rates of depression in abused women
(Dutton, 1994). However, this model may not fully capture all of the benefits of social
support.

Instead, the main effects model may also be useful in explaining the benefits of

social support. Focusing on structural aspects of social support, this model contends that

21

integration within a support network (i.e., the quantity or frequency of interaction with
supporters) is beneficial to mental heath regardless of stressful situations (Cowen, 2000;
House, 1988; Laireiter & Baurnann, 1992; Turner & Turner, 1999). Some research with
abused women supports this position. For example Tan et a1. (1995) found that
satisfaction of fiiend support was correlated to the quantity of friends within the network.
In addition, Mitchell and Hodson (1986) reported that fi'equency of interaction with
fiiends was correlated with better mental health in abused women. Consequently,
integration within a network could be independently related to depression in abused
women.

The same principle is also present in family support for Black women.
Specifically, research shows that quality of family support and family integration are both
related to the mental health of Blacks. So in order to gain a better understanding of this
issue for all abused women, both the main-effects and bufiering models will be used to
examine family support within this study. Additionally, because research has shown that
income is related to the severity of abuse (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Brush, 2000;
Craven, 1996; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Lutenbacher, 2000; Vivian & Malone, 1997),
depression (King, 1991; Murphy et al., 1991), and racial differences in abuse
(Lutenbacher, 2000; Sullivan & Rumptz 1994; Zlotnick et al., 1998), SES will be
controlled in this study. This study explored whether integration and quality of family
support influenced depression differentially in abused Black and White women.

Hypotheses

In order to examine family support in the lives of abused women, this study

22

addressed the following questions:

Integration within the family was defined by the following three variables: total

family support, frequency of interaction with family members, and the number of

- non-nuclear family members living in the home.

1.

It was predicted that total family support and fi'equency of interaction with
family members would each have a significant, direct effect on depression
experienced by the abused women in this study; however, these variables
would predict a greater proportion of the variance for Black women as
compared to White women. Hierarchical linear regression was used to test
this hypothesis for the whole sample. Separate hierarchical regressions for
Black and White women were conducted to compare racial differences in
variance accounted for.

It was predicted that the number of non-nuclear farme members living in
the home would have a significant, direct effect on depression for Black
women, not White women. Hierarchical regression was used to test this
hypothesis.

It was predicted that emotional support and practical support given by
family would moderate depression for all women. Hierarchical linear
regression was used to test this hypothesis. A significant interaction
between emotional support by psychological abuse and practical support
by psychological abuse, such that both types of support are more

beneficial under conditions of higher stress, will be indicative a

23

moderating affect.

Emotional and practical support from family members would have a
stronger moderating relationship on depression for Black women than for
White women. This was examined by comparing the regression
coefficients for emotional and practical support for Black and White
women. A t-test was conducted to determine if the difference was

significant.

24

METHODS

Participants

Participants were 139 women, selected from the third time period of a larger
longitudinal study of 207 women examining the effects of [PV on mother-infant
interactions. There were a total of 39 Black women and 99 White women who
participated in the study. The mean age of Black women was 25.3 years and for White
women it was 27.2 years. This difference was significant (p < .01). Seventy-seven
percent of Black women were single and 23% were married, separated, or divorced.
Thirty-four percent of White women were single and 65% were married, separated, or
divorced. This difference was significant (p < .01). Black women had a median monthly
income of $1300 (range $341 - $8,500) and White women had a median income of
$1,600 (range $400 - 10,000). This difference was significant (p <-.01). The average
length of Black women’s relationships was 4.5 years and 5.6 years for White women, this
difference was not significant. Black women averaged 2.2 children and White women
averaged 1.8 children, this difference was not significant. Almost 40% of the Black
women were at least high school educated and 34% White women were (p < n.s.).
Measures

Demogphics. A demographic questionnaire assessing items such as race, marital
status, family income, and participant education was administered. Income was recoded
fiom 1 —7 to represent a continuous scale. For example women who did not complete
high school were coded as 1; while women who completed PhD, MD, or Law degrees

were coded as 7. See Appendix A for a copy of the measure.

25

Berg Depression Inventory (BDI, Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh,
1961). The BDI is an inventory used to assess various symptoms of depression. The
inventory is composed of 21 categories of symptoms and attitudes that describe various
behavioral manifestations of depression. Symptoms that are assessed in this
questionnaire include guilty feelings, indecisiveness, changes in appetite, or sleep
disturbances. Participants are asked to choose which of four evaluative statements best
identifies how they have felt during the past week. Each statement is ranked in order of
increasing severity fiom 1 to 4. The results are then summed. Scores can range from 0 to
63. Scores above 20 indicate moderate depression. The coefficient alpha was .85. See
Appendix B for a copy of this measure.

Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI - Short Version;
Tohnan, 1995). The PMWI is a scale used to assess psychologicalabuse. The PMWI-S
has 14 items and includes two scales for isolation/domination and verbal/emotional.
Examples of items include “my partner used our money or made important financial
decisions without talking to me about it” and “my partner blamed for his problems.”
Participants are asked to rate the frequency of their experiences of abuse on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 “Never” to 5 “Very Frequently.” The results are then summed.
Scores can range fi'om 14 to 70. The coefficient alpha was 89.

Norbeck Social Support Scale (Norbeck, Lindsey, & Carrieri, 1981). The
Norbeck assesses the quantity and quality of support provided by individuals within the
participant’s social network. Areas assessed by this questionnaire include emotional

support and practical assistance. Questions also assessed the frequency of contact.

26

Participants are asked to list each significant person in their lives and determine how
much support each person provides a specific area. Participants then rate the amount of
social support each supporters provides on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 “Not at all” to 5
“A great deal.” Results for each scale are then summed to reveal the total amount of
support. The coefficient alpha was 85. See appendix D for a copy of this measure.
Procedure

Participants were recruited for the study through fliers posted in public areas such
as laundromats, bus stations, and libraries around rural and urban areas in Southeastern
Michigan. Fliers were also posted in areas such as hospitals or domestic violence
programs that provided services to victims of IPV. Women interested in participating in
the study were screened over the telephone for relationship status, experience of IPV,
age, and education. Women were excluded from the study if they were not involved in a
romantic relationship for at least 6 weeks within the previous year, were not between the
ages of 18 and 40; or if they had limited knowledge of the English language. If a woman
met the criteria and agreed to participate in the study an interview date and time were
scheduled. Women were assigned a subject number, which was kept separate from their
identifying information (i.e. name, phone number).

A total of 13 research assistants (8 undergraduate and 5 graduate assistants)
conducted the interviews. Training for this study lasted approximately 3 months.
Training consisted of one weekly meeting, mock interviews, journal articles, and
observing actual interviews. Interviewers were also trained on confidentiality and how to

handle difficult situations that could be encountered during the interview. Trainees

27

conducted between 2 and 5 interviews under supervision until 95% inter-rater reliability
was reached. After training was completed all interviewers attended weekly meetings to
discuss problems and procedures.

- Interviews were conducted in either the woman’s home or in an office at
Michigan State. All interviews were conducted in quiet areas where confidentiality could
be assured. Prior to beginning the interview, each woman read and signed an informed
consent form. The women were informed about anonymity and confidentiality and that
they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Since violence
questionnaires were administered last, interviewers were not aware of the battering status
of the women. Interviews lasted approximately 3 hours. Upon completion of the
interview, participants were given a list of community resources and paid $75 for

participating in the study.

28

RESULTS

No missing data was present in the analyses for this study. A total of 138 women
who were psychologically abused (39 Black women, 99 White women) participated in
this study. Frequency analysis of variables revealed that some variables were skewed.
Rank transformations were performed on skewed variables to ensure normal distribution.
Except where indicated, all analyses used transformed variables.

To determine group differences on psychological abuse and depression, two
AN OVAs were performed. Analysis revealed that Black and White women did not differ
on psychological abuse [E (1; 156) = .77]. Scores indicated that women were mildly
abused (M = 22.56; Black women; _M_ = 23.46; White women). There were also no
differences on depression [E (1;156) = .14; __M_ = 6.59; Black women; M = 5.88; White
women]. See Table 2 and 3 for details. Chi Square and AN OVA analyses were
performed to determine if there were group differences between Black and White women
on demographic variables: work outside the home (yes/no), number of children,
education, age, relationship length, marital status (never married/married, divorced,
separated, widowed), age, and income. There were no significant differences between
the groups on work outside the home [)8 (2; N = 136) = 10.40; p = n.s.], number of
children [13 (1; 136) = .57], education [E (1; 136) = 5.75] or in relationship length [E (l;
136) = 1.07]. See Table 4 and 5 for more details. Black women were more likely to be
single than White women [x2 (2; N = 136) = 20.40; p < .01]. Although there was only a
2-year age difference, the groups also significantly differed in age [E (1 ;136) = .60; p <

.01; M = 25.32; Black women, M = 27.22; White women]. Finally, the groups also
29

differed in monthly income [E (1;136) = 7.46; p < .01; M = $1708; Black women, M =
$2272; White women]. See Table 4 and 5 for more details-

MANCOVA analysis was used to examine group differences in social support
variables: total family support, total support, frequency of contact, number of non—
nuclear family members, emotional support, and practical support. Using race as a
grouping factor and entering marital status, age, and income as covariates, group
differences were found between the women. The overall model revealed significant
results [E (4; 133) = 4.06; p < .01]. Black women had significantly more contact with
farrrily members than White women (M = 4.50 and M = 3.93; respectively). There were
no significant differences between the groups on the remaining variables. See Table 6 for
details.

_ Pearson correlations for the variables revealed that depression was significantly
correlated with emotional support and psychological abuse for White women (1' = -.35; p
< .01; r = -.48; p < .01; respectively) and all women (r = -.30; p < .01;; = -.45; p < .01).
Significant correlations between these variables were not found for Black women. See
Tables 7-9 for more details.

Hypotheses. The purpose Of hypothesis 1 was to determine if total family
support and frequency of contact with family members had a direct effect on depression
for all women and separately for Black and White women. To test this hypothesis, three
hierarchical linear regressions were conducted. The sum depression score was entered as
the dependent variable. Independent variables were entered in a stepwise fashion. To

control for age, income, and marital status differences between women, these variables

30

were entered as the first step of the regression. In addition to these variables, the total
psychological abuse score was also entered in the first step in each regression. Total
family support, total support, and the average frequency of interaction with family
members were entered in the final step of the regression. The change in R2 for the model
revealed that total family support and fi'equency of contact were not significant predictors
of depression for all women [AR2 = .01]. See Table 10 for details.

The same analysis was also conduced separately on Black and White women.
The same pattern was duplicated in each group. The model was not significant for Black
women [AR2 = .10] or White women [AR2 = .32]. See Table 10 and 11 for details.

The second hypothesis predicted that the number of non-nuclear family members
in the home would have a significant direct effect on depression for Black women and
not for White women. Hierarchical linear regression was also used to test this
hypothesis. Step1 was identical to that used in hypothesis one. The number of non-
nuclear family members was entered as the second step in the regression. Results
demonstrated that this model was not a significant predictor of depression for Black
women [AR2 = .01]. The model was also not a significant predictor for White women
[AR2 = .00]. See Tables 12 and 13 for details.

The third hypothesis predicted that emotional and practical support would
moderate depression for all women. This was also analyzed using hierarchical linear
regression. Step 1 was identical to the steps in the previous regressions. The second step
of the regression included the average emotional support and practical support scores. To

test the moderating effect, the product psychological abuse by emotional support and the

31

product of psychological abuse x practical support were entered as the final step of the
regression. There was a significant main effect for emotional support (t = -2.11; p < .05)
but not for practical support (t = -.25). The interaction for practical support was not
significant (t = .01). See Table 14 for details.

The final hypothesis was that emotional and practical family support would have
a stronger moderating relationship for Black women than for White women. This
hypothesis was analyzed using the same steps of the previous regression. The model test
for Black women revealed that the model was significant [AR2 = .01], however individual
t tests for emotional and practical support were not significant. Therefore, this
hypothesis was not supported for Black women. See Table 15 for details.

Analysis of this hypothesis for White women revealed that although the model
containing the interaction was not significant, the main effects modelwas [AR2 = .02; p <
.001]. Specifically, tests for the main effects revealed that emotional support was a
significant predictor of depression (I = -2.34; p < .05). This hypothesis was not supported

for practical support. See Table 16 for more details.

32

DISCUSSION

Drawing largely from shelter samples, numerous studies have demonstrated that
social support is essential to alleviating mental health consequences associated with
physical abuse (Bowker, 1984; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Tan et al., 1995). Studies have
also demonstrated that functional support, particularly emotional support from family and
fiiends, impacts depression in abused women (Bowker, 1984). Although it has been
documented that family support is endorsed more than fiiend support (Bowker, 1984;
Tan et al., 1995), no study has ever examined the individual relationship between family
support and depression in a community sample of abused women. Further, no study has
examined this issue with psychologically abused women. Given this, one of the purposes
for the present study was to address this gap in the literature and elucidate the
relationship between family support and depression for a community Sample of
psychologically abused women.

In addition to the importance of functional support, studies examining social
support for abused women have discovered that structural aspects of support are also
important to the mental health of abused women (Mitchell & Hodson, 1986). Studies
examining family support and Black women have demonstrated that structural support
variables, such as the number of non-nuclear farme members in home, frequency of
interaction, and the total number of family supporters, are all related to decreased IPV for
Black women (Cazenave & Straus, 1979; Huang & Gunn, 2001). In fact, research on
family support suggests that it may be more important for Black women than for White

women (Mutran, 1985 ; Sagrestano etal., 1999). Considering this, the second purpose of
33

this study was to examine the differential role that family support may play in mitigating
depression for psychologically abused Black and White women.

Because structural and functional aspects of support were deemed important to
the mental health of abused women, several hypotheses were developed. The first
hypothesis was that the frequency of contact with family members and total number of
family would have a direct effect on depression for all women and individually for Black
and White women. Results did not support this hypothesis. Previous studies examining
the total number of supporters have found direct influences on mental health (Bowling &
Browne, 1991; Cowen & Wills, 1985). However because these studies were conducted
in non-abused populations, they do not generalize to this pOpulation.

Analysis of this hypothesis for racial differences also demonstrated no significant
results. The small body of research in this area, demonstrates that frequency of contact
and the number of family supporters does have a direct effect on abuse for Black women
and not for White women (Cazenave & Straus, 1979). Unfortunately, this study only
examined physical abuse and did not explore how family influences the mental health
abused women. Therefore these results are not generalizable to this study. Instead, it is
possible that the insignificant findings for this hypothesis may be due to psychological
abuse itself. For example, even though results were congruent with literature that
demonstrate that Black women have significantly more family support and more contact
with their relatives than do White women (McAdoo, 1982; Padgett, 1997; Taylor, 1986);
these variables were not correlated with psychological abuse for either group. This is

contrary to Mitchell and Hodson (1986), which found a connection between mental

34

health and structural types of support. Of note is that this study examined a shelter
sample of physically abused women. Since physical abuse rarely occurs alone .

(F ollingstad et al., 1991; Oleary, 1999), it is highly probable that these women also
experienced psychological abuse. However what sets this Mitchell and Hodson apart
fiom the current study is not necessarily the type of abuse examined, but the severity.
Many researchers have documented that shelter samples experience more severe abuse
than community samples (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Because the current study examines
a community population of mildly abused women, supporters may not have been aware
of the abuse. Therefore, the presence of family would be unlikely to impact abuse.

The second hypothesis was that the number of non-nuclear family members in the
home would be associated with decreased depression for Black women, but not for White
women. Results did not support this hypothesis. Cazenave and Straus (1979) found that
the number of non-nuclear family members was related to decreased abuse for Black
women and not for White women. However mental health was not measured as an
outcome. So coupled with the aforementioned results, this provides further evidence that
the number of family supporters and physical proximity to them supporters may be
inconsequential to the mental health of psychologically abused women. Perhaps
psychologically abused women need other types of social support from their family.

The third hypothesis was that emotional and practical support would moderate
depression for all women. Results did not support this hypothesis. There was no main
effect for practical support, nor did practical support moderate depression. A significant

main effect was found for emotional support. This finding is contradictory to previous

35

research that found a significant buffering effect of emotional support on depression
(Dutton, 1994). With a larger sample, it is likely that an interaction may have been
found. Nonetheless, the main effect for emotional family support is not unusual. In fact,
most research demonstrates a direct effect of emotional support on the mental health of
abused women (Kemp et. al., 1995; Mitchell & Hodson, 1983; Tan et. al., 1995). So in
spite of the insignificant interaction, results indicate the importance of emotional support
for the mental well being of psychologically abused women regardless of the severity of
abuse.

Examination of this hypothesis for practical support revealed no significant
results. This is contrary to Bowker’s (1984) finding that practical aid was the most
helpful type of support for abused women. However, since his study examined a shelter
population, these results are not generalizable to the present study’s community
population. Another possible explanation for the differential findings may be that
because psychologically abused women incur abuse directed at their sense of self
(F ollingstad, et al., 1990; Marshall, 1999; O’Leary, 1999; Sackett & Saunders, 1999),
emotional support rather than practical support is of greater importance. Pearson
correlations support this by demonstrating that emotional support was significantly
correlated to psychological abuse and depression while practical support was not.

The final hypothesis was that emotional and practical support provided by the
family would have a stronger moderating effect on depression for Black women than for
White women. The hypothesis was not supported. Results for White women revealed

that there was not a significant interaction for emotional or practical support. However,

36

there was a single main effect of emotional support on depression. Specifically, there
was a direct inverse relationship between emotional supportand depression for White
women, suggesting that emotional support provided by the family is important for White
women regardless of the severity of abuse.

The same analysis was also conducted for Black women. Surprisingly, results did
not support this hypothesis for Black women. Studies exploring the role of family
support and Black women have found that firnctional support provided by the family is
not only related to better mental health (Mutran, 1985; Sagrestano et al., 1999), it is also
related to decreased abuse as well (Fraser et al., 2002; Huang & Gunn, 2001; Nabi &
Mehan, 1998). Given this, perhaps the lack of support for this hypothesis was due in part
to the low sample size of Black women. However it is important to note that none of the
three studies mentiOned above examined family support in the context of psychological
abuse. Since many experts believe that psychological abuse is more damaging than
physical abuse (O’Leary, 199 Marshall, 1999), it is quite possible that family support is
still essential to the mental health of Black women, especially since results were found
for all women and individually for White women.

Limitations

This study had several limitations primarily associated with sample size,
measurement instruments, and methodology. There were a total of 138 women in this
study, however the group of Black women was quite small compared to the White
women. As previously mentioned, the small cell size may have affected the ability of this

study to detect significant effects. Future studies in this area should use a larger sample

37

to adequately explore the issue of family support and depression for all psychologically
abused women, and for Black women in particular.

A second limitation associated with this study was that psychological abuse data
was collected from the shortened version of the PMWI. Due to this abbreviated format
many forms psychological abuse such as threats directed towards the woman, were not
assessed. It may be that certain types of psychological abuse are more taxing on a
woman’s mental health. However because this instrument did not provide an overarching
assessment of psychological abuse, this analysis was not possible. So, in order to better
clarify the relationship between psychological abuse, mental health, and family support, a
more comprehensive psychological abuse scale should be used.

A third limitation of this study is that the Norbeck et a1. (1981) social support
measure may not encompass all of the essential aspects of family support for Black
women. Research in the general social support literature shows that embeddedness, or
group membership, is related to self worth, provides a sense of belonging, and promotes
well-being within an individual (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1997; Cassel, 1976; Cowen,
2000; Glass & Maddox, 1993; Hall et al., 1987 ; Hammer, 1981; House, 1988; Laireiter &
Baumann, 1992; Levinger & Huesmann, 1980; Moos & Mitchell, 1982; Turner & Turner,
1999). Studies exploring social networks within the Black community have
demonstrated the importance of farmly support by showing that Blacks are more
collectively oriented in regard to family support than are Whites. This is not to say that
family support is not as important for Whites, just that family support for Blacks tends to

include nuclear and extended family, while family for Whites is centered primarily on

38

nuclear family (Barker et al., 1998; Hill, 1971; Jackson, 1973; Seelback & Sauer, 1977).
Given this, because psychological abuse is so taxing to a woman’s sense of self, the
- embeddedness or group connection with family may be more important to the mental
health of psychologically abused Black women. Yet, since the Norbeck et a1. (1981)
instrument examines social support based solely upon nominated individuals rather than
group assessment, it may not fully address embeddeness. Although it can be said that the
nominated supporters (particularly mothers) may be the most important persons within
the support network (Hunter, 1997), for Black women it is more likely that it is the family
support of all persons within the family rather than simply individual family supporters
that is essential (Barker, Morrow, Mitteness, 1998; Hill, 1971; Jackson, 1973; Seelback
& Sauer, 1977). Therefore in order to examine family support for Blacks, perhaps family
should be viewed as a collective unit, rather than the sum of nominated members. This
may explain why social support variables were not found to be significantly correlated to
depression in Black women.
muons Md Future Resea_rc_h

In spite of the limitations present in this study, this study adds pertinent
information to the field of domestic violence. To date, no study has ever examined how
the source of support may influence the mental health of psychologically abused women.
This study provides evidence that family support may be important to the mental well-
being of psychologically abused women. Further, this study also illustrates how the type
of support (e.g., structural vs. functional) may also be important for abused women. In

this study, the source of support (family) did not influence depression; whereas the type

39

of support (emotional) influenced depression for White women. Future research in this
area should examine how the source and type of support differ across psychological as
well as physical abuse. It may that woman experiencing certain types of abuse need
different types of support from their supporters.

Aside from the previously mentioned implications, this study also highlights the
need for more studies examining social support in ethnically diverse populations. With
larger sample sizes and careful consideration of these issues, diverse women may need
equally diverse support fi'om their network.

Finally, because psychological abuse is thought to be a precursor to more severe
violence (Marshall, 1999; O’Leary, 1999), domestic violence service providers should
implement programs aimed at increasing the awareness of psychological abuse with an
emphasis on the importance of the source and type of support individuals (especially

family members) can provide.

40

REFERENCES

Adams, V.H. (1999). Predictors of afiican american well being. Journal of Black
Psychology, 2511), 78-104.

Aguliar, R.J. & Nightingale, N.N. (1994). The impact of specific battering experiences
on the self-esteem of abused women. Journal of Family Violence, 9]] 1, 35-45.

Aldarondo, E. & Sugarman, DB. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and
persistence of wife assault. J oumpl of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
64(5), 1010-1019.

Antonucci, T.C. & Akiyama, H. (1997). Social support and the maintenance of
competence. In S.L. Willis & K.W. Schaie (Eds). Societal mechanisms for

maintaining competence in old age. Societal impact on agipg. New York:
Springer Publishing Co.

Bachman, R, Saltzman, LE. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the
redesigned survey. US. Department of Justice.

Ball, R. (1983). Family and friends: A supportive network for low-income American

‘ black families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 15(1), 51-62.

Barker, J .C., Morrow, J ., & Mitteness, LS. (1998). Gender, informal social support
networks, and elderly urban Afiican Americans. Journal of Agg' g Studies, 12(2),
199-222.

Blassingame, John W. (1979). The Slave Community. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Belgrave, F.Z., Chase-Vaugh, G., Gray, F., Dixon-Addison, J ., & Cherry, V.R. (2000).
The effectiveness of a culture and gender specific intervention for increasing
resiliency among afiican american preadolescent females. Journal of Black

Psychology, 26(2), 133-147.

Bisconti,-T.L. & Bergeman, C .S. (1999). Perceived social control as a mediator of the
relationships among social support, psychological well-being, and perceived

health. Gerontologist, 3911 1, 94-103.

Brush, LB. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition.
Violence Against Women. 6(10). 1039-1065.

41

Bowker, L.H. (1984). Coping with wife abuse: Personal and social networks. In A.R.
Roberts (Ed), Battered Women and their Families: Intervention Strategies and
Treatment Programs. (pp. 168-191) New York: Springer Publishing.

Campbell, J .C., Kub, J ., Belknap, R.A., & Templin, TN. (1997). Predictors of
depression in battered women. Violence Against Women. 3(3). 271-293.

Campbell, J .C., McKenna, L.S., Torres, S., Sheridan, D. & Landenburger, K. (1993).
Nursing care of abused women. In J .C. Campbell & J. Humphreys Nursing Care
of Survivors of FamilyViolence. (pp 248-289). St. Louis, MI: Mosby.

Campbell, J .C., Miller, P., Cardwell M.M., & Bellmap, RA. (1994). Relationship status
of battered women over time. J ourngl of F amilv Violence. 9(2). 99-111.

Campbell, J .C. & Soeken, KL. (1999). Women’s responses to battering over time: An
analysis of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 21-31.

Campbell, R., Sullivan, C.M., & Davidson, W.S. (1995). Women who use domestic
violence shelters: Changes in depression over time. Psychology of Women

Quitgerly, 19', 237-255.

Cascardi, M. & O’Leary, K.D. (1992). Depressive symptomatology, self-esteem, and
. self-blame in battered women. JoumeFfiamilv Violen_ce. 7(4). 249-259.

Cascardi, M., O’Leary, K.D., & Schlee, K.A. (1999). Co-occurrence and correlates of
posttraurnatic stress disorder and major depression in physically abused women.
Journal of Family Violence. 14(3). 227-249.

Cassel, J. (1974). Psychosocial process and “stress”: Theoretical formulations.
International J oumgl of Health Scipnpes. 4; 471-482.

Cazenave, N.A. & Straus, MA. (1979). Race, class, network embeddedness, an family
violence: A search for potent support systems. Journal of Comparative Family
Studies 10' 281-300.

 

Cohen, S. & Hoberrnan, HM. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of
life change stress. Journal of Applied SociMPsvchology, 13(2), 99-105.

 

Cohen, S. & Wills, TA. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.

Coker, A.L.; Smith, P.H.; Thompson, M.P.; McKeown, R.E., Bethea, L.; & Davis, KB.
(2002). Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on

42

mental health. J ourn_al of Women's Health and Geader Eged Medicineall (5);
465-476.

Coley, S.M. & Beckett, J .O. (1988). Black battered women: A review of empirical
literature. Journal of Counseling and DevelOpment. 66; 266-270.

Cowen, EL. (2000). Community psychology and routes to psychological wellness. In J.
Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds), Handbook of community psychology. New

York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Craven, D. (1996). Female victims of violent crime. (Special Report NCJ 16202). US.
Department of Justice.

Cutrona, C.E., Suhr, J .A. & MacFarlane, R. (1990). Interpersonal transactions and the
psychological sense of support. In S. Duck (Ed), Personal relationships and
support. London: Sage.

Dilworth-Anderson, P. (1992) Extended kin networks in black families. Families and
Agipga29-32.

Dobash, R.E., Dobash, R.P., & Cavanagh, K. (1985). The contact between battered
women and social and medical agencies. In J. Pahn (Ed), Private violence and
public policy: The needs of battered women and the response of public services.
(pp 142-165). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Dunkel-Schetter, C., Folkrnan, S., & Lazarus, RS. (1987). Correlates of social support
receipt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 71-80.

Dutton, M.A., Honecker, L.C., Hallo, P.M., & Burghart, K.J. (1994). Traumatic
responses among battered women who kill. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 7(4).
549-564.

Ennis, N.E., Hobfoll, S.E., & Schroder, KB. (2000). Money doesn’t talk, it swears:
How economic stress and resistance resources impact inner-city women’s

depressive mood. American Journal of Comqu Psychology, 28(2), 149-173.

Follingstad, D.R., Brennan, A.F., Hause, E.S., Polek, D.S., & Rutledge, LL. (1991).
Factors moderating physical and psychological symptoms of battered women.
Journal of Family Violence. 6(1). 81—95.

 

Follingstad, D.R., Laughlin, J .E., Polek, Rutledge, L.L., & Hause, ES. (1991).
Identification of wife abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 6; 2; 187-204.

43

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L, Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S, & Polek, D. S. (1990). The
role of emotional abuse 1n physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family

Violence, 5(2), 107- 120.

Fraser, I.M., McNutt, L.A., Clark, C., Williams-Muhammed, D., & Lee, R. (2002).
Social support choices for help with abusive relationships: perceptions of afiican
- american women. Journal of Family Violence. 17(4), 363-375.
Franklin, J .H. (1997). Afiican American families: A historical note. In HR McAdoo
(Ed), Black families: Third edition. (pp 5-8). California: Sage Publications.

Gelles, R.J.(1997). Intimate violence in families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

 

 

Gelles, R.J. & Harrop, J .W. (1989). Violence, battering, and psychological distress
among women. Journal of Interpersonal Violeace. 4(4). 400-420.

Gerlock, AA. (1999). Health impact of domestic violence. Issues in Menpal Heal_Lh_
Nursing, 20; 373-385.

Glass, T.A. & Maddox, G.L. (1993). The quality and quantity of social support: Stroke

recovery as psycho-social transition. Social Science and Medicine, 34(11),
1249-1261.

GleasOn, W.J. (1993). Mental disorder in battered women: An empirical study.
Violence a_n_d Victims, 8(1), 53-68.

Golding, J .M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14(2), 99-132.

Goodman, L.A., Koss, M.P., & F elipe-Russo, N. (1993). Violence against women:
Physical and mental health effects. Part I: Research findings. Applied &
Preventative Psychology, 2,: 79-89.

Gordon, M. (2000). Definitional issues in violence against women: Surveillance and
research from a violence research perspective.

Gottlieb, EH. (1983). Social support as a focus for integrative research in psychology.
American Psychologist, 38', 278-287.

Greenfeld, L.A., Rand, M.R, Craven, D., Klaus, P.A., Perkins, C.A., Ringel, C, &
Warehol, et a1. (1998). Violence by intimates: analysis of dat_a on crimes by

current or former spouses, bomi ends, and giglfriends. (Special Report NCJ
167237) US. Department of Justice.

44

Hall, L.A., Schaefer, E.S., & Greenberg, RS. (1987). Quality and quantity of social
support as correlates of psychosomatic symptoms in mothers with young
children. Research in Nursing and Health. 10(4). 287-298.

Hamby, S.L. & Sugarman, DB. (1999). Acts of psychological aggression against a
partner and their relation to physical assault and gender. Journal of Marriage and
- the anilv. 61(4). 959-970.

Hammer, M. (1981). “Core” and “extended” social networks in relation to heath and
illness. Social SciencL and Medicine. 17; 405-411.

Harris, T.L. & Molock, SD. (2000). Culttual orientation, family cohesion and family
support in suicide ideation and depression among African American college
students. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 30(4). 341-353.

Henderson, J .G. & Pollard, CA. (1993). Prevalence of various depressive symptoms in a
sample of the general population. Psychological Reports. Vol 71(1). 208-210.

Hill, R. (1972). The strengt_hs of black families. New York: Emerson Hall.

Hotaling, G.T. & Sugarman, D.B. ( 1990). A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives.
Journal ofFamilv Violence. 5; L 1-13.

House, J .S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. ( 1988). Structures and processes of social
support. Annual Review of Sociology. 14; 293-298.

Huang, C.J. & Gunn, T. (2001). An examination of domestic violence in an African
American community in north Carolina: Causes and consequences. Journal of

Black Studies, 31(6), 790-811.

Hunter, AG. (1997). Counting on Grandmothers: Black Mothers’ and Fathers’ Reliance
on Grandmothers for Parenting Support. Journal of Family Issues. 18(3). 251-
269.

Israel, B. & Antonucci, T. (1987). Social network characteristics and psychological well
being: A replication and extension. _I;I_e_alth Education Quarterly. 14(4). 461-481.

Jackson, J .J . (1973). Family organization and technology. In K.S. Miller & RM.
Dreger (Eds). Comparative Studies of Blacks and Whites in The United States.
New York: Seminar Press.

Jaffe, P. Wolfe, D.A., Wilson, S., & Zak, L. (1986). Emotional and physical health
problems of battered women. American Journal of Pvchiatrv. 31; 625-629.

45

Johnson, MP. & Ferraro, K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990’s:
Making decisions. Jourpal of Marriage and the Family. 62; 948-963.

Jung, J. & Khalsa, H.K. (1989). The relationship of daily hassles, social support, and
coping to depression in Black and White students. Journal of General

Psychology, 116(4), 407-417.

Katz, J. & Arias, I. (1999). Psychological abuse and depressive symptoms in dating
women: Do different types of abuse have differential effects? Journal of Family

Violence. 1fl3). 281-295.

Kelly, W., Kelly, B, & Brown, KB. (1999). Gender differences in depression among
college students: a multicultural perspective. Collage Student Journal, 33(1), 72-
76.

Kleinke, Chris L. (1998). Coping with Life CMllenges. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.

Kessler, R.C., McGonagle, K.A., Zhao, 8., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S. et al.,
(1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-IIIR psychiatric disorders in
the united states: Results fi'om the national comorbidity survey. Archives of

General Psychiafl, 51', 8-19.

Laireiter, A. & Baumann, U. (1992). Network structures and support functions-
theoretical and empirical analysis. In Veiel & U. Baumann (Eds), The meaning
and measurement of social support. New York: Hemisphere.

Lewis, B.Y. (1988). Psychosocial factors related to wife abuse. Journal of Family
Violence, 2(1), 1-10.

Lewis, B. (1989). Role strain in afiican American women: The efficacy of support
networks. Journal of Black Studies. 20(42), 155-169.

Levinger, G., & Husemann, LR (1980). An incremental exchange perspective on the
pair relationship. Ill K.J. Jurgen, M.S. Greenberg, & R.H. Willis (Eds), Social
exchange: Advances in theory and research. (pp 165-188) New York: Plenum.

Littlejohn-Blake, S.M. & Darling, CA. (1993). Understanding the strengths of Afiican
American families. Journal of Black Studies, 23(4), 460-471.

Lockhart, L. & White, B.W. (1989). Understanding marital violence in the black
community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(4). 421-436.

 

46

Lutenbacher, M. (2000). Perceptions of health status and relationship with abuse history
and mental health in low-income single mothers. Journal of Family Nursing,
6(4), 320-340. ~

Miech, R.A. & Shannahan, M.J. (2000). Socioeconomic status and depression over the
life course. Journal of Health and Hurfln Beaayior. 41(2). 162-176.

Malson, M. (1983). The social support systems of black families. The Ties that bind. (pp
37-57) Haworth Press.

Marshall, L. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales.
Journal of Family Violence. 7; 103-121.

Marshall, LL. (1999). Effects of men’s subtle and overt psychological abuse on low
income women. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 69-87.

Maton, KL, T eti, D.M., Corns, K.M., & Vieria-Baker, CC. (1996). Cultural specificity
of support sources, correlates and contexts: Three studies of african american and

caucasion youth. Arnericaa Journal of Communigy Psychology, 24(4), 551-587.

McAdoo, HP. (1978). Factors related to stability in upwardly mobile black families.
. Journal of Marriage and Family, 40(4), 761-776.

McAdoo, HP (1982). Stress absorbing systems in black families. Family Relations, 31,:
479-488.

 

McAdoo, H.P. (Ed) (1997). Black Families: Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

McFarlane, J ., Willison, P., Malecha, A., Lemmey, D. (2000). Intimate partner violence:
A gender comparison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15; 2; 158-169.

McKelvey, M.W. & McKenry, RC. (2000). The psychosocial well being of black and
white mothers following marital dissolution. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
23; 4-14.

Mitchell, R.E. & Hodson, CA. (1983). Coping with domestic violence: Social support
and psychological health among battered women. American Journal of

Comqu Psychology, 11(6), 629-654.

Moos, R.H. & Mitchell, RE. (1982). Social network resources and adaptation: A
conceptual framework. In T.A. Wills (Ed), Basic processes in helping
relationships. (pp 213-232) New York: Academic Press.

47

Murphy, C.M. & O’Leary, K.D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical

aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57;
579-582. .

Murphy, J .M., Oliver, D.C., Monson, R.R. & Sobol, AM. (1991). Depression and
anxiety in relation to social status: A prospective epidemiologic study. Archives
- of General Psychiatry. 48(3), 223-229.

Mutran, E. (1985). Intergenerational family support among blacks and whites: Response
to culture or socioeconomic differences. Journal of Gerontolgv. 40(3). 382-389.

Nabi, R., & Mehan, T. (1998). It is your business: Report on formative research survey
findings, University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public Policy Center,
Philadelphia, PA.

Norbeck, J .S., Lindsey, A.M., & Carrieri, V.L. (1981). The development of an
instrument to measure social support. Nursing Research. 30 (5). 364-269.

O’Leary, K.D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in
domestic violence. Violence arid Victims. 14(1). 3-23.

Padgett, BL. (1997). The contribution of support networks to household labor in afiican
American families. Journal of Family Issues, 18(3 ), 227-250.

Pearlin, L.I., Lieberman, M.A., Menaghan, E.G., & Mullan, J .T. (1981). The stress
process. Journal of Health and Socia BeMrviorJZ; 337-356.

Pickett, S.A., Vraniak, D.A., Cook, J .A., & Cohler, B.J. (1993). Strength in adversity:
Blacks bear burden better than whites. Professional Psycholagy: Research aad

Practice, 24(4), 460—467.

Pierce, G.R., Sarason, B.R., & Sarason, LG. (1992). General and specific support
expectations and stress as predictors of perceived supportiveness: An
experimental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 63(2 ),
297-307.

 

Raphael, J. (2001). Public housing and domestic violence. Violence Against
Women.7( 6). 699-706.

Ratner, RA. (1993). The incidents of wife abuse and mental health status in abused
wives in edrnonton, alberta. Canadian Journal of Pufilic Health. 84(4). 246-249.

Rennison, C.M. & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. NCJ 178247.

48

Rodriguez, E., Lasch, K.E., Chandra, P, & Lee, J. (2001). Family violence, employment
status, welfare benefits, and alcohol drinking in the United States: What is the
relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Communiy Health, 55(3 ), 172-178.

Sagrestano, L.M., Feldman, P., Killingsworth-Rini, C., Woo, G., & Dunkel-Schetter, C.
(1999) Ethnicity and social support during pregnancy. American Journal of

Communig Psychology, 27(6), 869-898.

Sato, R.A. & Heiby, EM. (1992). Correlates Of depressive symptoms among battered
women. Journal of Family Violencea7 (3). 229-245.

Schumacher, J .A., Feldbau-Kohn, S., Smith-Slep, A.M., & Heyman, RE. (2001). Risk
factors for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggzession and Violent
Behavior 6' 281—352.

 

Schumacher, J .A., Smith-Slep, A.M., & Heyman, RE. (2001). Risk factors for male-to-
female partner psychological abuse. Aggiession and Violent Behavior. 6; 255-
268.

Scott, J .W. & Black, A. (1989). Deep structures of African American family life:
Female and male kin networks. The Western J oumal of Black Studies. 13(1), 17-
24.

Seelbach, W.C. & Sauer, W.J. (1977). F ilial responsibility expectations and morale
among aged parents. The Gerontologiat. 17; 492-499.

Smith, E. (1989). Afiican American women and the extended family: A sociohistorical
review. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 13(4), 179-184.

Sorenson, S.B., Upchurch, D.M. & Shen, H. (1996). Violence and injury in marital
arguments: Risk patterns and gender differences. American Journal of Public

Healm, 86(6), 35-42.

Stack, C.B. ( 1974). All Our Kin: Strateges for Survival In A Black Communig. New
York: Harper & Row.

Stets, J.E. & Straus, M.A. (1989). The marriages license as a hitting license: A
comparison,
and married couples. Joumal of F amiliLV iolence. 4; 2; 161-180.

Straus, M.A. & Gelles, RJ. (1986). Societal change in family violence from 1975 to

1986 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
M; 456-479.

49

Straus, M.A. & Gelles, RJ. ( 1990). How violent are American families? Estimates fiom
the national family violence reseach survey and other studies. In M.A. Straus &
R.J. Gelles (Eds) Physical violence in american families (pp 95-112). New
Bruinswick, NJ: Transaction.

Sudarkasa, N. (1997). Afiican American families and family values. In HR McAdoo
- (Ed), Black families: Third edition. (9-40) California: Sage Publications.

Sullivan, C.M. (1991). Battered women as active helpseekers. Violence Upge. 1(12_),
8-1 1.

Sullivan, C.M. & Rumptz, M.H. (1994). Adjustment needs of African-american women
who utilized a domestic violence shelter. Violence and Victims, 9(3 ), 275-286.

Staples, R. (1987). Social structure and black family life: An analysis of current trends.
Journal of Blflr Studies. 17(3). 267-286.

Tajden, P. & Thoenness, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and conssguencem violence

against women: Findings fi'om the national violence against women survey.
(Special Report NCJ 172837). Department of Justice.

 

Tajden, P. & Thoenness, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and
female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the national violence
against women survey. Violence against Women, 6,: 2,: 142-1 61.

Tan, C., Basta, J ., Sullivan, C.M. & Davidson, W.S. (1995). The role of social support in
the lives of women exiting domestic violence shelters. J oumai of Integpersonal
Violence. 10(4). 437-451.

Taylor, R.J. (1986). Receipt of social support among black Americans: Demographic
and familial differences. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 48,: 67-77.

Turner, R.J. & Turner, J .B. (1999). Social integration and support. In C.S. Aneshensel &
J .C. Phelan (Eds), Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health (pp 301-319)
New York: Kluwer/Plenum Publishers.

US. Bureau of the Census (2000). Poverty in the united states: 2000. (Current
populations reports: Consumer income series P60-214). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.

Utsey, S.O., Adams, E.P., & Bolden, M. (2000). Development and initial validation of
the afiicultural coping systems inventory. J oumal of Black Psychology, 26(2 ),
1 94-21 5.

50

Uzzell, O. & Peebles-Wilkins, W. (1989). Black spouse abuse: A focus on relational
factors and intervention strategies. The Western J oume Black Studies, 13(1),
10-16. '

Vandwater, E.A. & Antonnucci, T.C. (1998). The family as a context for health and well
being. Family Relations, 47(4), 313-314.

Vivian, D. & Malone, J. (1997). Relationship factors and depressive symptomatology
associated with mild and severe husband-to-wife physical aggression. Violence

and Victims, 12(1), 3-18.

Walker, LE. (1977). Battered women and learned helplessness. Victimology, 2,: 525-
533.

Walker, L.E. (1979). The battered womfl New York: Harper & Row.
Walker, L.E. (Ed). (1984). Women and mental health policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wallace, K.A., Bisconti, T.L., & Bergeman, CS. (2001). The mediational effect of
hardiness on social support and optimal outcomes in later life. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 267-279.

Weinbaum, Z., Stratton,-T., Chavez,G., Motylewski-Link, C., Barrera,N., & Courtney, J.
(2001). Female victims of intimate partner physical domestic violence ([PP-
DV), California 1998. American-Journal-of-Preventive-Medicine. 21(4), 313-
319.

 

Weissman, M.M., Bruce, M.L., Leaf, P.J., Florio, L.P., & Holzer, CL (1991). Affective
disorders. In Robins, L.N. & Regier, D.A. (Eds). Psychiatric Disorders in
America: The Epidemiolggic Catchment Area Study. (pp 53-80) New York:
The Free Press.

Wyatt, G.E., Axelrod, J ., Chin, D., Vargas Carmona, J., & Loeb, T.B. (2000). Examining
patterns of vulnerability to domestic violence among afiican american women.
Violence Against Women. 6(5). 495-514.

Zlotnick, C, Kohn, R., Peterson, J ., & Pearlstein, T. (1998). Partner physical

victimization in a national sample of american families. Journal of interpersonal
violence. 13(1). 156-166.

51

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Demographics

52

Subject #

 

Date of Interview

 

. Name of Interviewer

 

Pregnancy Interview
Demographic Questionnaire

, Name of baby: (Interviewer: Get this information from T2 interview prior to
interview)
Since we interviewed you during your pregnancy with (name of baby), have you had any

miscarriages, still births, or abortions? (Circle one)

1 = YES 2 = NO

2. How many biological children do you currently have?

How many people, including yourself, live in your household?

(11' participant is living in a shelter, questions 4 8r 5 refer to household composition before

moving into shelter.)

Please list these: (Write in specific relationship to mother. Be specific—is the person (for ex.) a
husband, stepfather, biological child, foster child, or partner's child?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Choose the one that best describes your current marital/relationship status (choose only one):

(a) single, never married (see below)

(b) married For how long? _ (in months)

(c) separated For how long? _ (in months)

((1) divorced For how long? __ (in months)

(e) widowed For how long? _ (in months)

If (a) is circled: Are you currently in a relationship? YES NO

Please provide the first name of your current partner or the partner you were with most recently
since the birth of (baby=s name):

 

Are you currently living with your partner/spouse? (Circle one)
1 = YES
2 = NO

53

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

If yes to Question 8; how long have you been doing so? (Circle one)
1 = less than 1 year

2 =1-3 years

3 =4-6 years
4=7-9 years

5 =10-12 years
6=13-15 years
7 =16- 18 years
8 =19 - 21 years
9=22-24 years

10 = 25 or more years

Prior to your current romantic relationship, specified in Question #10

(a) were you ever married? 1 = YES 2 = NO
(b) did you ever live with a partner? 1 = YES 2 = NO
(c) were you ever separated? 1 = YES 2 = NO
((1) were you ever divorced? l = YES 2 = NO
(e) were you ever widowed? 1 = YES 2 = NO
What is your current relau'onship with the father of your baby? (Circle one)

1 = spouse

2 = ex-spouse

3 = partner

4 = ex-partner

5 = friend

6 = acquaintance

7 = stranger

8 = other Please specify:

 

Does the baby live with you? YES NO
If NO, who does the baby live with?

 

(relationship of person to mother)
How many people, including yourself, live in your household?

Can you tell me who they are and what their relationship to you is? (Write in specific relationship
to mother. Be specific--is the person (for ex.) a husband, stepfather, biological child, foster child,
or partner's child?) MAKE SURE THE NUMBER OF NAMES EQUALS THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

14. What is your current relationship with the father of your baby? (Circle one)
1 = spouse
2 = ex-spouse
3 = partner
4 = ex-partner
5 = fiiend
6 = acquaintance
7 = stranger
8 = other Please specify:

 

15. Has this relationship changed since the last time we interviewed you? YES NO

16. Is the baby=s father involved with the baby? YES N0
17. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Circle one)

1 = grades 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7;8; 9; 10; 11; 12; GED (circle specific grade)
2 = trade school

 

 

 

 

 

3 = some college Where?
4 = AA degree Where?
5 = BA/BS Where?
6 = some grad school Where?
7 = graduate degree Where?

MA?

PhD?

Law?

MD?

 

8 = other; Specify (e.g., Beauty School, nursing school)

 

18. Do you currently work outside the home? YES NO
If N0, did you work outside the home during the last year? YES NO

19. If YES to either part of Question 18; what is/was your occupation?
Please be specific. F or example, bookkeeper, cashier, computer programmer.
If there were two jobs/occupations, have participant choose the one that she feels best
represents her occupation.

 

20. What is the highest level of education your partner/spouse has completed? (Circle one)
1 = grades 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; ll; 12; GED (circle specific grade)

 

 

 

 

 

2 = trade school
3 = some college Where?
4 = AA degree Where?
5 = BA/BS Where?
6 = some grad school Where?
7 = graduate degree Where?

MA?

Ph.D.?

Law?

MD?

 

8 = other; Specify (e.g., Beauty School, nursing school)

 

55

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Does he work outside the home? (Circle one)

 

 

1 = YES

2 = NO
If yes to Question 20; what is his occupation?

(Please be specific)
_ What is your total family income per month (estimate)?

Do you currently receive?
a. WIC YES NO
b. AFDC YES NO
c. Food Stamps YES NO
d. Medicaid YES NO
e. 881 YES NO

Is the department of social services involved with the baby? YES N 0
If YES, why?

 

Are you currently residing in a shelter for battered women?
(3) YES NO
(b) # days?

Since (baby’s name) was born, have you stayed in a shelter for battered women?
(a) YES NO
(b) # days? __

Since (child’s name) was born, have you stayed in a homeless shelter?
(a) YES NO
(b) # days?

Which of the following child care options do you currently use for (child’s name)?
(Check all that apply)

YES NO Day care center
If yes, # days per week

YES NO Relative takes care of child
If yes, # days per week

YES NO Home care (someone else=s home)
If yes, # days per week

56

Appendix B: Becl_c Depression Inventory

57

BDI

In answering these questions, think about each item carefully and circle the answer out of
the group of 4 items that best reflects how you have been feeling during the past week.

1.

[1]
[2]

[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

I do not feel sad.

I feel sad.

I am sad all the time and I can’t snap out of it.
I am so sad or unhappy that I can’t stand it.

I am not particularly discouraged about the future.

I feel discouraged about the future.

I feel I have nothing to look forward to.

I feel that the future is hopeless and that things cannot improve.

I do not feel like a failure.

I feel I have failed more than the average person.

As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failures.
I feel I am a complete failure as a person.

I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to.

I don’t enjoy things the way I used to.

I don’t get real satisfaction out of anything anymore.
I am dissatisfied or bored with everything.

I don’t feel particularly guilty.

I feel guilty a good part of the time.
I feel quite guilty most of the time.
I feel guilty all of the time.

I don’t feel I am being punished.
I feel I may be punished.

I expect to be punished.

I feel I am being punished.

I don’t feel disappointed in myself.
I am disappointed in myself.

I am disgusted with myself.

I hate myself.

I don’t feel I am any worse than anybody else.

I am critical of myself for all my weaknesses or mistakes.
I blame myself all the time for my faults.

I blame myself for everything bad that happens.

58

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]

~[2]

[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

I don’ t have any thoughts of killing myself.

I have thoughts of killing myself, but I would not carry them out.
I would like to kill myself.

I would kill myself if I had the chance.

I don’t cry any more than usual.

I cry more now than I used to.

I cry all the time now.

I used to be able to cry, but now I can’t cry even though I want to.

I am no more irritated by things than I ever am.

I am slightly more irritated now than usual.

I am quite annoyed or irritated a good deal of the time.
I feel irritated all the time now.

I have not lost interest in other people.

I am less interested in other people than I used to be.
I have lost most of my interest in other people.

I have lost all of my interest in other people.

I make decisions about as well as I ever could.

I put off making decisions more than I used to.

I have greater difficulty in making decisions than before.
I can’t make decisions at all anymore.

I don’t feel that I look any worse than I used to.

I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive.

I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance that make me
look unattractive.

I believe that I look ugly.

I can work about as well as before.

It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something.
I have to push myself very hard to do anything.

I can’t do any work at all.

I can sleep as well as usual.

I don’t sleep as well as I used to.
I wake up 1-2 hours earlier than usual and find it hard to get back to sleep.
I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and cannot get back to sleep.

59

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

I don’t get more tired than usual.

I get tired more easily than I used to.

I get tired fiom doing almost everything.
I am too tired to do anything.

My appetite is no worse than usual.

My appetite is not as good as it used to be.
My appetite is much worse now.

I have no appetite at all anymore.

I haven’t lost much weight, if any, lately.
I have lost more than five pounds.

I have lost more than ten pounds.

I have lost more than fifteen pounds.

I am no more worried about my health than usual.

I am worried about physical problems such as aches and pains, or upset
stomach, or constipation.

I am very worried about my physical problems and it’s hard to think of
much else.

I am so worried about my physical problems that I cannot think about

anything else.

I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex.
I am less interested in sex than I used to be.

I am much less interested in sex now.

I have lost interest in sex completely.

6O

Appendix C: Psycholog'cal Maltreatment of Women Inventory

61

PMWI

*****This questionnaire refers to [NAME, see page 2, Question 10]*****
Use a separate form for each partner listed on page 2, Question 10

Please rate how often each of the following behaviors occurred during the last year using
the following scale: INTER VIEWER: If participant did not have a partner in the last
year, do not administer: code answers as “X. ”

 

Never

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99993»):—

N 0 Partner
Rarely Sometimes Frequently Very Frequently During Last
Year
2 3 4 5 X
My partner called me names.
My partner swore at me.

My partner yelled and screamed at me.

My partner treated me like an inferior.

My partner monitored my time and made me account for my whereabouts.
My partner used our money or made important financial decisions without
talking to me about it.

7. My partner was jealous or suspicious of my fiiends.

My partner accused me of having an affair.

9. My partner interfered in my relationships with other family members.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

My partner tried to keep me from doing things to help myself.
My partner restricted my use of the telephone.

My partner told me my feelings were irrational or crazy.

My partner blamed me for his problems.

My partner tried to make me feel crazy.

62

Appendix D: NorbeckSocial Support

63

 

 

 

.N m0<m O... ZMDH Mm<mqm Fm...— MDO> harm—2E m><I 30> ZmI>>

6.:— So.» 5 8°82— =5:an
26: so» an 88% >52: mm 3.: .8023 VN =a on: 8 2::— 8: on :o>
35o:
BaaSBEhBflEE:
E922: .o 5.858..
”5332‘. 28 5.8::
Eon—36::
8.2083 .828 ..o 383--
«ESE:
38 55083.2» 5:5 .852: $28an $3.28 .5 Eon—=2: 3.5..--
.253 no 88%..
.83 So» E bags 8 0302* has... an a: can
.39» 2 Eaton—E 0:33 05 .3 x55 .5» £2. 2 a: wage—.8 2: on:

. 80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...ioivivai

95:23.; «3::— 8 252 .22
63:83

Bic—axe mags—8 05
E ma dimcozse 05 2865 :2: ES £32.: no 8:8: as... bus 83

50> o.
Eaton—g 98 6:3 .5 no» 8.. toga .2532. 8305 2.3 Sofie: 2:
=a 32250 .2»: 2: co 0.:— So» a. 5an E855..." :08 a: 883

OZZDZEM magma m0<m 92,—. 20
mZO_._.UmM=Q 15< O<mx mm<m4m

H¢_<ZZO—me30 FzOma—Dm d<—Ucm

 

 

 

m0<m 5.me E 20 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:65. .85.
.»N N
.mN m N
.NN .NN
_N ..N
.ON .ON
.3 .m—
.w_ .M:
.2 E
.o. .2
.2 .m—
.E 3
.2 m—
.N. .N.
.2 _ _
.2 o—
.o .o
.w .w
N N
.o .o
.m .n
.v .v
.m .m
.N .N
._ .—

Nmezofi ..o 28:8

59A .838 8 £5 85a Ncoaon £5 E
:88: 35 Sec ..an Bo: 03:8 :0» :8 :02: 3o:
3 558:0 ”n 558:0

.8: 38m a u v
zonesaum
22803:. n N
2:: a u _

__a as .e: u o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mos. ...sz O... 20 OD
.823 :25.
.«N .VN
mN .MN
NN .NN
..N ..N
.8 oN
.2 a.
.w. M:
.2 S
.2 o—
.m. .2
.3 .3
.m. .m—
N_ .N_
_ _ ._ _
o_ .c.
.o .a
.w .w
.5 N
.o .o
.n .n
.v .v
.n .m
.N .N
._ .—
swag?

:o :28nt .00.. .5» 8.5: 2.26. :0 :8:— _8.. so» 83:.
cote: 2.: 8o: :86 so: .895: £5 82. :02: 26:
“N 558.5 2 .5325

.8: 38m 5 n v

gagesaum

32225:. n N

2:: a n _

=a .a 8: u o
.mfliaa 35 .352: 2:

E NEE? .3 «cosmos: 9.35:8 2: 83mg 939—: 607.: no» .829: some 5...

 

 

65

 

 

.~:<:.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~c~icviva§~or<odc~

90.30: .30: 0:. 8.. 35:. :0» 02m .5 0:0.

60.02062. 0:. o. :0» 00.8 ..mdv 0:920: 0.5

0: 2.20.0: 50:0 00:80.08 30:00:. :02: 30:
"a 5.08:0

.00: 000:» 0 u v
zonesanm
30:80.35 u N
0.x: a n .

=0 .0 8: u c

m0<m .2.sz OF 00

::<&

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Nmévi~orxoé

$.80: 0:.

0:858 8 30: .00.: 0.30:
$028.00: 0.5 80¢ .0» :0»
00:20.3 .05 00:60 :02: 30:
x. 5.08:0

m0<m .2.sz Op. 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.2:<. :2:<.
.VN .VN
.mN .mN
.NN NN
..N ..N
ON .ON
.2 .2
.2 .2
.2 .2
.2 .2
.2 .2
.v. .v.
.2 .m .
.N. .N.
.. . .. .
.2 .2
.m .0
.w .w
N H
.0 .c
.m .n
.v .v
.m .m
.N .N
.. ..
:20: 20:0: :83: 0.5 2:00
0:0.» 20: :80: 0.5 2:00 :03: >6: .30: 22.0088. 00:8
:02: >6: 00.003 .8050 3.. 0:80 8 £800: 0:. 8 0:: a
.00: o. $05.28 0:03 :0» 2 .2» 39:0: 8 .0030: :0» 2
"e 5.30:0 "m 5.08:0

.00: 80% 0 n v
.3 0 00...: u m
30:80:05 n N
0:... a u .

=0 :0 .0: n o

 

 

66

 

 

m0<: ...XmZ O... 00

52>.

 

.VN
.mN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arid-$66606:

0:03: 3:. :...3 :05 00:00.:
:0» E: :050 30: :00: .00. 0:.
«5.5: :0: 0. :0:0::0: m3<>
0:. :0 3:26 0:. ..0 .30 ..
.2 5.30:0

0.:00:::0 .0: u n
.00: .00.» 0 u 0
0.0230".
30.30.09: u.N
0...: 0 u .

..0 .0 .0: I o

.32.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Nriv'vixo'h'oéo

0:0: .:.0::00.: .0 .8550
.0 .0>.0E.:. 8000 .0 60.0....0
000.0: 0.5 000: :02: 30..
.2 5.30:0

.00: .00.» 0 u v
.3 0 0.5.. n m
30.0.0.5... u N
0...: 0 u .

=0 .0 .0: u o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.32... .92...
.3 00
.2 Q
.00 00
..0 ..N
.0. .00
.2 .2
0. .0.
.2 .2
.2 .2
m. .2
.2 .3
2 .2
N. .2
.: .:
.0. .0.
0 .0
0 .0
b .0
.0 .0
n .m
0 .0
m .m
N .N
_ ..

0.050.: 0 00
...0053 000 :0» 30: 00:03:.
:030: 2:. 80: :0:E 30...

a. 5:35

32:03 .0

00:: 0.300.. 5:3 :0» 0. 0:0.0: two.
0:000: 2:. 80... .0» :0: 0: m:..:0.0:
30:0 ...0:::... .0:0..0Eo :02: >6:

.0 5.20:0

.00: .00.» 0 u v
.5 0 0...... u n
30.80.00... u N

0...: 0 n .
..0 .0 .0: u o

 

 

67

 

 

_ u v.8
N u so
u u .83; rsoiao. «:8

0:822. a"

:98 83‘ an :5 «<38 :22. o:
:3 <>¢<m .5338 8 3:“ v3.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pwsaw9w~r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

232m:

_ u <85:

N n :8 28 89.5 :6 8283
u u 830 2. «no:

A n 80:; 8855:: «Ed

9.8.8.. .9

pas9999~~

(<8 8a @283 u <83: 9.
:8 can 85m :5 8.83%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23%:

 

_ u 8% :5: a 32:8
N u a 8 _N 3023

u u _ 8 N «88

a u N 8 u was;

u u :88 :5: u «a»;

9.8.8: 3"

:9: 8% 32¢ v5: 88%:
2:8 $283

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9wS999ri

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

659482.

u n 837.

a u <8an

u u 30:5?

N n a 8t :33 m «2:
_ u 2.8 w «a»: on raw

9.8.8: .9
:9: 35:33 no «a: 555.

32o 8:89 is. 8a .8803
8:98 8:». 5&8. 810.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P“S?M9PN—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fifiéBE_

00 HQ 233. From

 

 

68

 

.20.}. 8e... 2: 8. co 228220 .5252
20 7.822.. :3... 22.52 22:. 22. 5.8 an 85......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 .2 .828. x .8
2 2 .228. a .2
... 2 .228. «N .2
2 .2 :88. ..N ..N
n. 2 .828. .2 .2
n. .2 .228. o. .2
n. .2 .2 .28. .2. .2.
2 2 .228. .2 .2
h. z .228. o. .2
2 .2 .228. .n. .2
h. .2 .228. .3 .2
n. .2 .228. L m. .2
2 s. .228. N. .N.
2 2 .. .28. . . .2
2 2 .228. o. .o.
... 2 .828. a a
n. 2 ...28. .. .8
n. 2 .58. h s
n. .2 .828. e .e
n. s. .38. m .n
2 s. .58. v .e
h. .2 .88. m .n
n. .2 .28. N .~
2 2 :28. . ..
poison—332 grim—5:20”— m_a_:c— ..o 0:32 .85
5.0382 .2282...
09.32 203223:—

§.§z .838

 

 

69

17. During the past year, have you lost any important relationships due to moving, a job change, divorce or
separation, death, or some other reason?

0. NO (Interviewer: [fNO is checked, interview ends)

1. YES

IF YOU LOST IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIPS DURING THIS PAST YEAR:
17a. Please indicate the number of gsons from each category who are no longer available to you.
spouse or partner

family members or relatives Specify:

 

fi'iends
work or school associates
neighbors

health care providers
counselor or therapist
minister/priest/rabbi
other (specify)

 

15b. Overall, how much of your support was provided by these people who are no longer available to you?

. None at all

. A little

. A moderate amount
. Quite a bit

. A great deal

#UN—‘O

7O

TABLES

71

Table 1

Demographic Means of Vaflbles

 

 

 

Black Women White Women All Women
Total N=45 N=113 N=158
Age“ 25.32 27.22 26.68
Relationship Length” 4.52 5.55 5.26
Marital Status* 1.23 1.66 1.54
Number of Children 2.15 1.79 1.89
Income* 1708.97 2272.87 2113.51
High 8500 10000 10000
Low 34] 400 341
Education Level 1.97 2.40 2.28
Work Outside Home 1.36 1.35 1.36
Sum PMWI 22.56 23.46 23.21
Sum BDI 6.59 5.88 6.08
Total Family“ 4.50 3.93 4.09
Total Support 6.51 7.02 6.88
Non Nuclear Family .36 .37 .37
Emotional Support 13.07 12.85 12.91
Practical Support 6.14 5.63 5.77
Frequency 4.49 4.14 4.24

 

*/ + represents a significant difference

72

Table 2

AN OVA of Race x Transformed PMWI

 

 

(111 = 138)
Source DF MS F
' Between subjects 1 1216.67 .77
Error 136 1581.37
Total 17

 

 

*trend, * p < .05; **p<.01

73

Table 3

ANOVA of Race x Transformed BDI

 

 

(N = 138)

Source DF MS F
Between subjects 1 223.07 .14
Error 136 1597.5
Total 137

 

 

* trend, * p < .05; **p < .01

74

AN OVA TABLE OF RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES (N = 138)

 

 

 

Source DF MS F
Number of Kids 1 793.51 .57
Error 136 1387.92
Total 137
Income 1 1 1369.40 7.46**
Error 136 1524.48
Total 137
Age 1 864.25 .60*
Error 136 1444.1 1
Total 137
Education 1 8881.98 5.75
Error 136 1544.93
Total 137
Relationship Length 1 1583.74 1.07
Error 136 1487.07
Total 137

 

+ trend, * p < .05; "p < .01

75

Table 5
CHI SQUARE TABLE OF RACLAL DIFFERENCES IN DEMOGRAPHIC

VARIABLES (N = 138)

 

 

 

Source 1.2 av
Race x marital status 2009* 137
Race x work outside home 10.38 137

 

+ trend, * p < .05; **p < .01

76

 

 

Table 6

MAN COVA TABLE OF RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL SUPPORT

VARIABLES (controlling for demographic differences) (N=138)

 

Source Dependant Variable Df F MS
Corrected model Emotional support 4 1035.71 .643
Practical support 4 1 199.73 .750
Total support 4 5741.23 4.064“
Frequency 4 23 12.84 1.484
Non-nuclear family 4 2581.10 .371
Error Emotional support 133 1611.001
Practical support 133 16.00.08
Total support 133 1412.88
Frequency 133 1558.09
Non—nuclear family 133 590.47

 

trend, * p < .05; **p < .01

77

5. V 9.... ”mesaficob +

 

 

 

 

78

8.. 8... :2..- :2..- 2.....- :2... .2... m... 8... :2... 8...- :..- 3.. 288$...
8.. 8... +2.. 2... 8..- 8... +2...- .2..- .2..- .2..- 3...- .2... .2..- 2.8....
2.2 .52.:
8.. S... 2...- :2...- S... :2..- :2..- 8...- :2..- E... :2... +2....- 82.2.
o... :2... +2... :2...- z..- 2...- 2...- :2...- m.....- 8... .2...- .8032"...
8.. :2... :2...- ::... 2.... S...- ....... 8...- S..- 2...- .8882...
8.. 2..- 8.. 2...- 2.... N... 8...- :2...- B... 28
.8822”...
o... 8...- ......- 2.....- 8... 8...- 2... 8.. 2.82.38...
8.. :2... :2... :2... m... :2..- :3... swan-:3:
8.. :2... :3... 3...- :2..- :2... 828......
8.. :2... :3... .....- :3... 09:
8.. 2...- :2..- :2... 2.8:. .4
o... 2 ... 8.. «.5. .o .. ...-
oo. *ewmd- ESE .N
8.. 3.8
3.3.2..
2 w. t 2 m m u o n v m w .
.8. n m.

 

 

5:83 .2 a. 8.28.2 ..< .o 28... 8.2.2.8

5 03....-

 

5. V a: ”moificob +
v0.0- mod LNG- 2.9- 56.. £3.56 mod 26 cod :6 No.9 aod- mod tonnam Fuch- .v—

 

8.. 8.. 2... N... S... 8...- :2..- :8; :2...- ......- 8...- ...2. :3..- 3.8....
. 2.2 82.2.
o... S... 2....- ..2...- 2.... :2...- :..2.- 8... :2..- :2.. :2... m...- Em...
8.. :2... 2... .2..- 8..- +2..- +2...- 2..- 2....- .o... m...- 22.33....
8.. :2... :2..- mo... 2..- ...o- 3.. .6...- S..- 2.....- .8285...

cc; aod- 006 No.9 wed 26 Nod ...emd- mod ~aaonoEm .a
co. acd- mod- Nad- Sd- cod Nod cod Egan—Soa- .w

 

o... :2... :3... :2... 8.. .8..- :9... 523.3. .2
o... :2... :3... m....-....~...- :2... 8.3%.... .o
8.. :2... :2... 8..- .:t... om... .2
8.. 2....- ..2..- :2... 2:8... ..
o... E... 2.... .25.... .2
8.. :2..- .32. .N

8.. .35
.23.... ..

2 2 : E a m . n m .V 2 N .

 

 

 

 

5503 2...... s. 85.2... ..< .0 2...... 22.22....
w 0......

 

79

5. V Q_.:.. Mmay-.9428... +

 

 

 

 

we... 2...- :2..- .2..- z...- :2... 2... 8.. S... 2... .2.- ...o. 2.. Engage...
o... 2... .2... N... 8..- w... n... 8..- 2....- 2..- 8.. +2... 2...- 3......
2.25.2.2.
8.. 2.... +2..- ......- 2.... :2...- 3..- w...- m...- 8...-..2... 2...- Em...
8.. 2... ..N... .5...- 2..... 2..- ..... 2..- ..o... m... t..- .883"...
o... :2... :2..- ..N... 2.... 2... 8.. 2.....- o..... t... .885...
8.. m...- 2.... m...- m.... 2.... 85-2..- 8... .2235 2
8.. 2.... 8... 8..- N... n...- z...- m.... 2.5.3.92 ..
2... .2... 2.. 8...- .2... E..- .2... 523.3. .2
8.. 2...... .2... +2...- 8... .9... 8.33.... .c
o... 8......3... .N..- ...N... am... .2
8.. +2...- 8...- :2.. .88... ..
o... 8...- .o..- .253. .2
8.. .8...- Ez. .N
8.. 252m
3...... ..
2 2 : E a m. . .. n .- 2 N .
an"

 

5an x85 8.. 333...; =< no 035. 2.2.2280

. 2...;

8O

Table 10

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Total Family Support and Frmency for All

Women (N = 138)

 

 

Source Df AF AR2 [3 T

Step 1
Marital status 1 -.06 -.54
Age 1 .20 1.84+
Income 1 -.20 -1.95+
PMWI 1 .42 4.41 **
Total 13 9.43* 22*

Step 2
Marital status 1 .01 .09
Age 1 .09 104“
Income 1 -.16 -1.79+
PMWI 1 .42 5.18M
Total Family 1 .01 .40
Total Support 1 .04 .30
Frequency 1 .04 .50
Total 130 .45 .01

 

+ trend, * p < .05; **p < .01

81

Table 11

Hiefirarchica_1_Regrespion Analysis for Total Family Support and Frguency for White
Women (N = 99)

 

 

Source Df AF AR2 [3 T

Step 1
Marital status 1 .01 .07
Age 1 .09 .99"
Income 1 -.16 -1.85+
PMWI l .42 5.17**
Total 133 13.64** .31**

Step 2
Marital status 1 -.06 -.54
Age 1 .21 120*
Income 1 -. 19 -1 .90+
PMWI 1 .42 4.44“
Total Family 1 .05 .33

_ Total Support 1 .07 .52

Frequency 1 .09 .92
Total 130 .25 .32

 

+ trend, * p < .05; "p < .01

82

Table 12

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Total Family Support and Frequency for B12515

 

 

 

Women (N = 39)

Source Df AF AR2 [3 T

Step 1
Marital status 1 .07 .38
Age 1 -.1 1 -.67
Income 1 -.14 -.841
PMWI 1 .34 2.03*
Total 38 .154 .15

SL622
Marital status 1 .04 .23
Age 1 -.13 -.713
Income 1 -.14 -.75
PMWI 1 .32 1.73+
Total Family 1 -.19 .49
Total Support 1 .21 -.43
Frequency 1 -.06 -.29
Total 31 .01 .10 '

 

* trend, * p < .05; **p < .01

83

Table 13

Hierarchical Regression Anflvsis for Non-Nuclear Family Support for Blac_k Women

 

 

= 39
Source Df AF AR2 B T
Step 1
Marital status 1 .07 .38
Age 1 -.l 1 -.67
Income 1 -.14 -.84
PMWI 1 .34 203*
Total 34 1.54 .15
Step 2
Marital status 1 .08 .32
Age 1 -.12 -.63
Income 1 -.16 -.95
PMWI 1 .37 2.11*
Non- Nuclear 1 -.11 -.66
Family '
Total 33 .44 .01

 

+ trend,*.05; "p < .01

 

84

 

Table 14

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Non-Nuclear Family Support for White Women

 

 

= 99
Source Df AF AR2 B T
Step 1
Marital status 1 -.657 -.54
Age 1 .20 1.84
Income 1 -.20 -1.95
PMWI 1 .42 4.41"
Total 94 8.79** .27**
Step 2
Marital status 1 -.07 -.67
Age 1 .19 1.73
Income 1 -.20 -1.96
PMWI . 1 .43 4.44”
Non— Nuclear 1 -.06 -.67
Family
Total 93 .45 .00

 

+trend, * p < .05; **p< .01

85

Table 15

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Emotional Support and Practical Support for All

Women (N = 138)

 

 

Source Df AF AR2 B T
Step 1
Marital status 1 .01 .07
Age 1 .09 .99
Income 1 -.16 -1.85+
PMWI 1 .42 5.17"
Total 133 943* .22* .01 .07
Step 2
Marital status 1 -.00 -.03
Age 1 .09 .99
Income 1 -.14 -1.72+
PMWI 1 .37 4.47**
Emotional Support 1 -. 17 -2.04*
Practical Support 1 -.02 -.27
Total 131 277+ .03+
Step 3
Marital status 1 .00 .01
Age 1 .07 .75
Income 1 -.13 -1.60+
PMWI 1 .37 4.47“
Emotional Support 1 -. 18 -2.1 1*
Practical Support 1 -.02 -.25
Interaction emo x 1 .14 1.82
Psych abuse
Interaction prac x l .15 .01
Psych abuse
Total 129 3.30+ .02+

 

+ trend, * p < .05; "p < .01

86

Table 16

Hieraichical Regression Analysis for Emotional Support and Practical Support for Black

 

 

 

 

Women (N = 39)

Source Df AF AR2 B T

Step 1
Marital status 1 .67 .38
Age 1 -.1 1 -.64
Income 1 -.14 -.81
PMWI 1 .34 203*
Total 34 1.54 .154

Step 2
Marital status 1 .06 .31
Age 1 -.12 -.75
Income 1 -.13 -.75
PMWI 1 .31 1.67
Emotional Support 1 -.10 -.50
Practical Support 1 .09 .44
Total 32 .15 .01

Step 3
Marital status 1 .27 1.35
Age 1 -.l 1 -.65
Income 1 -.16 -.88
PMWI 1 .05 .28
Emotional Support 1 -.11 -.56
Practical Support 1 .09 .47
Interaction emo x 1 .12 .68

Psych abuse
Interaction prac x 1 -.532 -.649
Psych abuse

Total 31 .46 .01

 

+ trend, * p < .05; **p < .01

87

Table 17

Hierarchicaflegression Amlysis for Emotional Support andPiacticJal Sppport for White

 

 

 

Women (N = 99)

Source Df AF AR2 B T

Step 1
Marital status 1 -.O6 -.54
Age 1 .20 1.84”“
Income 1 -.20 -1.95+
PMWI 1 .42 4.41**
Total 94 8.77** .27**

Step 2
Marital status 1 -.O7 -.65
Age 1 .19 183+
Income 1 -.17 -1.77*
PMWI 1 .36 3.83“
Emotional Support 1 -.22 -2.34*
Practical Support 1 -.04 -.38
Total 92 3.46* .05*

Step 3
Marital status 1 -.06 -.59
Age 1 .17 1.61
Income 1 -.16 -1.64
PMWI 1 .36 3.88*
Emotional Support 1 -.22 —2.36*
Practical Support 1 -.03 -.37
Interaction emo x 1 .14 1.67

Psych abuse
Interaction prac x 1 .266 1.041
Psych abuse

Total 91 2.78 .02

 

T trend,*.05; **p < .01

88

M IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ill-I111illl’lH-l‘lllllll Ill;llllwlllll‘lilll
3 1293 02487 3451 .