Many Faces of Buffering

Hypothesis: Social Support as

a Moderator between
Experience of Domestic
Violence and Adjustment
Outcomes

Nino Javakhishvili
Maka Lortkipanidze
D. Uznadze Psychology Institute
Ilia State University
Georgia
Victims of domestic violence

• Have been reported to have poor

adjustment: PTSD, depression, low
self-esteem (Varkovitzky, 2004;
Fogarty, Freedman, Heeren &
Liebschutz, 2008; Berg, 2004; Mechanic,
Weaver & Resick, 2008;).
The buffering hypothesis

• The buffering hypothesis states

that social support plays a buffer
role for those who experience
stress, trauma or other related
problems (Bolger & Amarel, 2007;
Uchino, 2009)
The buffering hypothesis
• The buffering hypothesis was
checked on victims of domestic
violence with findings that social
support provides an important
resource to decrease, or
minimize stress, improve general
health to adjust to the violent
situation (El-Bassel et al., 2001,
Waldrop&Resick, 2004, Panaghi et
al.,2012)
 The current study

• Social support provided to the victims of

domestic violence
• Overall DV and 5 forms
• Social support – family and institutional
• The health outcome variables were:
• depression and anxiety
• Life satisfaction
The current study

• Social support was studied for different

forms of domestic violence
• physical,
• sexual,
• economical,
• emotional (emotional-verbal and
isolation-domination)
Proposed model
 Method - sample
• 293 women victims of domestic violence
• From the capital city of Tbilisi – 32.0%
• from regional towns and villages – 68.0%
• Age: 19-67, M 36, SD 9.75
• Married: 72%
• 68.6% living with partner/spouse
• 88.0% have children
 Method - sample

• 40.4% have higher education

• 32.0% employed
• 65.3% having personal income
• 8.0% satisfied with personal income

• Snowball principle was used

Method - tools

1. Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory, Tolman, 1995 –
modified version, alpha – 0.932
2. Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale (CESD) Laurie
Radloff, 1977 – validated for this
study, alpha – 0. 889
Method - tools
1. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory,
Spielberger et al. 1983. We used only
state anxiety subscale – validated for
Georgian sample by Arutunov and
Skhirtladze, alpha – 0.864
2. The Satisfaction with Life scale, Pavot
& Diener, 1993 – validated for
Georgian sample by Skhirtladze, alpha
– 0.801
3. Social Support Questionnaire,
Sarason et al. 1983 – modified version
Method – tools - CFA
• CFA of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale (CESD) resulted in a 9
item scale all loading on the depression
factor
• Chi-Square 47.357 (P < 0.0091)
• CFI 0.911
• TLI 0.881
• RMSEA  0.055
• We had to take out 11 items that did not load
on the factor
• EFA - 11 items loaded on three other factors
that did not make any sense
 Results – descriptive

• Violence is high - M=52.90; Std.D=25.44,

(max 70)
• moderate depression - M=17.75;
Std.D=7.20 (max 45)
• high anxiety level – M=59.18; Std.D=9.02
(max 80)
• low life satisfaction – M=10.37;
Std.D=5.16 (max 25)
 Results – descriptive

• Social support is low:

• (max.=6)
• Overall support M=1.52; Std.D=.72
• Family support M=1.44; Std.D=.69
• Institutional support M=.08; Std.D=.20
• Quality of social support - M=1.45;
Std.D=0.56
 Results – Moderation Analysis
depression
• Interaction between DV experience and overall support:

• Overall domestic violence - b=-.084

(p=000)
• Economic violence - b=-.485 (p=000)
• Sexual violence - b=-.472 (p=000)
• Dominance-isolation b=-.341 (p=000)
• Emotional-verbal violence - b=-.335
(p=000)
• Physical violence - b=-.194 (p=000)
 Results – buffering hypothesis

• For depression, social support plays a

buffer role for all 5 forms as well as for
overall DV.

• The effects of buffering negative

outcomes of economical and
sexual violence are the strongest
(b=-0.485 and b=-0.472
respectively), and weakest for
physical violence (b=-.194 ).
 Results – Moderation Analysis
Depression
• Interaction between DV experience and family support:

• Overall domestic violence - b=-.112

(p=000)
• Economic violence - b=-.656 (p=000)
• Sexual violence - b=-.577 (p=001)
• Dominance-isolation b=-.428 (p=000)
• Emotional-verbal violence - b=-.393
(p=000)
• Physical violence - b=-.246 (p=001)
 Results – buffering hypothesis

• For depression, family support plays a

buffer role for all 5 forms as well as for
overall DV.

• The effects of buffering negative

outcomes of economical and
sexual violence are the strongest
(b=-0.656 and b=-0.577
respectively), and weakest for
physical violence (b=-.246 ).
 Results – Moderation Analysis
Depression
• Interaction between DV experience and institutional
support:

• Overall domestic violence - b=.268

(p=000)
• Sexual violence - b=1.713 (p=000)
• Economic violence - b= 1.256 (p=000)
• Physical violence - b=.886 (p=000)
• Emotional-verbal violence – b=.750
(p=000)
• Dominance-isolation b=.573 (p=000)
 Results – Moderation Analysis
Depression
• Interaction between DV experience and institutional
support:

• Institutional support does not help

victims, on the contrary, it
enhances the effect of DV on
depression
• DV – b=038
• Institutional – DV – b=268
 Results – Moderation Analysis
-Anxiety

• Social support as a
moderator
• only for sexual violence, but
in the wrong direction:
• b=.458, p=038
Results – Moderation Analysis –
Life Satisfaction

• only institutional support has a

moderating effect for physical
and sexual violence cases,
however, it is in the wrong
direction:
• physical violence b=.-409, p=030
• sexual violence b=-1.012, p=009 .
 Discussion
• Institutional support enhances effects of
domestic violence for depression in case
of all forms of DV,
• also, it decreases the level of life
satisfaction in case of severe forms of
violence such as physical and sexual
violence.
• No significant effect was found with
anxiety.
• Apparently, institutional support is not
effective in helping victims of domestic
violence.
 Discussion

• Social support helps in case of

depression
• Moderate depression
 Discussion
• Why institutional support does not play a
buffering role (depression and life
satisfaction)?
• The low quality institutional support

• Why family support does not play a buffering

role (anxiety and life satisfaction)?

• The low quality family support?

• Social support does not address LS and
anxiety?
Thank you!
Questions?
Comments?