The Effect of Brief,Passive Psychoeducation on Knowledge and Ratings of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States and Argentina

Abstract

This study explored the benefits of brief, passive psychoeducation about intimate partner violence (IPV) in two diverse samples. Participants were 100 college students from the United States and Argentina. The experimental group received brief psychoeducation about IPV, whereas control subjects did not. Results indicated that participants receiving brief, passive psychoeducation did significantly better on a subsequent IPV knowledge quiz and were significantly more likely to label IPV scenarios as abusive than participants in the control group. Mean differences were largest for the more subtle forms of IPV (e.g., social and economic abuse). In contrast, mean differences were negligible for physical and sexual abuse, in part because nearly all participants saw these acts as abusive regardless of condition. There were no significant differences in knowledge improvement as a function of cultural group. Prevention and intervention efforts are discussed.

Keywords

domestic violence perceptions of domestic violence dating violence cultural contexts

Intimate partner violence, or IPV, against women is both alarmingly common and devastating in its consequences. It is estimated that IPV costs the United States nearly $6 billion per year; two thirds of this cost is associated with direct physical and mental health care for victims (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003; Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004). A recent national study in the United States found that 1 in 4 women have been severely physically abused by their partners in their lifetime, 1 in 10 raped, and almost 1 in 2 psychologically abused (Black et al., 2011). This study also revealed that women are most vulnerable to experiencing IPV when they are young, between the ages of 18 and 24.

IPV Prevalence Rates

Most studies on prevalence rates of IPV against women have been conducted in the United States (Alhabib, Nur, & Jones, 2010). However, IPV presents as a serious issue for women across the globe (Walker, 1999). Rates of IPV vary across countries in part because rates of violence in general vary and in part because of differences in law enforcement. Some countries have not enacted laws making IPV a crime (Walker, 1999). A recent systematic review of lifetime IPV prevalence rates around the world found high rates of physical, emotional, and sexual violence against women (mostly 20% or higher; Alhabib et al., 2010). The rates were fairly similar for North and South America. This was further suggested by another review article that reported, on average 20% to 30% of women in North and South America are victims of lifetime physical IPV (Simister, 2012). The rates in Argentina (20%-25%) were based on two different sources whereas the rates in the United States (11%-45%) were based on 23 different sources. A report from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (2008) stated that in Argentina, an estimated one in three women are abused by an intimate partner in the home.

However, other reports suggest even higher rates of IPV in Argentina. An estimated 70% of 911 calls in Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, are related to IPV (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2008). Prior to 2006, police in Argentina did little to prosecute perpetrators of IPV and, in fact, could not arrest people for IPV unless there was evidence of sexual assault. However, in 2006, a change in the law and accompanying augmentation of mobile law enforcement units dedicated to domestic violence have resulted in improved recognition and arrests for IPV. An Argentine newspaper reported a 57% increase in calls to police between 2006 and 2007 for IPV-related instances, something they partly attribute to public awareness campaigns and changes in the law (Ferreyra, 2007).

IPV and Health

IPV has been associated with several negative health outcomes. Campbell’s (2002) review showed that approximately 1 in 5 women presenting to emergency departments with injuries and approximately 1 in 2 female homicides in the United States are a result of IPV. Health problems described in Campbell’s review about negative outcomes that have been linked to IPV include chronic pain, frequent fainting and seizures, gastrointestinal problems, hypertension, chest pain, and gynecological problems. Mental health problems associated with IPV include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, sleep difficulties, and alcohol and drug difficulties (Campbell, 2002). In Coker and colleagues’ (2002) study with 2,014 women from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), they found that IPV victimization was in general associated with poor physical health, chronic physical and mental illness, injury, depression, and substance use. Similar results were reported by Black and colleagues (2011).

Types of IPV

Researchers have increasingly emphasized IPV as a broad category composed of many types of abuses. While earlier work focused primarily on physical and psychological abuse (e.g., Straus, 1979), more recent efforts recognize additional types of IPV. For instance, some studies distinguish between four types of abuse: physical violence, sexual violence, psychological/emotional abuse, and injury related to violence (Hazen & Soriano, 2005; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus et al., 1996), an instrument that has been described by the authors as “the most widely used instrument in research on family violence” (Straus & Douglas, 2004, p. 507), includes items assessing psychological aggression (e.g., threatening or insulting a partner), physical aggression (e.g., hitting or throwing something at a partner), sexual coercion (e.g., insisting on or using threats to obtain sex from a partner), and injury resulting from IPV (e.g., requiring medical attention or suffering bruises). More recently, Outlaw (2009) investigated physical, emotional, social, and economic IPV in a large national sample (NVAWS; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Social abuse was defined as “current partner limit[ing] contact with family and friends,…insist[ing] on changing residences” and economic abuse was defined as “current partner prevent[ed] . . . from knowing about or having access to family income” (Outlaw, 2009, p. 265). Other researchers have also pointed out the importance of studying many types of IPV, including economic abuse (Postmus, Plummer, McMahon, Murshid, & Kim, 2012).

Not only have researchers distinguished diverse types of IPV, so too have materials meant for a lay audience. For instance, the Women’s Resources Website (n.d.) specifies five types of IPV: emotional, spiritual, financial, physical, and sexual abuse. Examples of emotional abuse include intimidation, manipulation, or harassment. Financial abuse includes taking or withholding money from a partner. Spiritual abuse includes forbidding someone from practicing their religious beliefs or forcing someone into a religious group or. Physical abuse could consist of hitting, kicking, or restraining a partner. Sexual abuse can range from making inappropriate sexual comments to raping a partner.

With regard to prevalence of the different types of IPV, a study with 1,443 U.S. women who were seeking medical services at two different university affiliated family care centers suggests that physical and sexual abuse are the most common (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000). More than half of the women in the study (55%) reported some IPV experiences, and more than 77% of IPV victims had experienced either physical or sexual abuse. The remaining 23% had reported experiencing emotional or psychological abuse without physical or sexual victimization. However, other studies have found different results. For instance, findings from Black and colleagues (2011) suggest that emotional IPV is more common than physical and sexual IPV. Alhabib and colleagues’ (2010) review of 134 different prevalence studies around the world suggests that sexual abuse is the least common type of IPV, with fairly equal rates of physical and emotional IPV. In some countries, emotional IPV appears to be more common than physical IPV.

Psychoeducation

The high rates of IPV and the many negative consequences associated with IPV experiences suggest that efforts to prevent it are critical. Indeed, Walker (1999) describes the emerging focus on educational campaigns to reduce incidents of violence against women and children. Psychoeducation differs from simply providing information by virtue of its intended use: as an intervention. Donker, Griffiths, Cuijpers, and Christensen (2009) defined passive psychoeducation as “an intervention which provides information, education materials or feedback/advice” and can be “offered . . . through leaflets, posters, audio-visual aids, lectures, internet material or software” (p. 80). Donker and colleagues further distinguish passive from active psychoeducation by noting passive materials are those “where encouragement is offered but no explicit instructions are given to carry out certain recommendations” (p. 80).

Lukens and McFarlane (2006) state that “psychoeducation is among the most effective of the evidence-based practices that have emerged in both clinical trials and community settings” (p. 291). It is a common component of many prevention and intervention efforts, particularly in dating violence prevention programs. For instance, Safe Dates (Foshee et al., 1998) includes psychoeducation components related to healthy versus unhealthy relationships and teaches participants what abuse is and how to recognize it. In fact, a review of common components across evidence-based dating violence prevention programs for youth and young adults revealed all contained psychoeducation (Lampinen, Bridges, & Cavell, 2012). Psychoeducation is also considered a vital component of therapy at shelters for domestic violence (Madsen, Blitz, McCorkle, & Panzer, 2003). For example, cognitive trauma therapy for battered women (Kubany, Hill, & Owens, 2003) has a heavy psychoeducation component. However, because it also includes exposure and cognitive interventions, it is difficult to determine the effects of psychoeducation independently from other parts of the treatment.

Despite how ubiquitous psychoeducation is in IPV prevention programs, there is a notable lack of evidence for its effectiveness. We found only two studies that assessed the effectiveness of psychoeducation for IPV prevention. O’Neil and colleagues (2006) demonstrated how a 2-hour psychoeducation program for college students increased awareness about emotional abuse. Students reported that they had a better understanding of psychological abuse and that the program had made them more aware of abuse in their own relationships. A second study focused on educating Israeli adolescent girls about egalitarian relationships with an emphasis on lowering the risks of IPV (Guez & Gill-Lev, 2009). The girls reported having a better understanding of abuse and an increased awareness for future applications of the knowledge they gained after completing the program. The researchers concluded that the group work conducted was successful, and the girls’ evaluations were positive (Guez & Gill-Lev, 2009).

Although psychoeducation is a common component of prevention and intervention programs (e.g., Lukens & McFarlane, 2006), few studies have investigated the effect of psychoeducation, especially passive psychoeducation (Donker et al., 2009). Results from recent legislative campaigns in Argentina suggest passive psychoeducation can affect recognition of IPV and help seeking (Ferreyra, 2007). Because of its delivery method, passive psychoeducation is significantly more cost-effective and can be disseminated much more readily to many more people than active psychoeducation. A small meta-analysis of passive psychoeducation on depression and anxiety found that it is effective at reducing psychiatric distress symptoms (average Cohen’s d = .20; Donker et al., 2009). Although this is considered a small effect, given the ability to disseminate it to much larger numbers of people, passive psychoeducation’s effectiveness at reducing psychiatric symptoms is promising for improving public health. However, its effectiveness in arenas other than anxiety and depression, particularly IPV knowledge, is not yet known. This study therefore investigated whether brief, passive psychoeducation about IPV could affect people’s knowledge about IPV and their recognition of abuse when reading scenarios. Of special interest was whether psychoeducation would have similar affects in different countries, given the worldwide problem of domestic violence.

Study Purpose and Hypotheses

This study was designed to investigate whether brief, passive psychoeducation about IPV could affect people’s knowledge about IPV and their recognition of abuse when reading scenarios. An additional aim of the study was to determine whether the impact of psychoeducation was comparable in two different samples: one from the United States and one from Argentina. The current study was also designed to address some of the limitations of previous research studies. First, although efforts to prevent or treat IPV have included psychoeducation (Foshee et al., 1998; Guez & Gill-Lev, 2009; Kubany et al., 2003; O’Neil et al., 2006), none have used an experimental design to determine how brief, passive psychoeducation affects knowledge and recognition of IPV. Second, prior studies have often been limited to examining physical and sexual assault. Hence, the current study examined six types of IPV: physical, sexual, emotional, financial, environmental, and social. Lastly, IPV may be perceived differently by different people; therefore, this study included participants from different nationalities (the United States and Argentina) as well as from different ethnicities (Latinos and non-Latinos).

Our study hypotheses and research questions were as follows. We hypothesized brief, passive psychoeducation about IPV would result in significantly higher knowledge about IPV (Hypothesis 1) and increased ability to recognize IPV in written scenarios (Hypothesis 2). We also asked whether brief, passive psychoeducation works different for different cultural groups (non-Latinos in the United States, Latinos in the United States, and Argentinians). Given the lack of research exploring cultural differences in the effectiveness of psychoeducation, we offered no specific hypothesis for this research question.

Method

Participants and Recruitment

A total of 128 participants were recruited for the study. Of these, 13 did not complete any part of the survey and an additional 13 did not complete most items. They were therefore excluded from the analyses. Moreover, because we were interested in the experiences of young adults, an additional two participants above the age of 31 were excluded from analyses. The sample included in this article consisted of 100 participants (72 women and 28 men; Table 1). The average age for all participants was 20.91 years (SD = 2.70, range = 18-31). The majority of participants were Latino (56.0%) and non-Latino White (38.0%). A series of t tests and chi-square tests revealed no significant differences between the psychoeducation and control groups for any of the demographic variables. Results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Information for Participants by Experimental Group.

	Combined	Psychoeducation^a	Control^b	Test Statistic
	M (SD) or n (%)	M (SD) or n (%)	M (SD) or n (%)	Test Statistic
Age, in years	20.91 (2.70)	20.78 (2.77)	21.04 (2.64)	t(98) = 0.47, p = .64
Gender				χ²(1) = 3.64, p = .06
Female	72 (72.0%)	41 (80.4%)	31 (63.3%)
Male	28 (28.0%)	10 (19.6%)	18 (36.7%)
Ethnicity				χ²(4) = 3.30, p = .51
White	38 (38.0%)	19 (37.3%)	19 (38.8%)
Latino/a	56 (56.0%)	28 (54.9%)	28 (57.1%)
African American	2 (2.0%)	2 (3.9%)	0 (0%)
Asian	3 (3.0%)	1 (2.0%)	2 (4.1%)
Native American	1 (1.0%)	1 (2.0%)	0 (0%)
Country of residence				χ²(1) = 0.99, p = .32
USA	68 (68.0%)	37 (72.5%)	31 (63.3%)
Argentina	32 (32.0%)	14 (27.5%)	18 (36.7%)
Marital status				χ²(2) = 2.97, p = .23
Not married	97 (97.0%)	48 (94.1%)	49 (100%)
Married	1 (1.0%)	1 (2.0%)	0 (0%)
Other	2 (2.0%)	2 (3.9%)	0 (0%)
Currently in a relationship	46 (46.0%)	27 (52.9%)	19 (38.8%)	χ²(1) = 2.02, p = .16
Years in relationship	1.97 (1.41)	2.07 (1.46)	1.82 (1.36)	t(44) = −0.59, p = .56
IPV victim				χ²(2) = 2.44, p = .30
Yes	16 (15.7%)	11 (20.8%)	5 (10.2%)
No	83 (81.4%)	41 (77.4%)	42 (85.7%)
Prefer not to answer	3 (2.9%)	1 (1.9%)	2 (4.1%)
Family/friend IPV victim				χ²(2) = 1.43, p = .49
Yes	55 (53.9%)	31 (58.5%)	24 (49.0%)
No	44 (43.1%)	20 (37.7%)	24 (49.0%)
Prefer not to answer	3 (2.9%)	2 (3.8%)	1 (2.0%)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

n = 51.

n = 49.

Two thirds of the sample were recruited in the United States (n = 68); the remaining participants were recruited in Argentina (n = 32; Table 2). We attempted to recruit equal numbers of Latinos and non-Latinos residing in the United States. Of foreign-born participants residing in the United States, five were born in Mexico, four in Bolivia, and one each in Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. The Argentina sample included only one foreign-born participant (born in the United States). Test statistics comparing participants residing in Argentina with U.S. non-Latino residents and U.S. Latino residents revealed the Argentine participants were significantly older than the U.S. non-Latino residents. Results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Information for Participants by Country of Residence and Ethnicity.

	USA Non-Latino^a	USA Latino^b	Argentina^c	Test Statistic
	M (SD) or n (%)	M (SD) or n (%)	M (SD) or n (%)	Test Statistic
Age, in years	19.79 (2.52)	20.60 (2.18)	22.59 (2.53)	F(2, 96) = 12.25, p < .001
Gender				χ²(2) = 2.43, p = .30
Female	31 (73.8%)	15 (60.0%)	25 (78.1%)
Male	11 (26.2%)	10 (40.0%)	7 (21.9%)
Ethnicity				χ²(8) = 95.07, p < .001
White	37 (88.1%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.1%)
Latino/a	0 (0%)	25 (100%)	31 (96.9%)
African American	2 (4.8%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Asian	2 (4.8%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Native American	1 (2.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Experimental group				χ²(2) = 1.49, p = .48
Psychoeducation	21 (50.0%)	15 (60.0%)	14 (43.8%)
Control	21 (50.0%)	10 (40.0%)	18 (56.3%)
Marital status				χ²(4) = 2.12, p = .71
Not married	40 (95.2%)	25 (100.0%)	31 (96.9%)
Married	1 (2.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Other	1 (2.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.1%)
Currently in a relationship	22 (52.4%)	10 (40.0%)	13 (40.6%)	χ²(2) = 1.41, p = .49
Years in relationship	1.83 (1.12)	1.47 (1.11)	2.25 (1.57)	F(2, 42) = 1.11, p = .34
IPV victim				χ²(4) = 4.75, p = .31
Yes	7 (16.7%)	2 (7.7%)	7 (21.2%)
No	34 (81.0%)	22 (84.6%)	26 (78.8%)
Prefer not to answer	1 (2.4%)	2 (26.8%)	0 (0.0%)
Family/friend IPV victim				χ²(4) = 6.92, p = .14
Yes	25 (59.5%)	17 (65.4%)	12 (36.4%)
No	16 (38.1%)	9 (34.6%)	19 (57.6%)
Prefer not to answer	1 (2.4%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (6.1%)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

n = 42.

n = 25.

n = 32.

This study was interested in targeting young adults, given this is a time when people are making important dating decisions independently and when people are most vulnerable to IPV (Black et al., 2011). Recruitment was done on two college campuses in the mid-south region of the United States (a metropolitan statistical area with more than 450,000 inhabitants, 15% of whom are Hispanic; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) as well as one college campus in Buenos Aires, Argentina (a city of approximately 3,000,000 inhabitants; Central Intelligence Agency, 2012). Because we were interested in recruiting a diverse sample in the United States, flyers were placed around both university and community college campuses. In addition to recruiting from introductory psychology courses, emails were sent to members of various campus organizations asking them to forward the recruitment message to their listserv. Researchers also attended campus cultural events to distribute recruitment information.

In Argentina, recruitment took place at a private university in downtown Buenos Aires. One of the researchers was invited into psychology classrooms, where she presented information about the study. In addition, flyers were posted and distributed throughout the campus. In the United States, the university Institutional Review Board and the community college’s administration approved the project and in Argentina, appropriate university authorities gave approval.

Procedure

The study was conducted entirely online and was available in both Spanish and English, according to participants’ preferences. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control conditions. After indicating consent, the experimental group received brief, passive psychoeducation regarding IPV, whereas the control group did not receive any information. Both groups then completed the IPV knowledge quiz, read and responded to the vignettes, and answered questions about demographics. Finally, participants were provided with debriefing information, including information about IPV and local resources to access if they or someone they knew was a victim, and given the opportunity to enter into a drawing for a Flip camcorder. Two winners were randomly selected among all participants at the conclusion of the study: one in Argentina and one in the United States. No other incentives were provided to participants.

Materials and Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked questions about their age, gender, ethnicity, country of residence, and relationship status. Two additional questions asked whether participants (a) had ever been abused by a romantic partner, or (b) if they knew of a family member or friend who had been abused by a romantic partner. Response options were yes, no, and prefer not to answer.

Psychoeducation material

The researchers created a 1.5 single-spaced information sheet about IPV. Materials from the Women’s Resources Website (n.d.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) were utilized to create the information sheet. It was designed to be similar to other brief, passive educational handouts available on websites and in various resource centers (such as doctor’s offices), and thus to have high external validity for the type of brief self-administered psychoeducation many people may utilize. The sheet defined IPV (control by one partner over another in a dating, marital, or live-in relationship), described means of control perpetrators may use (including physical, sexual, financial, social, threats, isolation), barriers to recognizing IPV and leaving an abusive relationship (e.g., cultural or religious values, lack of social support, threats and entrapment), who is affected by IPV (everyone, particularly women and people with fewer resources and support or with disabilities), how someone knows whether he or she is being abused, the cycle of violence (slow build up, violence, regret/remorse), and early warning signs of abuse potential in relationships (accelerated intimacy, jealousy, demanding of your time, hypersensitivity). The psychoeducational materials also contained a series of questions that could help the reader determine whether he or she is in an abusive relationship. Participants in the psychoeducation group were simply instructed to read the information about IPV. Participants in the control group did not receive any materials.

IPV knowledge quiz

An IPV knowledge quiz was created by the researchers (see Appendix A). The quiz had eight true/false questions that addressed information covered in many domestic violence psychoeducation materials, including those from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) and Women’s Resources Website (n.d.) that served as the basis for the psychoeducational content of this study. A total score was created by summing correctly answered items. Scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating greater knowledge about IPV.

When examining responses to the IPV knowledge quiz, we found most participants responded correctly that IPV was not limited to heterosexual relationships (98.0%), that IPV is more than just two people arguing or not getting along (92.0%), that cultural values could be obstacles to leaving an abusive relationship (94.0%), that public awareness can help prevent IPV (91.0%), and that IPV is not necessarily easy to recognize (84.0%). Fewer participants correctly identified economic abuse as a type of IPV (73.0%) or that abusers are often overly sensitive to perceived slights or insults (74.0%). Approximately half of the participants did not know that abusers often show remorse for their behavior (46.0%).

Vignettes

Eight vignettes were written by the researchers (see Appendix B). Each was approximately six sentences long. Six of these vignettes were designed to describe a type of abuse: physical, sexual, emotional, financial, environmental, or social. In each case, the perpetrator was described as male and the victim as female. Interactions began relatively benignly, but became more abusive as the vignette went on. The other two vignettes featured couples arguing, but they were designed not to describe abuse. Vignettes were independently rated by a team of five additional researchers (three graduate students and two undergraduate students), who all concurred the abusive vignettes depicted abuse and the non-abusive vignettes did not.

At the end of each vignette, participants were asked to indicate whether or not they believed the interaction between the characters was abusive using a Likert-type scale, from 1 (definitely not abusive) to 5 (definitely abusive). If their responses indicated that they believed the interaction was probably or definitely abusive (4 or 5), then they were asked the follow-up question, “How serious was the abuse?” Answers were again rated on a Likert-type scale, from 1 (not at all serious) to 5 (extremely serious).

As a manipulation check, we explored participants’ ratings of abusiveness of scenarios (Table 3). Participants generally viewed IPV vignettes as probably or definitely abusive (71%-99%), whereas non-abusive vignettes were labeled probably or definitely not abusive by most (75%-84%) participants. No participants rated the non-abusive vignettes as definitely portraying IPV.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for Perceptions of Scenario Abusiveness Ratings by Experimental Condition.

Scenario	Combined	Psychoeducation^a	Control^b	t Statistic	p Value
Economic abuse
M (SD)	3.86 (1.14)	4.24 (0.82)	3.47 (1.29)	−3.56	.001
%	71	84.3	57.2
Social abuse
M (SD)	4.36 (1.01)	4.59 (0.80)	4.12 (1.15)	−2.36	.02
%	83	88.2	77.5
Environmental abuse
M (SD)	4.72 (0.62)	4.80 (0.57)	4.63 (0.67)	−1.39	.17
%	95	96.1	93.8
Emotional abuse
M (SD)	4.65 (0.79)	4.75 (0.63)	4.55 (0.77)	−1.39	.17
%	94	94.2	93.9
Sexual abuse
M (SD)	4.75 (0.67)	4.75 (0.72)	4.76 (0.63)	0.07	.94
%	94	94.1	93.9
Physical abuse
M (SD)	4.96 (0.24)	4.92 (0.34)	5.00 (0.00)	1.63	.11
%	99	98.0	100.0
No abuse 1
M (SD)	1.72 (0.90)	1.90 (0.92)	1.53 (0.84)	−2.10	.04
%	5	5.9	4.1
No abuse 2
M (SD)	1.55 (0.86)	1.75 (0.91)	1.35 (0.75)	−2.38	.02
%	5	5.9	4.1

Note. Scenarios were rated on a scale from 1 (definitely not abusive) to 5 (definitely abusive). Percentages are based on proportion of participants who rated the vignette as 4 (probably abusive) or 5 (definitely abusive).

n = 51.

n = 49.

Severity ratings for the six abusive vignettes were explored further with a one-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results, presented in Table 4, revealed significant differences in participant perceptions of abuse severity across the vignettes, F(5, 61) = 87.31, p < .001, Wilks’s Lambda = .12. Post hoc comparisons with Bonferroni corrections indicated that the physical abuse scenario was rated as significantly more severe than all other scenarios. Similarly, the sexual abuse scenario was significantly different from all other scenarios. The environmental, emotional, and social abuse scenario severity ratings were not significantly different from each other. Finally, the economic abuse scenario was rated as significantly less severe than all others.

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations for Abuse Severity Ratings by Experimental Condition.

	Combined	Psychoeducation^a		Control^b		t Statistic	p Value
Scenario	M (SD)	n	M (SD)	n	M (SD)	df; t	p Value
Economic abuse	3.42 (0.73)	43	3.47 (0.74)	28	3.25 (0.70)	69; −1.23	.22
Social abuse	3.91 (0.72)	45	4.00 (0.67)	38	3.53 (0.83)	81; −2.87	.01
Environmental abuse	4.20 (0.56)	49	4.31 (0.55)	46	3.91 (0.66)	93; −3.16	<.01
Emotional abuse	4.06 (0.61)	48	4.00 (0.68)	46	3.57 (0.78)	92; −2.88	<.01
Sexual abuse	4.65 (0.64)	48	4.56 (0.71)	46	4.59 (0.65)	92; 0.17	.86
Physical abuse	4.97 (0.17)	50	4.80 (0.64)	49	4.96 (0.20)	97; 1.67	.10

Note. Scenarios that were considered probably or definitely abusive were subsequently rated on abuse severity from 1 (not at all serious) to 5 (extremely serious).

n = 51.

n = 49.

Vignettes, the psychoeducation information sheet, and quiz items were originally written in English, then forward and backward translated by two bilingual research assistants. Finally, a group of four bilingual researchers (two involved in the translation and two additional researchers) met to ensure that the meaning of the information, vignettes, and quiz items was not different across versions. Names of characters in the stories were selected to reflect those that are popular in both English and Spanish (such as Daniel and Monica).

Results

Research Question/Hypothesis 1

An independent samples t test was conducted to examine the impact of brief, passive psychoeducation on subsequent IPV knowledge. There was a significant difference between the two groups, t(1, 98) = −3.08, p = .003, d = .61 (medium effect). The mean knowledge score for the group that received psychoeducation (M = 6.84, SD = 0.95) was significantly higher than that of the control group (M = 6.18, SD = 1.19). These results supported the first hypothesis that participants who received the passive psychoeducation performed better on an IPV knowledge quiz compared with the control group.

Research Question/Hypothesis 2

A mixed ANOVA was performed to assess the impact of psychoeducation (yes/no) and vignette type (physical, sexual, economic, psychological, environment, and social abuse, and two no-abuse vignettes) on subsequent IPV vignette abuse ratings. There was a significant main effect for group, F(1, 98) = 12.31, p = .001, h2p = .11 (medium to large effect). The average abusiveness rating collapsed across vignettes for the psychoeducation group was 3.96 (standard error [SE] = 0.06), significantly higher than the mean of 3.68 (SE = 0.06) in the control group.

The main effect of the group was qualified by a significant interaction, Wilks’s Lambda = .79, F(7, 92) = 3.58, p = .002, h2p = .21 (large effect). A series of independent samples t tests were performed to follow up this significant multivariate effect (Table 3). There were significant differences in abuse ratings between the two groups for economic and social abuse. Examination of means revealed the psychoeducation group rated these vignettes significantly higher (i.e., more abusive) than the control group. There were also significant differences between the two groups for both non-abusive scenarios. Participants in the control group were significantly more likely to rate these two as definitely non-abusive than participants in the psychoeducation group. No significant differences between the two groups emerged for environmental, sexual, emotional, and physical abuse vignettes. Therefore, the second hypothesis was only partially supported.

Furthermore, to explore whether ratings of abuse severity in response to the six IPV vignettes would differ significantly across groups, we conducted a series of independent samples t tests.¹ Significant differences were found for environmental, emotional, and social abuse. In each case, the experimental group rated the abuse as significantly more serious than did the control group. No differences were found between the two groups on severity ratings for sexual, economic, and physical IPV vignettes. Results are summarized in Table 4.

Research Question 3

Our last research question asked whether experimental condition (receiving psychoeducation vs. control) would interact with cultural group (non-Latinos in the United States, Latinos in the United States, and Argentinians) to affect IPV knowledge quiz scores. Two-way ANOVAs revealed no significant main effect of cultural group on quiz scores, F(2, 93) = 0.15, p = .86, and no significant interaction between cultural and experimental groups, F(2, 93) = 1.83, p = .17. Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 5.

Table 5.

Means and Standard Deviations for IPV Knowledge Quiz Scores by Cultural Group and Experimental Condition.

	USA Non-Latinos		USA Latinos		Argentina
Condition	n	M (SD)	n	M (SD)	n	M (SD)
Psychoeducation	21	6.95 (0.97)	15	7.00 (0.93)	14	6.57 (0.94)
Control	21	6.14 (1.01)	10	5.80 (1.40)	18	6.44 (1.25)

Note. Quiz scores could range from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating greater IPV knowledge. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Discussion

Psychoeducation is often included in mental health treatments and can be a cost-effective and evidence-based intervention (Donker et al., 2009; Lukens & McFarlane, 2006). So far, psychoeducation has been shown to be an effective evidence-based intervention for schizophrenia and cancer, with inadequate evidence for other mental and physical health problems, mostly due to methodological limitations (Lukens & McFarlane, 2006). Passive psychoeducation in particular has the potential to improve public health because it is so easily disseminated to large groups of people. This study explored the impact of passive psychoeducation on IPV knowledge and labeling of abusive interactions in two diverse samples of college students. Importantly, while previous research has indicated that active, professionally administered psychoeducation successfully increases knowledge of IPV (Guez & Gill-Lev, 2009; O’Neil et al., 2006), and while passive psychoeducation is helpful at reducing depressive symptoms (Donker et al., 2009), there have been no studies exploring the effectiveness of passive psychoeducation on IPV knowledge. The current study used an experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of brief, passive psychoeducation on IPV knowledge.

Our results suggest that brief, passive psychoeducation increases both knowledge about IPV and participants’ ability to apply that knowledge in recognizing economic and social IPV in vignettes. Furthermore, passive psychoeducation significantly increased participants’ perceptions of how severe the abuse portrayed in social, environmental, and emotional IPV vignettes was. In contrast, passive psychoeducation did not affect abuse and severity ratings for sexual and physical assault vignettes. This is likely because participants were already well aware that hitting or raping someone is abusive. When examining mean ratings, these vignettes were labeled as probably or definitely abusive by nearly all participants and had the highest average severity ratings of all vignettes.

The significant differences found in this study between the experimental conditions were related to more subtle types of abuse. Compared with sexual and physical assault, the severity of other types of IPV included in this study (economic, social, environmental, and psychological) was not rated as highly by participants. It is possible that passive psychoeducation was effective at increasing awareness and recognition of these more subtle types of IPV. Importantly, these types of abuse can still be harmful. For example, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (n.d.) reports that economic abuse is particularly detrimental for IPV victims because lack of financial self-sufficiency is one of the primary reasons victims remain in abusive relationships. In addition, IPV victims tend to report that psychological IPV is more detrimental to their well-being than physical IPV (Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990).

We also found that participants in the control group rated the non-abusive vignettes significantly lower than participants receiving passive psychoeducation. However, nearly all participants rated the vignette as probably or definitely not abusive. Thus, it was not the case that IPV psychoeducation made participants rate non-abusive arguments or conflicts as abusive.

Although passive psychoeducation appeared to have worked similarly for participants of different ethnicities and countries of residence, knowledge scores in the Argentinian sample were similar across both experimental and control groups. In contrast, the two U.S. samples (Latinos and non-Latinos) had a nearly one standard deviation difference in knowledge scores across experimental groups. While our null findings may suggest that efforts to target IPV knowledge can be broadly disseminated and may not need to be adapted or modified for particular subgroups of college students, an alternative explanation is that our study lacked adequate power to uncover group differences. This remains an important question to investigate in future studies. It is also important to acknowledge that the findings from the current study were based on short-term immediate effects. Future studies could benefit from testing for long-term effects of passive psychoeducation.

There were several limitations to this study. The sample was primarily female and exclusively college students. Moreover, participants were predominantly White and Latino. Efforts to examine the effectiveness of passive psychoeducation with more diverse samples will be beneficial, particularly because college students may be more used to receiving pedagogical information in written form than non-students. It is also possible that people who are experiencing a traumatic reaction to IPV victimization may respond differently. There is evidence that traumatized individuals can be re-traumatized by psychoeducation about trauma and PTSD (for an overview, see Wessely et al., 2008).

We developed our own materials and measures for this study; therefore, their validity and reliability are unknown. Furthermore, we did not pilot test our measures. It would be helpful to explore the psychometric properties of our measures and include other, more well-established measures in future studies. An additional limitation of our procedures was our inability to determine whether participants who were in the psychoeducation condition used their web browser’s “Back” function to refer back to materials they previously saw while they were taking the IPV quiz. Laboratory-based studies with stronger monitoring would help limit such inadvertent access in future studies.

Future studies may also wish to see whether passive psychoeducation affects behavior (such as reducing IPV perpetration or changing IPV attitudes). One meta-analysis showed that a medium to large change in participants’ intention resulted in a small to medium change in their behaviors (Webb & Sheeran, 2006).

Despite these limitations, our results suggest brief, passive psychoeducation, even short fact sheets or pamphlets, may be beneficial in IPV prevention and intervention efforts. In particular, efforts to better educate the public about the more subtle and subjective forms of IPV, such as economic, social, and emotional abuse, may be particularly affected by passive psychoeducation.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported in part by a Student Undergraduate Research Fellowship from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education awarded to the third author.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ana J. Bridges is an associate professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas. Her dual research foci include sexualized media/sexual violence and increasing access to mental health services for Latino immigrants residing in the United States.

Marie Karlsson is a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of Arkansas. Her research and clinical interests are in domestic violence prevention and intervention. She is the recipient of a prestigious 4-year Distinguished Doctoral Fellowship at the University of Arkansas.

Elizabeth Lindly received her bachelor of arts degree in psychology with honors at the University of Arkansas in 2010. She is currently pursuing an advanced degree in nursing where she hopes to specialize in psychiatric nursing and work with a culturally and linguistically diverse population.

References

Alhabib

Nur

Jones

(2010). Domestic violence against women: Systematic review of prevalence studies. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 369-382. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9298-4

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/IPVBook-a.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Understanding intimate partner violence. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ipv_factsheet.pdf

Central Intelligence Agency. (2012). The world fact book. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ar.html

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260-268. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00514-7

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

McKeown

R. E.

King

M. J.

(2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553-559. doi:10.2105/ajph.90.4.553

Donker

Griffiths

K. M.

Cuijpers

Christensen

(2009). Psychoeducation for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 7, 79-88. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-7-79

10.

Ferreyra

(24, November 2007). Crecieron un 57 por ciento las denuncias por violencia familiar [Complaints of family violence grew 57 percent]. Retrieved from http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2007/11/24/sociedad/s-05415.htm

11.

Follingstad

D. R.

Rutledge

L. L.

Berg

B. J.

Hause

E. S.

Polek

D. S.

(1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107-120. doi:10.1007/BF00978514

12.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

Helms

R. W.

Koch

G. G.

Linder

G. F.

(1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45-50. doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.1.45

13.

Guez

Gill-Lev

(2009). A psychoeducational group for adolescent girls to facilitate egalitarian, non-abusive relationships. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 59, 385-405. doi:10.1521/ijgp.2009.59.3.385

14.

Hazen

Soriano

(2005). Experience of intimate partner violence among U.S. born, immigrant, and migrant Latinas. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211509.pdf

15.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. (2008). Argentina: Women victims of domestic violence; state protection and resources available to victims (2005-2007). Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/47ce6d7ca.html

16.

Kubany

E. S.

Hill

E. E.

Owens

J. A.

(2003). Cognitive trauma therapy for battered women with PTSD: Preliminary findings. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 81-91. doi:10.1023/A:1022019629803

17.

Lampinen

J. M.

Bridges

A. J.

Cavell

T. A.

(2012). Crossing the date line: A violence prevention program for teenage girls (Final report for the Verizon Foundation).

18.

Lukens

E. P.

McFarlane

W. R.

(2006). Psychoeducation as evidence-based practice: Considerations for practice, research, and policy. In Roberts

A. R.

Yeager

K. R.

(Eds.), Foundations of evidence-based social work practice (pp. 291-313). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Madsen

L. H.

Blitz

L. V.

McCorkle

Panzer

P. G.

(2003). Sanctuary in a domestic violence shelter: A team approach to healing. Psychiatric Quarterly, 74, 155-171. doi:10.1023/A:1021307811184

20.

Max

Rice

D. P.

Finkelstein

Bardwell

R. A.

Leadbetter

(2004). The economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19, 259-272.

21.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (n.d.). Economic abuse fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.uncfsp.org/projects/userfiles/File/DCE-STOP_NOW/NCADV_Economic_Abuse_Fact_Sheet.pdf

22.

O’Neil

J. M.

Anderson

S. A.

Britner

P. A.

Brown

I. Q.

Holgerson

Rohner

R. P.

(2006). Psychological abuse in family studies: A psychoeducational and preventive approach. Marriage & Family Review, 38, 41-58. doi:10.1300/J002v38n04_03

23.

Outlaw

(2009). No one type of intimate partner abuse: Exploring physical and non-physical abuse among intimate partners. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 263-272. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9228-5

24.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S.-B.

McMahon

Murshid

N. S.

Kim

M. S.

(2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 411-430. doi:10.1177/0886260511421669

25.

Simister

(2012). More than a billion women face “gender based violence”: Where are most victims? Journal of Family Violence, 27, 607-623. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-9457-x

26.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88. doi:10.2307/351733

27.

Straus

M. A.

Douglas

E. M.

(2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520. doi:10.1891/vivi.19.5.507.63686

28.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

29.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf

30.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American fact finder. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

31.

Walker

L. E.

(1999). Psychology and domestic violence around the world. American Psychologist, 54, 21-29.

32.

Webb

T. L.

Sheeran

(2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249-268. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249

33.

Wessely

Bryant

R. A.

Greenberg

Earnshaw

Sharpley

Hacker Hughes

(2008). Does psychoeducation help prevent posttraumatic psychological distress? Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 71, 287-302. doi:10.1521/psyc.2008.71.4.287

34.

Women’s Resources Website. (n.d.). Are you being abused? Retrieved from http://www.womensresources.ca/gethelp