Exposure to Domestic Violence and Identity Development among Adolescent University Students in South Africa

Abstract

Summary.-This study examined the relationship between exposure to domestic violence and identity development in a sample of 108 undergraduate students with an average age of 18.7 yr. from University of Limpopo in South Africa. There were more women (n=64; 58.7%) in the study than men (n=45; 41.3%). Adolescents were classified into high and low domestic violence exposure groups on the basis of a median split in physical violence scores from the Child Exposure to Domestic Violence Scale (CEDV). Exposure was then compared with identity development as measured by the Ochse and Plug Erikson scale. The results indicated a significant mean difference between the two groups on identity development. Furthermore, exposure to domestic violence was significantly associated with lower scores for identity development as represented by subscales measuring trust, autonomy, initiative and other Eriksonian constructs. Implications and limitations of the study are discussed. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 3South Africa is a violent society, characterised by a history of brutal crimes and racial conflicts (Dawes, Kafaar, des Sas Kropiwnicki, Pather & Richter, 2004;Kubeka, 2008).Nonetheless, an often underestimated form of violence is that of domestic abuse characterised by physical, sexual and psychological abuse (Dissel & Ngubeni, 2003;Vetten & Bhana, 2001).Available indicators of children's well-being, in the form of the high incidence of child mortality rates and physical and sexual abuse, suggest that South Africa remains a hostile environment for its children and that violence is a ubiquitous phenomenon in the country (Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2005; Human Rights Watch, 2005;Ward, Martin, Theron & Distiller, 2007; WHO, 2002). The effects of exposure to violence committed against a family member by another member are quite disturbing and vary widely among children and specifically, children of different developmental stages (Dawes, et al., 2004;Sternberg, Lamb, Guterman & Abbott, 2006). Brooks (1985) suggested a focus on two phenomena-Fairbairn's (1952) "intrapsychic identification of bad objects" occurring as a consequence of trauma, and Erikson's (1968) "the search for Truth" epitomising adolescent identity formation-that come into conflict during the adolescent stage. Fairbairn's structural theory of personality, thus identity, emphasises the importance of the environment in forming inner ego structures and that there can be disastrous consequences for infants who are confronted by a non-nurturing environment (Celani, 1999). Fairbairn (1952) attributed intrapsychic resistance to the resurgence and exploration of traumatic childhood memories and suggested that recognising the child's identification with his/her "bad objects" (which, in Fairbairn's terms, means unsatisfying and depriving) is central to understanding the child's reluctance to give any account of the traumatic experience and memory. That is, "if the child's objects present themselves as bad, he/she himself feels bad. The DOMESTIC VIO...

Evaluating the association between interpersonal trauma and self-identity: A systematic review.

“…Two of these studies reported emotional maltreatment that occurred in childhood to be a key factor in the development of an impaired self-identity in contrast to noninterpersonal trauma and adult maltreatment (Briere & Rickards, 2007; of moderate quality, 69%) and a history of CSA to be significantly associated with negative self-identity based on a sample of American university students (Lopez & Heffer, 1998; of high quality, 83.3%). A further three studies based on university samples also reported a history of maltreatment or exposure to domestic abuse to be associated with greater impairments of self-identity and cognitive schemas about the self (in a female-only sample; Alexander & Lupfer, 1987; of lower quality, 47.6%; and two mixed-sex samples; Makhubela, 2012; of moderate quality, 69% Ponce et al, 2004; also of moderate quality, 71.4%).…”

“…Approximately half of the studies (53%) comprised an all-female sample, with the remaining studies being an all-male sample (Ray, 1997) or a mixed sample ranging from 27% to 90% female participants. The age range across studies varied from 5 to 91 years, with over half the studies being predominantly derived from a child and/or adolescent sample (for example, 5–19 years; N = 30, 51%; Allen & Tarnowski, 1989; Deb & Mukherjee, 2009; Deb et al, 2016; Esparza & Esperat, 1996; German et al, 1990; Kinard, 1980; Mannarino et al, 1994, 1989, 1991; Mennen, 1994; Mernen & Meadow, 1994; Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000; Mota & Matos, 2015; Oates et al, 1985; Oates et al, 1994; Orr & Downes, 1985; Reyes, 2008; Reyes et al, 1996; Riesen & Porath, 2004; Rogosch & Cicchetti, 2005; Runyon et al, 2009; Rust & Troupe, 1991; Silva & Calheiros, 2020; Simmons & Weinman, 1991; Solomon & Serres, 1999; Stern et al, 1995; Stovall & Craig, 1990; Tong et al, 1987; Trickett et al, 2001; Wonderlich et al, 2001); followed by adult samples (for example, 17–91 years; N = 27, 46%; Alexander & Lupfer, 1987; Brayden et al, 1995; Briere & Rickards, 2007; Classen et al, 1998; Clifford et al, 2020a,’ 2020b; Dimmitt, 1995a,’ 1995b; Hoagwood, 1990; Kandeğer & Naziroğlu, 2021; Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017, 2019; Krause & Roth, 2011; Lopez & Heffer, 1998; Makhubela, 2012; McAlpine & Shanks, 2010; Murthi et al, 2006; Nixon & Nishith, 2005; Overstreet et al, 2017; Ponce et al, 2004; Ray, 1997; Steinberg et al, 2003; Thompson-Hollands et al, 2017; Van Buren & Weierich, 2015; Vartanian et al, 2016; 2018; Whealin & Jackson, 2002), and two studies (3%) were mixed pediatric/adult age samples (Alboebadi et al, 2015; Oates et al, 1998).…”

“…The key measure used to assess the primary construct for self-identity was highly variable across studies (see in the online supplemental materials). Fourteen studies utilized more than one measure of self-identity and/or concept (Clifford, et al, 2020a,’ 2020b; German et al, 1990; Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017; Kinard, 1980; Krause & Roth, 2011; Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000; Oates et al, 1994, 1998; Overstreet et al, 2017; Stern et al, 1995; Trickett et al, 2001; Whealin & Jackson, 2002; Wonderlich et al, 2001); whereas 33 studies used a multidimensional assessment of self-identity (Alexander & Lupfer, 1987; Allen & Tarnowski, 1989; Brayden et al, 1995; Deb et al, 2016; Dimmitt, 1995a,’ 1995b; German et al, 1990; Kinard, 1980; Lopez & Heffer, 1998; Makhubela, 2012; Mannarino et al, 1989, 1991, 1994; Mennen, 1994; Mernen & Meadow, 1994; Murthi et al, 2006; Oates et al, 1985, 1994, 1998; Orr & Downes, 1985; Reyes, 2008; Reyes et al, 1996; Riesen & Porath, 2004; Rust & Troupe, 1991; Silva & Calheiros, 2020; Simmons & Weinman, 1991; Solomon & Serres, 1999; Stern et al, 1995; Stovall & Craig, 1990; Tong et al, 1987; Trickett et al, 2001; Whealin & Jackson, 2002; Wonderlich et al, 2001). Moreover, the most common multidimensional measure used in pediatric samples was the Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale, with 14 of the 32 pediatric studies using this measure.…”

“…The key measure used to assess the primary construct for selfidentity was highly variable across studies (see Table S1 in the online supplemental materials). Fourteen studies utilized more than one measure of self-identity and/or concept (Clifford, et al, 2020a(Clifford, et al, ,' 2020bGerman et al, 1990;Keshet & Gilboa-Schechtman, 2017;Kinard, 1980;Krause & Roth, 2011;Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000;Oates et al, 1994Oates et al, , 1998Overstreet et al, 2017;Stern et al, 1995;Trickett et al, 2001;Whealin & Jackson, 2002;Wonderlich et al, 2001); whereas 33 studies used a multidimensional assessment of self-identity (Alexander & Lupfer, 1987;Allen & Tarnowski, 1989;Brayden et al, 1995;Deb et al, 2016;Dimmitt, 1995aDimmitt, ,' 1995bGerman et al, 1990;Kinard, 1980;Lopez & Heffer, 1998;Makhubela, 2012;Mannarino et al, 1989Mannarino et al, , 1991Mannarino et al, , 1994Mennen, 1994;Mernen & Meadow, 1994;Murthi et al, 2006;Oates et al, 1985Oates et al, , 1994Oates et al, , 1998Orr & Downes, 1985;Reyes, 2008;Reyes et al, 1996;Riesen & Porath, 2004;Rust & ...…”

Modeling and Process Design of Intraparticle Adsorption in Single-Stage and Multistage Continuous Stirred Reactors: An Analytical Kinetics Approach

“…Adsorption in continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) under the names of RIP and CIP has become an established process for extraction of gold and uranium, , and, recently, zinc, copper, nickel, and cobalt. − One of the most applied adsorption model in resin-in-pulp (RIP) and carbon-in-pulp (CIP) processes when intraparticle mass-transfer resistance prevails is the Boyd’s series model.…”