000 | 02917nab a2200373Ia 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
999 |
_c1978 _d1978 |
||
001 | 113367 | ||
005 | 20250625151147.0 | ||
008 | 110331s2006 eng | ||
040 |
_aWSS _dAFV |
||
100 |
_92012 _aRobertson, Kirsten J. |
||
245 |
_aIntimate partner violence : _blinguistic features and accommodation behaviour of perpetrators and victims _cRobertson, Kirsten Jane; Murachver, Tamar |
||
260 |
_aCleveland, Englan _bSAGE Publications _c2006 |
||
365 |
_a00 _b0 |
||
500 | _aJournal of Language and Social Psychology 25(4) December 2006 : 406-422 | ||
520 | _aThis paper discusses research that investigated intimate partner violence and patterns of communication. It compares the conversational behaviour of men and women with and without a history of intimate partner violence during low-conflict interactions with a male and female researcher. The researchers were trained to use a language style stereotypical of their gender and six gender-neutral, low-conflict topics were selected for discussion. These formed gender-preferential speech styles. All conversations between the researchers and participants were transcribed and coded. Accommodation behaviour was measured by examining participants' speech behaviour in response to the researcher. The participants consisted of 81 males and 79 females recruited from three separate samples: 36 incarcerated participants, 62 university students, and 62 individuals from the general population. The participants' use of, and accommodation towards facilitative and non-facilitative language features as a function of their abuse history, was examined. It was found that fewer facilitative and polite language features were used by perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. The use of non-facilitative language features was more likely among males with a history of intimate partner violence. Perpetrators of psychological abuse were more likely to accommodate towards non-facilitative language features and less likely to accommodate towards a facilitative style. Participants modified their speech towards the manipulated styles in all other instances. Recommendations are made for intimate partner violence prevention initiatives. | ||
522 | _axxk | ||
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aABUSED MEN _924 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aEMOTIONAL ABUSE _9222 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aGENDER _9269 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aINTERVENTION _9326 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aOFFENDERS _9413 |
650 | 2 | 4 |
_aPSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE _9472 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aTREATMENT _9613 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aVICTIMS _9622 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_2FVC _aWOMEN _9645 |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_9431 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _2FVC |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_9458 _aPREVENTION _2FVC |
650 | 2 | 7 |
_aWOMEN PRISONERS _910607 |
651 | 4 |
_aNEW ZEALAND _92588 |
|
700 | 1 |
_aMurachver, Tamar _91779 |
|
773 | 0 | _tJournal of Language and Social Psychology 25(4) December 2006 : 406-422 | |
942 |
_2ddc _cARTICLE |