同志親密關係暴力受害者求助行為之相關因素探討

Abstract

國外實證研究已指出同志親密關係暴力的盛行率與異性戀者相近，而求助行為之於受害者的人身安全保護與身心健康復原是非常重要的關鍵，但過去不論質性訪談或量化調查研究，皆顯示同志受害者的求助比率普遍低落。因此，本研究目的在於探討影響同志親密關係暴力受害者求助行為之相關因素，以了解其求助困境與特殊性。 本研究採用網路調查法，以年滿20歲且過去5年內曾經歷同志親密關係暴力者為研究對象，使用暴力經驗量表、被歧視經驗量表、出櫃程度量表及親密關係暴力污名程度量表進行調查，總共蒐集150份有效問卷，並以邏輯斯迴歸分析方法檢測影響同志受害者求助行為之相關因素。 研究結果顯示，同志親密關係暴力類型的發生率依據高低的排序為精神暴力、肢體暴力、性暴力，且多數的伴侶關係暴力經驗以遭受多重暴力為主；而同志特有之精神暴力行為，例如：強迫或威脅出櫃、質疑或辱罵性傾向等，受暴發生率達53.3%，不容被忽視。在求助行為方面，則發現僅38.7%的受訪者有求助，受訪者主觀認為求助的原因前三名分別是「暴力已對自己的身心狀況造成負面的影響」（65.5%）、「意識到自己無法獨自解決暴力問題」（56.9%）、「想要離開暴力關係」（53.4%）；且受訪者大多求助非正式支持系統，求助最多的前三個對象依序為同志朋友、異性戀朋友與兄弟姊妹；在正式支持系統中，以求助心理諮商與治療最多，其次為同志團體，第三則是醫院。另外，61.3%的受訪者未求助，其主觀認為未求助的原因前三名分別是「覺得沒有嚴重到需要求助」（59.8%）、「因為很愛對方」（42.4%）、「擔心失去親密關係」（38.0%）。最後，本研究在迴歸模型中發現，有遭受性暴力的經驗、出櫃程度越高、親密關係暴力文化污名程度越低的同志受害者，其求助的機率越高。 根據上述研究結果，本研究提出政策、實務工作及未來研究的相關建議，包含應看見同志與異性戀親密關係暴力的異同，加強暴力防治與宣導；重視多元性別敏感度的培訓並積極宣傳同志友善之服務；協助非正式支持系統增進對同志親密關係暴力議題的正確認知；透過社會教育與宣導破除親密關係暴力污名；重視心理諮商與治療於防暴體系的角色。

Past empirical research has shown that the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) is similar among heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Besides, the key to remaining safe and recovering from psychological trauma is encouraging victims to seek help. However, past studies have indicated that the rate of non-heterosexual victims’ help-seeking behavior is low. Thus, in order to understand what barriers the victims encountered, the aim of this study is to examine what kinds of factors are associated with help-seeking behavior among victims of same-sex IPV. A survey was conducted herein with the Dating Violence Scale, HHRD Scale, Outness Inventory, and IPV Stigmatization Inventory. By using web surveys, the sample included 150 participants, 20 years old and older, self-identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and who had experienced same-sex IPV within the last 5 years. Furthermore, logistic regression was used to examine which factors could predict the help-seeking behavior of victims of same-sex IPV. First, the results indicated that the incidence of same-sex IPV types was sequentially: psychological violence: 94.7%; physical violence: 65.3%; sexual violence: 54.0%. Most of the violence experiences were dominated by multiple violence. Besides, the incidence of unique psychological violence types of same-sex IPV, such as forcing or threatening victims to come out, and questioning or insulting victims’ sexual orientation, was 53.3%. That means its severity should not be ignored. Second, the results showed that only 38.7% of the participants have sought help; the top three reasons why they sought help were: “The violent relationship has already caused serious negative impacts on my physical and mental health” (65.5%), “I realized I couldn’t solve the problem on my own” (56.9%), and “I wanted to end the violent relationship” (53.4%). Moreover, most of the participants turned to informal support; the top three were non-heterosexual friends, heterosexual friends, and siblings; among formal support, counseling and therapy were the most frequent, followed by LGBT organizations and hospitals. In addition, 61.3% of the participants did not seek help; the top three reasons were: “The violence was not severe enough to seek help” (59.8%), “I love him / her very much” (42.4%), and “I worried about losing the intimate relationship” (38.0%). In the end, logistic regression analysis showed that the participants who had suffered from sexual violence, the higher degree of coming out, and the lower degree of perceived IPV cultural stigmatization, accounted for the higher chances that participants sought help. According to the findings, the implications of this study for policy, practice, and further research are provided and discussed in detail.