Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wssr20

Download by: [Michigan State University] Date: 22 October 2016, At: 13:47

Journal of Social Service Research

ISSN: 0148-8376 (Print) 1540-7314 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20

Critical Consciousness Raising as an Element ofEmpowering Practice with Survivors of DomesticViolence

Sara A. McGirr & Cris M. Sullivan

To cite this article: Sara A. McGirr & Cris M. Sullivan (2016): Critical Consciousness Raisingas an Element of Empowering Practice with Survivors of Domestic Violence, Journal of SocialService Research, DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2016.1212777

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2016.1212777

Published online: 12 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Critical Consciousness Raising as an Element of Empowering Practice withSurvivors of Domestic Violence

Sara A. McGirr and Cris M. Sullivan

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

ABSTRACTMany practitioners who work with survivors of domestic violence (DV) attempt to raise survivors’consciousness about DV dynamics as well as about oppression they may encounter from thesystems with which they interact. Such critical consciousness raising is one component of the“empowering practices” that many DV advocates aim to implement. Despite the significance ofempowering practices for those working with DV survivors, the literature is not clear about thefrequency with which practitioners engage in consciousness raising or how critical consciousness isrelated to psychological outcomes such as self-efficacy among survivors. To explore these effects,98 women from two DV shelter programs in two midsized Midwest cities were interviewed shortlyafter they left the shelters about their experiences while accessing services. Women who reportedthat their advocates engaged in DV consciousness-raising practice also reported developing greaterDV critical consciousness and self-efficacy while in shelter. These findings suggest that gaininggreater understanding of the effects of society-wide oppression on their experiences can leadsurvivors to a greater belief in their general ability to meet their goals. Future research shouldexplore the effects of such changes on survivors’ lives over time, as well as the most effectivepractices to raise critical consciousness.

KEYWORDSConsciousness; domesticviolence; empower; empirical

Domestic violence (DV) against women is “a pattern ofphysical, psychological, and often sexual violence per-petrated by men against their female partners and ex-partners as a means of exerting power and controlover them” (Sullivan, 2003, p. 295). While people ofall genders are both perpetrators and victims of DV(Messinger, 2011), research indicates that this patternof controlling abuse most often involves men commit-ting violence against women (Black et al., 2011). Morethan 1 in 3 women (35.6%) in the United States haveexperienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking byan intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al.,2011).

These violent assertions of power and control byindividual men against individual women are not iso-lated incidents. Instead, these private, intimate inter-actions are sites of gender politics that result from andreproduce systemic patriarchy and widespread sexistoppression (Connell, 2009). As was commonly said inthe Women’s Liberation Movement, “the personal ispolitical” (Hanisch, 1970, p. 76). Domestic violencecommitted by men against women is one form of

social control that upholds a system of male domi-nance. Men’s position within the hierarchy of hege-monic masculinity is, in part, dependent upon theirability to dominate women, particularly in heterosex-ual relationships (Hill Collins, 2004; Pascoe, 2007).The threat or actual perpetration of physical, sexual,or psychological violence is an attempt to strip womenof their power and ability to shape their own choices,thus rendering them subject to the control of theirpartners (Hill Collins, 2004). Domestic violence is amajor social problem that demands widespread actionto both support survivors and end all violence againstwomen.

Long before the rise of the Battered Women’sMovement in the 1970s, social workers, counselors,psychologists, and other social service delivery practi-tioners were working to develop effective responses towomen’s experiences of domestic violence (Schechter,1982; Stark, 2007). Programs and independent practi-tioners now offer a wide variety of services that sup-port abuse survivors in meeting the variety of needsthey and their families may have. Practitioners and

CONTACT Sara A. McGirr mcgirrsa@msu.edu Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Rd #262, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCHhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2016.1212777

advocates commonly engage in activities such asassisting survivors in developing safety plans, connect-ing women to desired supports, and counseling survi-vors on trauma and the dynamics of abuse. Whilethese services and their related effects are certainlyimportant in their own regard, many practitionersalso aim to support the long-term well-being ofwomen and their children through the promotion ofsurvivors’ empowerment (Kasturirangan, 2008).

Empowerment has long been a key concept in a vari-ety of social service–related disciplines, including socialwork and psychology. It involves building material,social, and political resources so that individuals have thepower needed for self-determination (Zimmerman,2000). As such, empowerment is central to the work ofimproving individual, organizational, and communitywell-being. Given that the experience of domestic vio-lence includes being stripped of one’s power and abilityto control one’s own choices, those working with domes-tic violence survivors have intentionally included a focuson empowerment as a cornerstone of their work(Cattaneo &Chapman, 2010; Kasturirangan, 2008).

Empowering practice in social services aims to pro-mote individuals’ interpersonal and social powerthrough increasing their knowledge, skills, beliefs, andaccess to resources (Cattaneo, Calton, & Brodsky,2010; Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010; Sullivan, 2016).When engaging in empowering practice, the practi-tioner’s role shifts from that of a professional helperor expert to one of a facilitator or partner. Those seek-ing services are viewed as collaborators that have a pri-mary, active role in the change process and in agendasetting (Sullivan, 2016; Zimmerman, 2000). Ulti-mately, the process by which people receive assistanceor advocacy is thought to be as important as, if notmore so than, the specific services or resources theyreceive (Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012). Severalresearchers and practitioners in the DV movementhave crafted models for describing empowering prac-tice with survivors. Most of these models point topractices that have four qualities: Empowering prac-tice should be individualized (Kasturirangan, 2008;Kulkarni et al., 2012; Wright, Perez, & Johnson, 2010),survivor driven (Kasturirangan, 2008; Kulkarni et al.,2012; McDermott & Garofalo, 2004), transparent(Kasturirangan, 2008; Kulkarni et al., 2012), and egali-tarian (Kasturirangan, 2008; McDermott & Garofalo,2004; Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1994; Worell & Remer,2003).

As the goal of empowering practice is to increaseclients’ interpersonal and social power, domestic vio-lence programs target outcomes that embody theseconstructs. Empowered outcomes include psychologi-cal changes or behaviors that demonstrate masteryover one’s environment or affairs (Goodman et al.,2015; Rappaport, 1987), the attainment or gaining ofpower (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010; Kasturirangan,2008), exerting control over one’s life (Cattaneo &Goodman, 2015; Zimmerman, 2000), and “taking anactive stance toward problems,” or “fighting againstone’s own oppression” (Lamb, 2001, p. 179). For sur-vivors of domestic violence, empowerment can besummarized as “giving choice back to victims whosechoice has been taken away by their batterers”(McDermott & Garofalo, 2004, p. 1248) by helpingwomen increase their own personal, interpersonal,and sociopolitical power (Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999).Empowered outcomes in the context of DV servicedelivery can be categorized into three primarychanges: (a) increased confidence in one’s ability toachieve desired goals (self-efficacy), (b) stronger inter-personal relationships and connection to one’s com-munity, and (c) increased critical consciousness(greater understanding of one’s experiences withinone’s sociopolitical context; Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999).

Many theorists position critical consciousness as afirst (and often necessary) step toward empowermentor as a vehicle for its development (Chronister &McWhirter, 2006; Goodman & West-Olatunji, 2009;Hedrick, 2006; Ratts, Anthony, & Santos, 2010).Others subsume critical consciousness as an elementof empowerment itself, including it among empow-ered outcomes (Busch & Valentine, 2000; Guiterrez &Lewis, 1999; Kaminski, Kaufman, Graubarth, &Robins, 2000; Perez, Johnson, & Wright, 2012;Zimmerman, 2000). Developing critical consciousness(often through a process called consciousness raising)involves learning to see reality in a new critical waythat reveals existing structures of inequity and one’splace in these systems (Hopper, 1999). Despite thepresence of this construct in empowerment theory,very little is known about the extent to which DV ser-vice providers actually incorporate consciousness rais-ing into their practice or how this affects participants.

The concept of critical consciousness was first devel-oped by Paulo Freire in 1970. Freire defined criticalconsciousness (also referred to as the process of consci-entization) as “learning to perceive social, political, and

2 S. A. MCGIRR AND C. M. SULLIVAN

economic contradictions, and to take action against theoppressive elements of reality” (Freire, 1970, p.19).Becoming aware of and ultimately overcoming oppres-sion is the primary purpose of critical consciousness.Oppression is a complex phenomenon. It is both a stateand a process, both psychological and political. Theprocess of developing critical consciousness involvesexamining causes of oppression and its social and per-sonal manifestations (Freire, 1970).

To begin this critical reflection, individuals mustwork to understand how their society distributes powervia economic, legal, and social resources (Gutierrez &Lewis, 1999). This requires individuals to examine theirsocial identity in terms of race, ethnicity, class, gender,and sexual orientation, among other social identities,and to assess their position in the social order (Hern!an-dez, Almeida, & Dolan-Del Vecchio, 2005). Throughthis exercise, an individual becomes aware of existingand historical processes of oppression (such as policies,practices, or roles) that lead to outcomes of oppression(such as exploitation and dysfunction in individualsand communities; Alschuler, 1986; Watts, Williams, &Jagers, 2003). This evaluation often leads to feelings ofdiscontent with the status quo, a rejection of the cur-rent power structures, and an enhanced identificationwith one’s group or groups (Gurin, 1985; Gurin, Miller,& Gurin, 1980). Finally, some theorists and practi-tioners suggest that this process necessarily includesliberation behavior, or engagement in social action andcommunity development (Goodman &West-Olatunji,2009; Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999), often withother members of oppressed groups (Alschuler, 1986).This process is cyclical, with individuals undergoing aprocess of praxis, or action and reflection (Watts et al.,2003).

Developing critical consciousness can have a varietyof beneficial effects on both marginalized individualsand communities. A connection to others with similarexperiences can help members of oppressed groupsfeel less isolated, find comfort and power in realizingthey are not alone (Enns, 1992; Sowards & Renegar,2004), and generate productive responses to discrimi-nation (Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999). Developing greatercritical consciousness can lead to greater sociopoliticalempowerment (Gutierrez & Ortega, 1991). Problemsolving may become more active, creative, and effec-tive, allowing individuals to move away from the roleof pessimistic victim of oppression and toward therole of creator of alternative, liberating situations

(Alschuler, 1986). Finally, increased individual andcollective liberatory action can contribute to a moreequitable and just system of distribution of resourcesin society (Chronister & Davidson, 2010).

In addition to the benefits discussed thus far, criti-cal consciousness can increase individuals’ awarenessof their abilities; knowledge of the control they canexert in transforming their relationships, life situa-tions, and the environment; and use of these abilities(Chronister & Davidson, 2010; Martin-Baro, 1994).The belief in one’s ability to achieve goals is alsoknown as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). This constructis sometimes understood as being domain specific,such that an individual’s self-efficacy may be greaterin one arena than in another (e.g., confidence in sportsabilities versus confidence in tax preparation abilities).However, some researchers have conceptualized amore global sense of self-efficacy that describes indi-viduals’ confidence in their ability to cope or solveproblems across a range of challenging, stressful, ornovel situations (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999; Shereret al., 1982; Skinner, Chapman, & Baltes, 1988). Whileglobal self-efficacy scholars agree that the constructshould be examined in a situation-specific mannerwhen possible, they also argue that the appropriatedegree of specificity varies with context (Scholz, Dona,Sud, & Schwarzer, 2002). For example, global assess-ments are most appropriate when broad self-beliefsare critical, such as when individuals must adapt tomajor unexpected and stressful situations.

Self-efficacy influences cognition, affective pro-cesses, and one’s operational ability to perform tasks(Bandura, 1984, 1986); therefore, changes to an indi-vidual’s self-efficacy may have reverberating effects,influencing consequent choices, goals, persistence(Gist & Mitchell, 1992), motivation, and behavior(Gutierrez & Lewis, 1999). Increased self-efficacy isoften a desirable outcome for social services to pursuebecause it is associated with psychological and physi-cal well-being (Bandura, 1982, 1992, 1995) and it maybe essential for enabling critically conscious individu-als to translate their knowledge into action for per-sonal, social, or political change (Bandura, 1982;Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011). In other words, socialservice providers often aim to improve self-efficacybecause this psychological change can positively affectoverall individual and community well-being.

Improved self-efficacy and the benefits that resultmay be particularly important for survivors of domestic

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 3

violence as they may have low self-efficacy due to expe-riences of abuse and isolation. Some scholars theorizesurvivors’ self-efficacy may be hindered by the effects ofabuse, including factors such as declining health, less-ened opportunities to develop skills and accomplishgoals, and restricted access to information and rolemodels (Chronister & McWhirter, 2003). This processmay be self-reinforcing. People who believe they lackthe ability to accomplish their goals often further con-strict their activities, have less motivation to undertakenew tasks that might broaden their skills, and morequickly give up when they face challenges (Bandura,1995). This process may result in survivors having fewerpositive efficacy-building experiences, thereby furthervalidating their belief that they are unfit to accomplishgoals. In addition to the physical, psychological, sexual,and/or financial abuse perpetrated by abusers seekingpower and control, women experience negative effectsfrom the inadequate or detrimental community andsystemic responses to their battery. Unhelpful andvictim-blaming responses may result in revictimizationand decreased self-efficacy (Campbell, 2006, 2008;Rivera, Sullivan, & Zeoli, 2012).

In addition to improved self-efficacy, survivors ofdomestic violence may experience numerous other posi-tive psychological outcomes as a result of developingcritical consciousness. For example, activities similar toconsciousness raising may help women who have cometo accept their abusers’ critical messages realize thatthey are not alone (Davis & Srinivasan, 1995) andacknowledge their self-worth (Morales-Campos,Casillas, & McCurdy, 2009). They may learn informa-tion about the dynamics and prevalence of domesticviolence (including that they are not to blame for theirvictimization) and learn to challenge stereotypicalbeliefs about the roles of men and women in relation-ships and the family (Tutty, Bidgood, & Rothery, 1993).

It is important to note that for some survivors, increas-ing one’s individual initiative or power might actually beundesirable. In certain communities that are less individ-ualistic, acting independently may be viewed negatively(Riger, 1993). In these cases, the goal of promoting “self-efficacy” per se may not match well with the values of thewomen that are “being empowered.” Under these cir-cumstances, social service providers could insteademphasize the communal benefits of critical conscious-ness. For example, critical consciousness may help pro-mote a sense of interdependence and community thatmay have been compromised in abusive situations.

Finally, critical consciousness may provide comfortand inspire confidence as survivors work toward max-imizing the safety of their families and achieving long-term well-being (Sullivan, 2016). This may includeparticipating in ongoing liberation behavior (Kasturir-angan, 2008) such as engaging in peer support forother DV survivors or joining collective action effortsto end violence against women. While the perpetratorsof violence are ultimately responsible for whetherwomen or children are abused again (Davies & Lyon,2013), the hope is that improvements to empower-ment (including critical consciousness) will promoteprogress toward social and emotional well-being(Sullivan, 2016).

Attempts to enhance survivors’ empowerment that donot involve critical consciousness development may notbe as successful (Kasturirangan, 2008). For example,without an understanding of how sexist oppression hascontributed to their abuse, survivors may be less able torecognize societal forces that have held them back andtherefore less able to develop successful strategies fornavigating these forces (Kasturirangan, 2008). Thissuggests that further research on critical consciousnessraising is needed if DV service providers are invested inthe authentic promotion of empowerment.

The only published experimental study to date specif-ically involving critical consciousness and survivors ofdomestic violence examined the effectiveness of a groupcareer counseling intervention, called ACCESS,designed specifically for domestic violence survivors(Chronister &McWhirter, 2006). In this study, ACCESSwas administered either with or without a critical con-sciousness component. The critical consciousness com-ponent of the intervention included a variety ofelements, including a focus on “development in socialcontext” through journaling assignments, “clarificationof individual goals with group assistance,” informationabout domestic violence, and an examination of thepower dynamics of domestic violence experiences(Chronister & McWhirter, 2006, p.153). Participants inthe critical consciousness condition had higher criticalconsciousness scores and made more progress towardachieving their goals than did those in the non–criticalconsciousness condition 5 weeks after they completedthe program (Chronister & McWhirter, 2006). Thisstudy suggests that introducing consciousness-raisingelements into an intervention may be effective both inshaping survivors’ awareness of oppression and in sup-porting progress in other areas of life.

4 S. A. MCGIRR AND C. M. SULLIVAN

Although there are few empirical studies about rais-ing critical consciousness with domestic violence sur-vivors, there are models in the broader social workliterature. Practices identified include nonhierarchicalcritical dialogue as part of a reciprocal action-reflection cycle (Friere, 1970), collaborative problemsolving (Alschuler, 1986), cognitive reframing ofoppression, and narrative approaches that help indi-viduals “re-author” their understanding of their lifestories (Ratts et al., 2010), among many others. Theseprocesses can be implemented using a variety of meth-ods in many different settings. For example, a group inSouth Africa used a peer education model (thatincluded arts-based techniques such as drama produc-tions) to encourage participants to develop criticalconsciousness around gender norms that endangeryoung people’s sexual health (Campbell & MacPhail,2002). Feminist bloggers build gender critical con-sciousness via rhetoric in the public sphere, utilizingonline media to encourage story sharing and internaland interpersonal dialogue about oppression in a waythat is well suited to our culture’s increasing prefer-ence for technology-mediated communication(Sowards & Renegar, 2004). “Self-esteem groups” aimto blend techniques of consciousness-raising groups(sharing of personal testimonies) with assertivenesstraining to encourage social awareness while promot-ing personal development (Enns, 1992). Finally, prac-titioners in low-income urban neighborhoods haveused movies and music as a launching point for youthto critique the messages of popular culture andundergo a critical reflection and action process (Watts,Abdul-Adil, & Pratt, 2002).

Despite the potential significance of critical conscious-ness raising as an element of empowerment in work withsurvivors of domestic violence, little is known about whatthese practices might look like in a domestic violenceshelter context. The literature is also in need of researchregarding whether consciousness-raising practices arebeing utilized in this setting, whether they are successfulin promoting critical consciousness, and how the devel-opment of critical consciousness affects survivors’ self-efficacy. To begin to fill these gaps, the present studyexplored consciousness-raising practices in a direct ser-vice delivery context—domestic violence shelters—byempirically examining four questions: (a) To what extentdo staff engage in activities designed to raise survivors’consciousness related to their experiences of domesticviolence? (b) Do survivors who report experiencingmore

DV consciousness-raising practices report greater devel-opment of DV critical consciousness? (c) Do survivorswho report greater development ofDV critical conscious-ness also report greater development of self-efficacy? (d)Does the development of DV critical consciousnessmediate the relationship betweenDV consciousness-rais-ing practices and the development of self-efficacy?

Method

Participants were recruited from two domestic violenceshelter programs in two midsized cities in the Mid-west. The programs provided comparable services towomen and had similar organizational models.Women were eligible to participate if they were at least18 years old and had exited the shelter program withinthe last 30 days during the 10-month study period. Torecruit participants, shelter staff told all women whocame into the program during this period that theycould participate in a confidential, individual interviewabout their experiences with the shelter. This informa-tion was additionally conveyed during regular sheltermeetings and during the regular exit procedure, aswell as through fliers distributed to program partici-pants and posted in the facilities. A member of theresearch team also spent time each week at the sheltersin order to recruit potential participants. A total of 182women were informed about the study through thisprocess. Of this group, 172 women who were inter-ested either filled out a recruitment form and left it ina location in either shelter that only the research teamhad access to or called the contact number providedon the flier. Women who indicated their interest intaking part were called within a week after their exitfrom the shelter. The research team made contact with124 women by phone, and 103 ultimately chose toparticipate in an interview. All interviews took place inperson in private settings that were both safe and con-venient for the women. All participants gave consentbefore their interviews began and were compensated$25 for their time. Trained interviewers spoke withwomen for approximately 90 minutes, asking partici-pants a series of closed- and open-ended questionsabout their experiences in shelter. Five participantswere ultimately excluded from the sample due toincomplete data on the scales of interest resulting frominterviewer error. Human subjects approval wasobtained through Michigan State University’s Institu-tional Review Board before the start of the study.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 5

The final study sample comprised 98 women whoranged in age from 19 to 60 (M D 34.41, SD D 10.09)and stayed an average of 40 days (SDD 45.61; rangeD 3to 300;M D 30) in the shelter program. Forty-six of thewomen identified as African American, 33 asWhite, 4 asHispanic/Chicana/Latina/Mexican, 1 as Asian-Pacific,and 1 as Native American. Thirteen of the participantsidentified as Multiracial/Other, and 6 of these womenreported some African American heritage. The partici-pants had a variety of educational experiences. Mostwere mothers (84%; range of 1 to 8 children), and mostwere unemployed at the time of the interview (69.7%).

Measures

The study used subscales from two measures, theEmpowering Practices Scale and the Empowered Out-comes Scale, which were created for this study.

Scale Development: Empowering PracticesThe Empowering Practices Scale was developed in col-laboration with domestic violence shelter staff, whoidentified practices consistent with increasing survi-vors’ personal and interpersonal power. This list wassupplemented with items suggested by a review of theempowerment literature for a total of 56 items thatwere asked of survivors during interviews. Followingdata collection, items were screened for adequate vari-ance and reviewed for centrality to empowermentconcepts. This resulted in a 15-item EmpoweringPractices scale comprising three subscales that weretheoretically meaningful, conceptually distinct, andinternally consistent: Build Skills, Support Agency,and Raise Consciousness; the Raise Consciousnesssubscale was used in the current study.

Raise ConsciousnessThe 6-item Raise Consciousness subscale (6 items;M D1.75, SD D 1.12; a D .95) assessed the degree to whichstaff used certain practices to raise participants’ criticalconsciousness related to domestic violence during theirtime in shelter. Respondents indicated the degree towhich they agreed with statements such as “The shelterstaff talked with me about how domestic violencerelated to other types of violence against women,” and“The shelter staff talked to me about why some peopleare abusive.” (See Table 1 for full list of items.) Subscalescores were calculated by averaging responses across theitems (0D Not at all to 3D Very much).

Scale Development: Empowered OutcomesThe Empowered Outcomes Scale was also created incollaboration with shelter staff and grounded in theempowerment literature. It is a measure intended tocapture the extent to which survivors experiencedchanges in feelings, skills, and knowledge suggestingincreased empowerment. Following data collection, anoriginal set of 32 items was factor analyzed. Items thathad strong loadings on more than one factor weredropped, resulting in a 22-item Empowered OutcomesScale with three subscales, each based on a factor thatwas conceptually distinct and had high internal con-sistency: Connections, Critical Consciousness, andGlobal Self-efficacy. Both Critical Consciousness andGlobal Self-efficacy were used in the current study.

Critical ConsciousnessThe 8-item Critical Consciousness subscale (M D 3.22,SDD .84, aD .91) assessed the extent to which women’sdomestic violence critical consciousness had developed

Table 1. Subscales used for analyses.

Empowering Practices: Raise Consciousness subscale (6 items; a D .95)Response options (0–3): Not at all, A little, Somewhat, Very muchThe shelter staff…talked with me about why some people are abusive.talked with me about the dynamics of domestic violence.helped me learn about the effects of domestic violence on my life.helped me learn more about different types of abuse.talked with me about how domestic violence relates to other types ofviolence against women.talked to me about how common domestic violence is.

Empowered Outcomes: Critical Consciousness subscale (8 items aD .91)Response Options (1–4): Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree,

Somewhat Agree, Strongly AgreeBecause of my experience at shelter, I have a greater understanding…of how common domestic violence is.of how domestic violence affects me.that woman are not to blame for being abused in a relationship.of the causes of domestic violence.of how racist systems make it difficult for women to protect themselvesand their children.that together with other women, I feel I can have a part in endingviolence against women.of how sexist systems make it difficult for women to protect themselvesand their children.that I have the right to be angry about what I’ve experienced.

Empowered Outcomes: Global Self-Efficacy subscale (9 items; a D .96)Response Options (1–4): Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree,

Somewhat Agree, Strongly AgreeBecause of my experience at shelter…I am better at deciding what I want for my life.I trust myself and my decisions more.I am more able to achieve goals I set for myself.I am better at knowing what steps to take to achieve my goals.I am more confident about the decisions I make.I have a greater understanding that I have the ability to make changesin my own life.I have a greater sense of freedom to make changes in my own life.I can do more things on my own.I am better at figuring out how to handle problems that arise in my life.

6 S. A. MCGIRR AND C. M. SULLIVAN

because of their experience at shelter. Respondents indi-cated the degree to which they agreed with statementssuch as “I have a greater understanding of how sexist sys-tems make it difficult for women to protect themselvesand their children” and “I have a greater understandingof the causes of domestic violence.” (See Table 1 for fulllist of items.) Subscale scores were calculated by averagingresponses across the items (1 D strongly disagree to 4 Dstrongly agree).

Global Self-EfficacyThe 9-item Global Self-Efficacy subscale (M D 3.18,SD D .85, a D .96) measured the extent to whichwomen’s generalized self-efficacy had grown becauseof their time in the shelter program. Respondentsindicated the degree to which they agreed with itemssuch as “I am more able to achieve goals I set formyself” and “I have a greater understanding that Ihave the ability to make changes in my own life.” Sub-scale scores were calculated by averaging responsesacross the items (1 D strongly disagree to 4 D stronglyagree). See Table 1 for the full list of items used in thestudy.

Results

Staff Engagement in Critical Consciousness Raising

To explore the extent to which DV practitioners in theshelter programs engaged in activities designed to raiseconsciousness (Research Question 1), descriptive statis-tics of the Raise Consciousness Scale were examined. SeeTable 2 for item means and standard deviations. It isinteresting to note that fewer than half of the participantsendorsed that these activities were occurring. Womenmost commonly “agreed very much” that shelter pro-gram staff spoke with them about “the effects of domesticviolence on their lives” (48%) and about “different typesof abuse” (46%). The most common topic that womenreported staff had not spoken about was “how domesticviolence relates to other types of violence against women”(35%). The distribution was somewhat bimodal, as 38 ofthe participants (39% of the sample) were clustered ateither the very top or very bottom of the scale. Fifteenparticipants (15% of the sample) received a scale score of0 (indicating that shelter staff had not talked with themabout any of the topics), and 23 participants (23%)received a scale score of 3 (indicating they very muchagreed that shelter staff talked with them about all of thetopics).

While women from each of the two shelters includedin the study received scale scores that ranged from 0 to 3,the subsamples differed in their average Raise Con-sciousness Scale scores (see Table 2 for item means andstandard deviations by shelter sample). An ANOVArevealed significant differences between the two samples,F (1, 96) D 7.36, p D .008. The mean score for ShelterOne (45 participants,M D 1.43, SD D 1.09) was signifi-cantly lower than the mean score for Shelter Two (53participants, M D 2.03, SD D 1.09). This suggests thatpractitioners at Shelter Two may have engaged in moredomestic violence consciousness-raising practices thandid those at Shelter One, at least from the survivors’perspective.

These shelter differences likely contributed to thebimodal distribution of the overall sample. Frequen-cies revealed that women from Shelter One comprised66% (n D 10) of those participants who reported noconsciousness-raising practice (a “0” on the scale),and only 17% (n D 4) of those who had very high con-sciousness-raising practice scores (a “3” on the scale).Conversely, women from the larger Shelter Two sam-ple represented only 33% (n D 5) of the women with ascore of “0” and 83% (n D 19) of those with a score of“3” in the overall sample. In other words, 22% of thewomen in Shelter One reported experiencing no con-sciousness-raising practice, compared to only 9% ofShelter Two participants. Over a third (36%) of thewomen from Shelter Two reported high conscious-ness-raising practice, compared to only 9% of womenfrom Shelter One.

Table 2. Item means and standard deviations for EmpoweringPractices: Raise Consciousness subscale by shelter sample.

M (SD)

Item: Shelter staff… Whole sample Shelter One Shelter Two

talked with me about whysome people are abusive.

1.68 (1.23) 1.31 (1.28) 2.00 (1.11)

talked with me about thedynamics of domesticviolence.

1.70 (1.27) 1.33 (1.28) 2.02 (1.18)

helped me learn about theeffects of domestic violenceon my life.

1.86 (1.26) 1.71 (1.32) 1.98 (1.20)

helped me learn more aboutdifferent types of abuse.

1.87 (1.22) 1.69 (1.18) 2.02 (1.25)

talked with me about howdomestic violence relatesto other types of violenceagainst women.

1.59 (1.31) 1.11 (1.19) 2.00 (1.29)

talked to me about howcommon domestic violenceis.

1.82 (1.25) 1.42 (1.25) 2.15 (1.67)

Note. M D mean; SD D standard deviation.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 7

Relationship Between Consciousness Raisingand Critical Consciousness

On average, participants agreed that they had a greaterunderstanding of the critical consciousness topicsbecause of their experiences in shelter (see Table 3 foritem means and standard deviations). To test whetherwomen who reported experiencing more conscious-ness-raising practices would report greater develop-ment of DV critical consciousness (Research Question2), participants’ DV critical consciousness scores wereregressed onto their DV consciousness-raising prac-tice scores. To reduce mild negative skew and bettermeet the normality assumptions of the analysis, asquare root transformation was used on the DV criti-cal consciousness scores. As hypothesized, DV con-sciousness-raising practice significantly predicted DVcritical consciousness scores, b D 0.187, t (96) D9.881, p < .001. DV consciousness-raising practicealso explained a significant proportion of variance inDV critical consciousness development, R2 D 0.504, F(1, 96) D 97.63, p < .001. To test for influential out-liers, the analysis was conducted again with cases with

residuals greater than two standard deviations (5cases) removed. The effect was similar and the resultsremained significant. This finding supported the pre-diction that women who reported experiencing moreconsciousness-raising practices would also reportgreater development of DV critical consciousness.

Relationship Between Critical Consciousnessand Self-Efficacy

On average, participants agreed that they had grown intheir global self-efficacy because of their experiences inshelter (see Table 3 for itemmeans and standard devia-tions). To examine whether women who reportedgreater development of DV critical consciousnesswould also report greater development of self-efficacy(Research Question 3), participants’ self-efficacy scoreswere regressed onto their DV critical consciousnessscores. To reduce mild negative skew and better meetthe normality assumptions of the analysis, a squareroot transformation was used on the DV critical con-sciousness scores and the self-efficacy scores. DV criti-cal consciousness significantly predicted self-efficacy,b D .743, t (96) D 10.582, p < .001. DV critical con-sciousness also explained a significant proportion ofvariance in self-efficacy, R2 D 0.538, F(1, 96) D111.972, p < .001. The analysis was conducted againwith cases with residuals greater than two standarddeviations (6 cases) removed to test for influential out-liers. Once again, the effect was similar and the resultsremained significant. This outcome supported thehypothesis that women who reported greater develop-ment of DV critical consciousness would also reportgreater development of generalized self-efficacy.

Test of Mediation

To determine whether DV critical consciousness medi-ated the relationship between DV consciousness-raisingpractice and self-efficacy (Research Question 4), boot-strapping analyses using methods described byPreacher and Hayes (2008) for estimating direct andindirect effects with mediators were employed. Self-effi-cacy was entered as the dependent variable, DV con-sciousness-raising practice was entered as the predictorvariable, and DV critical consciousness was entered as aproposed mediator in the SPSS macro created byPreacher and Hayes (2008) for bootstrap analyses.Mediation was tested by assessing the significance ofthe cross product of the coefficients for the predictor

Table 3. Item means and standard deviations for EmpoweredOutcomes subscales.

M (SD)

Critical ConsciousnessBecause of my experience at shelter, I have a greater

understanding…of how common domestic violence is. 3.41 (0.99)of how domestic violence affects me. 3.17 (1.08)that woman are not to blame for being abused in arelationship.

3.37 (1.05)

of the causes of domestic violence. 3.03 (1.16)of how racist systems make it difficult for women toprotect themselves and their children.

2.97 (1.15)

that together with other women, I feel I can have apart in ending violence against women.

3.31 (0.99)

of how sexist systems make it difficult for women toprotect themselves and their children.

3.22 (1.12)

that I have the right to be angry about what I’veexperienced.

3.33 (0.97)

Global Self-EfficacyBecause of my experience at shelter…I am better at deciding what I want for my life. 3.17 (1.05)I trust myself and my decisions more. 3.20 (0.90)I am more able to achieve goals I set for myself. 3.11 (1.02)I am better at knowing what steps to take to achievemy goals.

3.18 (1.00)

I am more confident about the decisions I make. 3.18 (1.03)I have a greater understanding that I have the abilityto make changes in my own life.

3.32 (0.97)

I have a greater sense of freedom to make changes inmy own life.

3.40 (0.94)

I can do more things on my own. 3.06 (1.09)I am better at figuring out how to handle problemsthat arise in my life.

2.98 (1.03)

Note. M D mean; SD D standard deviation.

8 S. A. MCGIRR AND C. M. SULLIVAN

variable to mediator relation (the a path), and the medi-ator to outcome relation (the b path; see Figure 1). Anab cross-product test examines the statistical signifi-cance of the difference between the unconditional directeffect, or c path, and the conditional direct effect, or c0

path. (The method used in the current study solves thedistribution problems in the data through bootstrap-ping, in which k samples of the original size are takenfrom the obtained data and mediational effects are cal-culated in each sample. In the present analyses, parame-ter estimates were based on 1,000 bootstrap samples).Figure 1 shows the t values and significance of the a, b,c, and c0 paths and the significance of the indirect effect.The analyses revealed with 95% confidence that thetotal indirect effect of consciousness raising on the out-come variable through the mediator was significant,with a point estimate of .130 and a 95% bias-correctedand accelerated bootstrap confidence interval of .081 to.179. As these confidence intervals do not contain zero,the point estimate is significant at the level indicated.Furthermore, the analyses indicated that the uncondi-tional direct effect of DV consciousness-raising practice

scores on participants’ self-efficacy (unconditionaldirect effect, t D 6.52 p < .001) became nonsignificantwhen the critical consciousness mediator was includedin the model (conditional direct effect of consciousnessraising, t D 0.067, p D 0.50, ns). Thus, critical con-sciousness fully mediated the association between con-sciousness raising and self-efficacy.

Alternate Mediation Hypotheses

Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, the studycannot definitively determine the temporal ordering inwhich the constructs of interest may have emerged. Inlieu of examining the order suggested by theory usinglongitudinal data, the study explored an alternate medi-ationmodel in which self-efficacymediates the relation-ship between DV consciousness-raising practice andDV critical consciousness. Once again using bootstrap-ping analyses, DV critical consciousness was entered asthe dependent variable; DV consciousness-raising prac-tice was entered as the predictor variable; and self-effi-cacy was entered as a proposed mediator. The analyses

Figure 1. Test of mediation model. Critical consciousness fully mediated the association between consciousness raising and self-efficacy.The total indirect effect of consciousness raising on the outcome variable through the mediator was significant, and the unconditionaldirect effect of DV consciousness-raising practice scores on participants’ self-efficacy became nonsignificant when the critical conscious-ness mediator was included in the model.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 9

revealed with 95% confidence that the total indirecteffect of consciousness raising on the outcome variablethrough the mediator was significant (point estimate of.071 and a 95% bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapconfidence interval of .038 to .118). However, the resultsindicated that the unconditional direct effect of DVconsciousness-raising practice scores on participants’DV critical consciousness (unconditional direct effect, tD 9.88 p < .001) remained significant when the self-efficacy mediator was included in the model (condi-tional direct effect of consciousness raising, t D 6.20, p< .001). Thus, self-efficacy only partially mediated theassociation between DV consciousness raising and DVcritical consciousness. While a more formal analysis ofgoodness of fit is not within the scope of the currentstudy, these results suggest that the original model withcomplete mediation is likely superior to the alternatemodel with partial mediation.

Discussion

As hypothesized, consciousness-raising practices inDV service delivery were associated with the develop-ment of critical consciousness, which, in turn, pre-dicted the development of DV survivors’ self-efficacy.In other words, understanding the personal effects ofsociety-wide oppression correlated with participants’confidence in their ability to meet goals. The resultsalso supported Chronister and McWhirter’s (2006)claim that survivors of domestic violence who partici-pate in critical consciousness raising will build greatercritical consciousness and will be better at makingprogress to reach their goals.

It is interesting to note (and supports the studyhypotheses) that women from the two shelter programsexperienced significantly different levels of conscious-ness-raising practice. This suggests that some domesticviolence programs may focus on consciousness raisingmore than others. Further, consciousness raising was notas common a practice as one might assume, given thesociopolitical history of DV shelters being ground in asocial change movement (Stark, 2003). Although the fre-quency of consciousness-raising practice varied fromshelter to shelter, when implemented, these practicesproduced similar outcomes. That is, the patterns of statis-tical relationships were consistent across both settings.The replication of this pattern in two different shelterslends credibility to the generalizability of this study toother comparable domestic violence shelters.

Confidence in the study findings is increased by thefact that they corroborate a number of conclusionsand contentions purported by others. For example,the findings support the argument that how servicesare delivered (incorporating empowering practices vs.not using these practices) may be as important as thetype of services offered (e.g., shelter, child care, legalassistance, etc.). While no two settings can ever beexactly alike, at face value the sites involved in thisstudy are very similar. They offer seemingly compara-ble services to relatively comparable populations.Despite these apparent similarities, the two subsam-ples reported significant differences in self-efficacydevelopment. This suggests that a factor other thanthe concrete services themselves may have affectedwomen’s belief in their ability to accomplish theirgoals. The significant differences in DV conscious-ness-raising practice and DV critical consciousnessdevelopment suggest that when practitioners utilizedmore empowering practices (such as consciousnessraising), women experienced more empowered out-comes (including critical consciousness) and increasedself-efficacy.

The study has additional strengths, as well as limi-tations, worth noting. First, while this was a relativelysmall, exploratory study, the shelter programsincluded were quite similar to the types of programsoffered across the United States. Likewise, the replica-tion of the proposed relationships in both of the sam-pled shelters provides support for the study’sgeneralizability. Second, the study provided empiricalsupport for our proposed relationships by testing themediation using an established bootstrappingapproach with empirical support (Preacher & Hayes,2008) that has been cited over 10,000 times. However,the cross-sectional interrelationships represented inthis mediation model are strictly correlational, andtherefore the interpretation of the direction of effectsis based on theoretical, rather than statistical, consid-erations. It is also possible that the link between con-sciousness-raising practices and self-efficacy could bebetter explained by a third unexamined variable thanby DV critical consciousness. However, the currentstudy demonstrated an initial connection betweenthese variables that future research should furtherexplore.

Finally, the scales used in the study were developedin cooperation with DV agency staff and survivorsand were based on existing DV empowerment

10 S. A. MCGIRR AND C. M. SULLIVAN

literature. This process helped to ensure the face andexternal validity of the measures and thus their rele-vance to the field. However, they also have limitations.The Raise Consciousness subscale focuses on one typeof practice, namely staff speaking with survivors aboutDV consciousness-related topics. Therefore, the studydid not test any specific consciousness-raising techni-ques, such as collaborative problem solving (Alschuler,1986), cognitive framing, or narrative approaches(Ratts et al., 2010), or examine the effects of othertypes of exercises (e.g., group discussions, journaling).In addition, the items on the Critical Consciousnesssubscale focus largely on knowledge about domesticviolence, asking women whether they have a greaterunderstanding of a particular dynamic of abusebecause of their time staying in shelter. Consequently,this scale does not delve very deeply into other ele-ments of domestic violence critical consciousness,such as understanding other systems of oppressionthat shape survivors’ experiences (e.g., racism andclassism). These limitations speak to the need for thecreation of additional standardized measures ofempowering practices and empowerment-related out-comes specifically for domestic violence survivors andprograms.

Conclusion

Advocates have long argued that providing serviceswithin an empowerment-based framework is essentialto the effectiveness of their work (Cattaneo &Chapman, 2010; Goodman & Epstein, 2009; Kasturir-angan, 2008; Kulkarni et al., 2012; Sullivan, 2012).This study provides empirical support for this claim.Staff efforts to raise critical consciousness appear tolead to positive changes in women’s critical conscious-ness as well as to greater global self-efficacy. The rela-tionship between such consciousness-raising practicesand global self-efficacy was fully mediated by DV criti-cal consciousness, a result that suggests that knowl-edge of oppressive social processes may result in anincreased belief in one’s ability to achieve goals.

More studies are clearly needed to explicate thesecomplex relationships more fully. Future researchshould measure critical consciousness and self-efficacyat shelter entry as well as at shelter exit (and beyond)to more confidently conclude that women’s empower-ment increases over time as a result of interactionswith shelter staff. Researchers should also examine

how potential moderators of these relationships,including socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity,may influence this development. Longitudinal studiesthat follow survivors after exiting shelter could like-wise explore the long-term effects of such changes onsurvivors’ lives. The field would also benefit fromexaminations of the frequency and content of DV crit-ical consciousness-raising conversations, as well as thespecific approaches used by practitioners therein, toascertain the most effective methods for promotingdesired outcomes. Results could support the creationof evidence-informed advocacy interventions thatcould be employed widely to promote survivorempowerment.

These findings should hearten and inspire serviceproviders who work so diligently to enhance survivors’empowerment and encourage others to examine theextent to which their practices involve consciousness-raising components. If such practices do indeedincrease survivors’ power over their lives, it is impera-tive that more programs—not just domestic violenceshelters—engage in such efforts in order to make sus-tained and meaningful change in the lives of clientsand their children.

FundingNational Institute of Mental Health: R24MH75941.

References

Alschuler, A. (1986). Creating a world where it is easier to love:Counseling applications of Paulo Freire’s theory. Journal ofCounseling & Development, 64(8), 492–496.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceivedself-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213–229.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Asocial-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1992). Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologicfunctioning. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought controlof action (pp. 355–394).Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacyin changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy inchanging societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters,M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). TheNational Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey(NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 11

Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention.

Busch, N. B., & Valentine, D. (2000). Empowerment Practice:A Focus on Battered Women. Affilia, 15(1), 82–95.

Campbell, R. (2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legaland medical systems: Do rape victim advocates make a dif-ference? Violence Against Women, 12(1), 30–45.

Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims.American Psychologist, 63(8), 702–717.

Campbell, C., & MacPhail, C. (2002). Peer education, genderand the development of critical consciousness: ParticipatoryHIV prevention by South African youth. Social Science &Medicine, 55(2), 331–345.

Cattaneo, L. B., Calton, J. M., & Brodsky, A. E. (2010). Statusquo versus status quake: Putting the power back in empow-erment. Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 433–446.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Chapman, A. R. (2010). The process ofempowerment: A model for use in research and practice.American Psychologist, 65(7), 646–659.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2015). What is empower-ment anyway? A model for domestic violence practice,research, and evaluation. Psychology of Violence, 5, 84–94.

Chronister, K. M., & Davidson, M. M. (2010). Promoting dis-tributive justice for intimate partner violence survivors withgroup intervention. The Journal for Specialists in GroupWork, 35(2), 115–123.

Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2003). Applying socialcognitive career theory to the empowerment of batteredwomen. Journal of Counseling &Development, 81(4), 418–425.

Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimen-tal examination of two career interventions for batteredwomen. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 151–164.

Connell, R. (2009). Short introductions: Gender. Cambridge,UK: Polity Press.

Davies, J. M., & Lyon, E. (2013). Domestic violence advocacy:Complex lives/difficult choices, 2nd Edition. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE.

Davis, L. V., & Srinivasan, M. (1995). Listening to the voices ofbattered women: What helps them escape violence. Affilia,10(1), 49–69.

Enns, C. Z. (1992). Self-Esteem groups: A synthesis of con-sciousness-raising and assertiveness training. Journal ofCounseling & Development, 71(1), 7–13.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY:Continuum.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoreticalanalysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy ofManagement Review, 17(2), 183–211.

Goodman, L. A., Bennett Cattaneo, L., Thomas, K., Woulfe, J.,Chong, S. K., & Fels Smyth, K. (2015). Advancing domesticviolence program evaluation: Development and validationof the Measure of Victim Empowerment Related to Safety(MOVERS). Psychology of Violence, 5, 355–366.

Goodman, R. D., & West-Olatunji, C. A. (2009). Applying crit-ical consciousness: Culturally competent disaster responseoutcomes. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(4),458–465.

Gurin, P. (1985). Women’s gender consciousness. Public Opin-ion Quarterly, 49(2), 143–163.

Gurin, P., Miller, A. H., & Gurin, G. (1980). Stratum identifica-tion and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1),30–47.

Guti!errez, L. M., & Lewis, E. A. (Eds.). (1999). Empoweringwomen of color. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Gutierrez, L., & Ortega, R. (1991). Developing methods toempower Latinos: The importance of groups. Social Workwith Groups, 14(2), 23–24.

Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. In S. Firestone &A. Koedt (Eds.), Notes from the second year: Women’s liber-ation: Major writings of the radical feminists (pp. 76–78).New York, NY: Radical Feminism.

Hedrick, M. (2006). Self, other and the sociopolitical in politi-cally active women survivors of domestic violence (Doctoraldissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations andTheses Global. (Order No. 3248230).

Hern!andez, P., Almeida, R., & Dolan-Del Vecchio, K. (2005).Critical consciousness, accountability, and empowerment:Key processes for helping families heal. Family Process, 44(1), 105–119.

Hill Collins, P. (2004). Black sexual politics: African Americans,gender, and the new racism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hopper, K. (1999). John Berger and Erick Holtzman. SocialPolicy, 30(2), 13–21.

Kaminski, M., Kaufman, J., Graubarth, R., & Robins, T. (2000).How do people become empowered? A case study of unionactivists. Human Relations, 53(10), 1357–1383.

Kasturirangan, A. (2008). Empowerment and programsdesigned to address domestic violence. Violence againstWomen, 14(12), 1465–75.

Kulkarni, S. J., Bell, H., & Rhodes, D. M. (2012). Back to basics:Essential qualities of services for survivors of intimate part-ner violence. Violence against Women, 18(1), 85–101.

Lamb, S. (2001). The secret lives of girls: What good girls reallydo—sex play, aggression, and their guilt. New York, NY:Free Press.

Mart!ın-Bar!o, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McDermott, M. J., & Garofalo, J. (2004). When advocacy fordomestic violence victims backfires: Types and sources ofvictim disempowerment. Violence Against Women, 10(11),1245–1266.

Messinger, A. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in thenational violence against women survey. Journal of interper-sonal violence, 26(11), 2228–2243.

Morales-Campos, D. Y., Casillas, M., & McCurdy, S. A. (2009).From isolation to connection: Understanding a supportgroup for Hispanic women living with gender-based vio-lence in Houston, Texas. Journal of Immigrant and Minor-ity Health, 11(1), 57–65.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexual-ity in high school. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Perez, S., Johnson, D. M., & Wright, C. V. (2012). The attenu-ating effect of empowerment on IPV-related PTSD

12 S. A. MCGIRR AND C. M. SULLIVAN

symptoms in battered women living in domestic violenceshelters. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 102–17.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resam-pling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effectsin multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3), 879–891.

Prilleltensky, I., & Gonick, L. (1994). The discourse of oppres-sion in the social sciences: Past, present, and future. In E. J.Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity:Perspectives on people in context (pp. 145–177). San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of pre-vention: Toward a theory for community psychology. Ameri-can Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–148.

Ratts, M. J., Anthony, L., & Santos, K. N. T. (2010). TheDimensions of Social Justice model: Transforming tradi-tional group work into a socially just framework. The Jour-nal for Specialists in Group Work, 35(2), 160–168.

Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 21(3), 279–292.

Rivera, E. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Zeoli, A. M. (2012). Secondaryvictimization of abused mothers by family court mediators.Feminist Criminology, 7(3), 234–252.

Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visionsand struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston,MA: South End Press.

Scholz, U., Do~na, B. G., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is gen-eral self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric find-ings from 25 countries. European Journal of PsychologicalAssessment, 18(3), 242.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (Eds.) (1999). Scales for theassessment of teacher and student characteristics. Berlin,Germany: Freie Universitat Berlin.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S.,Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale:Construction and validation. Psychological reports, 51(2),663–671.

Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control,means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new conceptualizationand its measurement during childhood. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 54(1), 117–133.

Sowards, S. K., & Renegar, V. R. (2004). The rhetorical func-tions of consciousness-raising in third wave feminism.Communication Studies, 55(4), 535–552.

Stark, E. (2003). Race, gender and woman battering. In D. F.Hawkins (Ed.), Violent crime: Assessing race and ethnic dif-ferences (pp. 171–197). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women inpersonal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, C. M. (2003). Using the ESID model to reduce inti-mate male violence against women. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 32(3–4), 295–303.

Sullivan, C. M. (2016). Examining the work of domestic violenceprograms within a “Social and Emotional Well-being Pro-motion” conceptual framework. Harrisburg, PA: NationalResource Center on Domestic Violence at www.dvevidenceproject.org.

Tutty, L. M., Bidgood, B. A., & Rothery, M. A. (1993). Supportgroups for battered women: Research on their efficacy. Jour-nal of Family Violence, 8(4), 325–343.

Watts, R. J., Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Pratt, T. (2002). Enhancingcritical consciousness in young African American men: Apsychoeducational approach. Psychology of Men & Mascu-linity, 3(1), 41–50.

Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Criticalconsciousness: Current status and future directions. NewDirections for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 43–57.

Watts, R. J., Griffith, D., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopoliticaldevelopment as an antidote for oppression–theory andaction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2),255–271.

Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopoliti-cal development. American Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 31(1–2), 185–94.

Worrell, J., & Remer, L. (2003). Feminist perspectives in ther-apy: Empowering diverse women. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wright, C. V., Perez, S., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). The mediat-ing role of empowerment for African American womenexperiencing intimate partner violence. PsychologicalTrauma : Theory, Research, Practice And Policy, 2(4), 266–272.

Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychologi-cal, organizational, and community levels of analysis. In J.Rappaport, & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of communitypsychology (pp. 43–63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SERVICE RESEARCH 13