1. Many Faces of Buffering Hypothesis: Social Support as a Moderator between Experience of Domestic Violence and Adjustment Outcomes Nino Javakhishvili Maka Lortkipanidze D. Uznadze Psychology Institute Ilia State University Georgia

2. Victims of domestic violence
Have been reported to have poor adjustment: PTSD, depression, low self-esteem (Varkovitzky, 2004; Fogarty, Freedman, Heeren & Liebschutz, 2008; Berg, 2004; Mechanic, Weaver & Resick, 2008;).

3. The buffering hypothesis
The buffering hypothesis states that social support plays a buffer role for those who experience stress, trauma or other related problems (Bolger & Amarel, 2007; Uchino, 2009)

4. The buffering hypothesis
The buffering hypothesis was checked on victims of domestic violence with findings that social support provides an important resource to decrease, or minimize stress, improve general health to adjust to the violent situation (El-Bassel et al., 2001, Waldrop&Resick, 2004, Panaghi et al.,2012)

5. The current study
Social support provided to the victims of domestic violence
Overall DV and 5 forms
Social support – family and institutional
The health outcome variables were:
depression and anxiety
Life satisfaction

6. The current study
Social support was studied for different forms of domestic violence
physical,
sexual,
economical,
emotional (emotional-verbal and isolation-domination)

7. Proposed model

8. Method - sample 293 women victims of domestic violence
From the capital city of Tbilisi – 32.0%
from regional towns and villages – 68.0%
Age: 19-67, M 36, SD 9.75
Married: 72%
68.6% living with partner/spouse
88.0% have children

9. Method - sample 40.4% have higher education 32.0% employed
65.3% having personal income
8.0% satisfied with personal income
Snowball principle was used

10. Method - tools
Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory, Tolman, 1995 – modified version, alpha – 0.932
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) Laurie Radloff, 1977 – validated for this study, alpha –

11. Method - tools
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Spielberger et al We used only state anxiety subscale – validated for Georgian sample by Arutunov and Skhirtladze, alpha – 0.864
The Satisfaction with Life scale, Pavot & Diener, 1993 – validated for Georgian sample by Skhirtladze, alpha – 0.801
Social Support Questionnaire, Sarason et al – modified version

12. Method – tools - CFA
CFA of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) resulted in a 9 item scale all loading on the depression factor
Chi-Square (P < )
CFI 0.911
TLI 0.881
RMSEA  0.055
We had to take out 11 items that did not load on the factor
EFA - 11 items loaded on three other factors that did not make any sense

13. Results – descriptive
Violence is high - M=52.90; Std.D=25.44, (max 70)
moderate depression - M=17.75; Std.D=7.20 (max 45)
high anxiety level – M=59.18; Std.D=9.02 (max 80)
low life satisfaction – M=10.37; Std.D=5.16 (max 25)

14. Results – descriptive Social support is low: (max.=6)
Overall support M=1.52; Std.D=.72
Family support M=1.44; Std.D=.69
Institutional support M=.08; Std.D=.20
Quality of social support - M=1.45; Std.D=0.56

15. Results – Moderation Analysis depression
Interaction between DV experience and overall support:
Overall domestic violence - b=-.084 (p=000)
Economic violence - b=-.485 (p=000)
Sexual violence - b=-.472 (p=000)
Dominance-isolation b=-.341 (p=000)
Emotional-verbal violence - b=-.335 (p=000)
Physical violence - b=-.194 (p=000)

16. Results – buffering hypothesis
For depression, social support plays a buffer role for all 5 forms as well as for overall DV.
The effects of buffering negative outcomes of economical and sexual violence are the strongest (b= and b= respectively), and weakest for physical violence (b=-.194 ).

17. Results – Moderation Analysis Depression
Interaction between DV experience and family support:
Overall domestic violence - b=-.112 (p=000)
Economic violence - b=-.656 (p=000)
Sexual violence - b=-.577 (p=001)
Dominance-isolation b=-.428 (p=000)
Emotional-verbal violence - b=-.393 (p=000)
Physical violence - b=-.246 (p=001)

18. Results – buffering hypothesis
For depression, family support plays a buffer role for all 5 forms as well as for overall DV.
The effects of buffering negative outcomes of economical and sexual violence are the strongest (b= and b= respectively), and weakest for physical violence (b=-.246 ).

19. Results – Moderation Analysis Depression
Interaction between DV experience and institutional support:
Overall domestic violence - b=.268 (p=000)
Sexual violence - b=1.713 (p=000)
Economic violence - b= (p=000)
Physical violence - b=.886 (p=000)
Emotional-verbal violence – b=.750 (p=000)
Dominance-isolation b=.573 (p=000)

20. Results – Moderation Analysis Depression
Interaction between DV experience and institutional support:
Institutional support does not help victims, on the contrary, it enhances the effect of DV on depression
DV – b=038
Institutional – DV – b=268

21. Results – Moderation Analysis -Anxiety
Social support as a moderator
only for sexual violence, but in the wrong direction:
b=.458, p=038

22. Results – Moderation Analysis – Life Satisfaction
only institutional support has a moderating effect for physical and sexual violence cases, however, it is in the wrong direction:
physical violence b=.-409, p=030
sexual violence b=-1.012, p=009 .

23. Discussion
Institutional support enhances effects of domestic violence for depression in case of all forms of DV,
also, it decreases the level of life satisfaction in case of severe forms of violence such as physical and sexual violence.
No significant effect was found with anxiety.
Apparently, institutional support is not effective in helping victims of domestic violence.

24. Discussion Social support helps in case of depression
Moderate depression

25. Discussion
Why institutional support does not play a buffering role (depression and life satisfaction)?
The low quality institutional support
Why family support does not play a buffering role (anxiety and life satisfaction)?
The low quality family support?
Social support does not address LS and anxiety?

26. Thank you!
Questions?
Comments?