| Course | MSW 553 Advanced Theory Across Systems |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Disconfirming evidence memo |
| Length | About 420 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 553 Week 6
Memorandum
To: Field instructor
From: MSW student intern
Date: October 18, 2026
Re: What would show that traumatic bonding is the wrong account of J.'s returns
The Account Ahead
Traumatic bonding currently explains J.'s returns better than the investment model, especially the September 2024 return.
What Would Defeat It
1. If J.'s attachment to the partner did not weaken during separations. Traumatic bonding expects attachment to weaken gradually over months apart, and the study behind it followed women for six months after leaving to examine exactly that (Dutton & Painter, 1993). Check: J.'s descriptions of J.'s feelings at months 1 and 3 of the 2024 separation, from the domestic violence program's notes, with J.'s consent.
2. If the partner's behavior was steady rather than intermittent in 2024. Check: the message log for any period of steady contempt or steady warmth before the return.
3. If J. names money or the voucher's end as the reason for returning, unprompted. Check: ask an open question, "What made September the time?" and record the answer verbatim.
4. If J. had a lasting separation from a different partner with similar intermittent abuse but strong alternatives. Check: J.'s history before 2019, if J. chooses to share it.
Each check names where the evidence would come from and who holds it. Items 1 and 4 depend on records and memories J. may not want to share, and J. may decline either without consequence.
Fatal to One Side Only
Each item would weaken traumatic bonding without equally weakening the investment model. Item 3, for example, is exactly what the investment model predicts (Rusbult & Martz, 1995).
Item 2 is different: steady contempt before the return would weaken traumatic bonding, but it would not support the investment model either, because the investment model says nothing about the pattern of the partner's behavior. That item tests one theory without favoring the other. Listing which items are fatal to which side keeps the memo from becoming a one-sided search for confirmation.
Written Before the Answer
These items are written before the next session on October 21, so I cannot shape them to fit what J. says.
Silence Is Not a Finding
If J. does not answer, or the notes are unavailable, that tells me nothing either way. I will not record absence of evidence as support.
I will record unanswered items as "not answered" in the case notes, with the date, and bring them back only if J. raises the subject.
References
Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993). Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.8.2.105
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216002
The Chamberlain MSW 553 Week 6 instructions
The disconfirming evidence memo commits, before new evidence arrives, to what would show your leading account is wrong. State the account in one sentence. List three to five observations whose presence would defeat it, each with a way to check it and where the evidence would come from. Say which observations would harm only your account and which would also help the rival. Date the memo before the session or record review where the evidence will appear. State how you will treat silence or missing records: as no finding, not as support. Keep the client's right to decline any question in view, since disconfirming evidence often lives in painful history.
Inside the MSW 553 Week 6 example
The memo opens with traumatic bonding as the leading account of J.'s returns. Four tests follow: attachment that did not weaken during the 2024 separation, checked in the program's notes with consent and grounded in Dutton and Painter (1993); steady rather than swinging messages; J. naming money unprompted in answer to an open question; and a past separation from another partner that lasted. A section sorts them, noting that the third is what Rusbult and Martz (1995) would predict, while the second weakens one theory without helping the other. The memo is dated before October 21. A final section records that unanswered items will be noted as not answered.
Reading the MSW 553 Week 6 grading rubric
Evaluators look for tests written before the answer. A memo that lists evidence for the leading account, or tests that cannot fail, loses the most. Credit goes to a one-sentence account, specific defeating observations with checks, attention to which side each would harm and a clear rule for silence. Respect for the client's choice to decline is part of good practice here. Sources should explain why each test matters to the theory. Memo format with a date before the evidence is expected, and the tone should be that of a worker trying to prove themselves wrong. Tests that name where the evidence lives, such as program notes or the client's own answer, can be checked by someone else.
MSW 553 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Memos most often slip by listing questions that the leading account would survive whatever the answer. Another common gap is a test that depends on information the client has never been asked about and may not want to discuss. Some memos treat no answer as confirmation. Others write the tests after the session, which defeats the purpose. If you cannot think of a defeating observation, ask what the rival theory predicts that yours does not. A memo whose tests a supervisor could check against the next session's notes shows disciplined thinking. Sort your tests by which theory each would harm; a memo whose tests all harm the rival is a confirmation search in disguise.
Get a MSW-553 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 6 instructions with the rubric and the case, plus a line saying which account you are currently defending, and a custom memo written to those requirements comes back inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. If your section fixes the number of items, say how many, since that changes what makes the list.
More MSW 553 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 553 Week 1: Two Theories, One Fact Post
- MSW 553 Week 2: Rival Explanation Brief on J.
- MSW 553 Week 3: Theory Comparison Matrix for J.
- MSW 553 Week 4: Two-Theory Reading of J.'s History
- MSW 553 Week 5: Explanatory Power Write-Up
- MSW 553 Week 7: Theory Choice Defense
- MSW 553 Week 8: Competing Theories Paper
- MSW 554 Week 6: Agency Practice Audit
- MSW 555 Week 6: Ethics Analysis
- MSW 504 Week 6: Developmental Stage Analysis
- MSW 505 Week 6: Family Treatment Plan
MSW 553 Week 6 questions, answered
What if nothing would disconfirm my account?
Then you have found the result the week is looking for and should write it up as one. An explanation nothing could count against is not stronger than its rival, it is outside the contest, and saying so with the reasoning attached scores well. Check first that the difficulty is in the framework rather than in how loosely you have stated it, since a tighter statement often produces testable claims.
Does the memo have to test my own preferred account?
Mostly yes, and that is what makes it uncomfortable to write. Sections differ on whether the rival gets equal treatment, so read the wording. Where both are covered, keep the favored one first and longer, because the assignment is asking you to expose the account you intend to defend rather than to demonstrate that the other one has weaknesses.
How specific do the items need to be?
Specific enough that two people searching the same file would look in the same place and agree on what they found. A hearing date, a discharge letter, a run of attendance across one term, a note recording who collected the children. Anything phrased as more evidence of instability fails the test, because nobody could say whether it was there or not.
Where can I find a free MSW 553 Week 6 sample paper?
The MSW 553 Week 6 memo, four tests that would defeat the leading account of J.'s returns, written before the October 21 session, is printed in full lower down.
Why is silence not a finding in the MSW 553 Week 6 sample?
Because an unanswered question or a missing record says nothing either way; the memo records such items as not answered rather than counting them as support.