PSY C9 IPV
Chapter 9: Intimate Partner Violence
Intimate Partner Violence
Overview
Canadian Statistics
The Cycle of Violence
Characteristics of the Abusive Personality
A Typology of Abusive Men
Etiology of IPV
IPV Risk Assessment
IPV Treatment Models and Research
The Cycle of Violence
Cycle of Violence
1. Tension Building Stage
Abuser escalates in whatever form of abuse he has been using: possessive smothering, verbal harangues, physical brutality
Victim is in survival mode, caters to his every whim, desperately trying to avoid the inevitable
Cycle of Violence
2. Acute Battering or “Explosive” Stage
Abuser continues to punch and kick harder and faster to the point of exhaustion
The release of energy lowers tension levels, and the abuser becomes addicted to this form of release
Victim’s response is to protect self in any way possible
Cycle of Violence
3. Contrition/Remorse Stage
Alienated victim – attempts to get her back
Victim agrees to stay or return, hopeful
Characteristics of the Abusive Personality
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more of the following):
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment
Unstable and intense relationships
Identity disturbance
Impulsivity
Recurrent suicidal/self-mutilating behavior
Affective instability
Emptiness
Inappropriate, intense anger
Paranoid ideation or dissociative symptoms
Borders of BPD?
BPD/BPO & IPV
Theoretical connection exists between BPD/BPO and IPV.
Gunderson (1984):
1) Involvement in intense and unstable relationships in which the significant other is undermined and manipulated
2) Intolerance of being alone combined with increasing abandonment anxiety
3) Intense anger, demandingness, and impulsivity, often linked to substance abuse or promiscuity
The Abusive Personality (APB)
A syndrome of affective, behavioral, and phenomenological traits that predispose men to assault their wives.
Dutton et al. (1996; 1998)
Administered battery of measures to assaultive males and controls
Abusive males scored higher on:
BPO symptoms, chronic anger, trauma symptoms, fearful attachment, childhood abuse.
The Abusive Personality (cont’d)
1. Borderline Personality Organization
Abusive males evidenced comparable scores to males dx as borderline.
2. Chronic Anger
Abusive males scored high on anger/hostility, a strong predictor of abuse.
3. Childhood Trauma
Abusive males scored high on trauma measures and similar personality profiles as PTSD victims
The Abusive Personality (cont’d)
4. Guilt/Shaming Experiences
Public scolding, random punishment, generic criticism.
Shame thought to drive Contrition Phase
5. Fearful Attachment
Abusive males most likely to have insecure relationship attachment
Preoccupied and Fearful
The Abusive Personality (cont’d)
In Summary: The Abusive Personality is…
A repertoire of borderline traits, intense anger, trauma symptoms, and a fearful attachment style characterized by devaluation of self and other. These traits make for an insecure and unstable person who is at risk for inflicting serious physical and psychological harm on their spouse.
BPO in Assaultive Males
A Typology of Abusive Men
Types of IPV Perpetrators
Family Only Aggressors
Low levels of anger, depression, jealousy. Least likely to be violent outside home.
Generalized Aggressors
Most likely to be violent outside home. Violence most likely associated with alcohol use and severe.
Emotionally Volatile
Highest levels of depression, anger, and jealousy. Most psychologically abusive and least satisfied in relationships.
Explanations for IPV by Abusive Men
Disengagement of internal standards (Bandura, 1991)
Cognitive distortions used to justify abuse
Redefining the behavior
Moral justification
Palliative comparisons
Euphemistic labelling
Displacement of responsibility
Externalizing responsibility
Diffusion of responsibility
Distort the consequences
Minimization
Ignoring
Blame the victim
Blaming the victim
Dehumanization
Etiology of IPV
Etiology of IPV
Sociological-Feminist Theories
SA reflects an underlying system of patriarchal values that support male dominance and female subordination.
Social and Structural Theories
Alienating conditions within society create frustration and stress and thus, increase potential for acting out violently.
Social Learning Theories
Children are exposed to domestically assaultive behavior and this behavior is role modeled and later reperpetrated.
Etiology of IPV
Integrative Social-Learning Attachment Model
Violence and abuse in the family models assaultive
behavior and contributed to the formation of the abusive
personality.
IPV Risk Assessment
Assessing Risk For IPV
Same considerations apply as for sexual violence risk assessment, general violence risk assessment, and general recidivism risk assessment
Including the use of structured tools
These are developed the same way as tools for sexual, violent, and general recidivism assessment
i.e., from collections of risk markers linked to IPV
Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence
(N = 997)
Hanson et al. (1997)
Conduct disorder
Prior convictions
Hostility (BDHI)
Attitudes
Alcohol abuse
Drug abuse
BDI
Poor self-concept
Violence family of origin
Poor relationship adjustment
Arguments initiated
Worried about other men
Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (Dutton, 1995)
29-item self-report inventory designed to appraise risk for spousal violence.
Scores reflect severity of traits of ABP.
Three factors:
Recalled negative parental treatment
Affective lability
Trauma symptoms
Abusive males (59.2) vs. controls (44.7)
Correctly classified 82% males into high and low abusiveness.
Based on Dutton’s theory; PAS not frequently used…
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA)
(Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1995)
The original structured professional judgment (SPJ) tool
Developed by the same group as the HCR-20
20 items developed through theory and research linked to IPV
Items rated 0, 1, 2
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA)
(Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1995)
Criminal History
Past assault of family members
Past assault strangers/acquaintances
Past violation cond. Release
Psychosocial Adjustment: Recent…
Relationship problems
Employment problems
Victim/witness family violence
Substance abuse
Suicidal/homicidal ideation
Psychotic/manic symptoms
Personality disorder (anger, impulsivity)
Spousal Assault History
Past physical assault
Past sexual assault/sexual jealousy
Past weapon use/death threats
Recent escalation in violence
Past violation “no contact” order
Denial/minimization of spousal assault
Spousal assault attitudes
Alleged (Current) Offense
Severe and/or sexual assault
Weapon use/credible death threats
Violation of “no contact” order
SARA Research
(Kropp & Hart, 2000)
SARA ratings analyzed on six samples of adult male offenders (N = 2,681).
SARA ratings:
Positively correlated with the VRAG, PCL:SV, and SIR
102 men followed up on release (50% recidivism)
AUC = .60
SARA Research
(Helmus & Bourgon, 2011)
Meta-analysis of 9 IPV risk tools, focusing on the SARA
k = 8 studies, n = 2,174
AUC = .63 for IPV recidivism
SARA Research
(Helmus & Bourgon, 2011)
A SARA V3 has just been released in the past year. Psychometric research is forthcoming.
Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA)
(Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines, 2004)
Developed by the VRAG folks at Penetang!
Actuarial IPV risk measure
Designed to be rated by frontline responders to domestic incidents (e.g., police)
13-binary items (rated 0-1)
Possible scores range from 0-13
Anything above 7 is high risk
ODARA Items
ODARA Research
Inaugural study (Hilton et al., 2004)
589 domestically violent offenders identified from police records
Followed up nearly 5 years post release
29.7% of men reoffended with a ne IPV offense
Rated on large collection of variables from archival records used to create ODARA
ODARA total score AUC = .77
DVRAG
The ODARA was expanded by Hilton et al. (2008) by adding the PCL-R as a 14th item
…called the DVRAG
Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide
Rated on 346 men
AUC = .70
(ODARA AUC = .65 by contrast)
Which IPV Tool Works Best?
Meta analysis by Hanson, Helmus and Bourgon (2007), updated by Helmus & Bourgon (2011), and subsequently by van der Put et al. (2019) examined predictive accuracy of IPV risk tools for IPV recidivism.
Predictive Accuracy (AUC) of IPV Risk Tools
(Hanson et al, 2007; van der Put et al., 2019)
Which IPV Tool Works Best?
As with the sexual violence and general violence risk assessment literature, they all pretty well predict comparably
Broadly moderate predictive accuracy
DA and DVSI do a bit worse
Also have overlapping but slightly different purposes
The Duluth Model
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP; 1980):
Intensive, 6-month group
Cognitive-behavioral approach
Pro-feminist psychoeducational material
Learn about the specific nature of their abuse and the impact it has on significant others
Learn more egalitarian ways of conducting themselves in intimate relationships
Key assumption: violence is instrumental - used to control others!
The Duluth Model
Five Objectives:
Facilitate appreciation that behavior is a means of controlling others
Increase understanding of causes of violence
Increase motivation to change
Accept responsibility
Explore non-controlling and non-violent ways of relating
How are these objectives achieved?
The Duluth Model
Structure:
Weekly goal - check-in
Video vignettes - depicting controlling/abusive behavior; a woman’s perspective
Personal disclosures
Control log - facilitates analysis of 6 key elements of an abusive act and alternatives to that act
Role Plays - to teach/reinforce non-controlling behavior
Strategies/skills training for non-violence
The Duluth Model
Structure (cont’d):
In last phase of treatment, participants develop a behavior cycle and relapse prevention plan based on history of abusive behavior
Crime Cycle: Identify pattern of abuse and the specific events, thoughts. and feelings that trigger it
Relapse Prevention Plan: Develop plan involving internal and external coping strategies with which to intervene prior to becoming abusive
The Duluth Model
In sum,
Ultimate goal of this model is to replace the abusive tactics commonly used by spousal assaulters with the non-controlling, non-violent tactics that couples frequently used in egalitarian relationships.
Goal is achieved through analyzing specific abusive behavior, examining behavior as tactics of control, exploring and practicing non-controlling and non-violent behavior.
Efficacy?
Cognitive Behavioral Approaches
Violence as a learned phenomenon that can be unlearned
Violence occurs because it is functional for the user (i.e., has been reinforced)
Reducing bodily tension
Gaining victim compliance
Ending an uncomfortable situation
Generate feelings of power and control
Feeling powerful by making someone feel small and weak
CBT (continued)
CBT identifies pros and cons of violence
Involves skills training to develop alternatives to violence
Problem solving
Communication/assertiveness skills (huge)
Speaking in a calm and peaceful tone
Anger management
Time outs
Perception checks
Address attitudes and values toward women and use of violence with women
Treatment Outcome
Addresses question as to whether IPV programs can reduce IPV recidivism
Single treatment outcome studies
Babcock, Green, & Robie (2004)
Meta- Analysis of DV Interventions
Meta analysis of IPV/DV treatment outcome studies in reducing recidivism
K = 22 studies, 36 ES (effect sizes) computed
Deluth (k = 19) and CBT (k= 11) most common texts
Rates of IPV recidivism?
21% based on police reports
35% based on partner reports
Meta-analysis of Treatment Outcome on
Police Reported IPV Recidivism
(Adapted from Babcock et al., 2004)
Meta-analysis of Treatment Outcome on
Partner Reported IPV Recidivism
(Adapted from Babcock et al., 2004)
Outcome Research Conclusions
Conclusions from Babcock et al. (2004)
Overall small effect size (d = .18 or 9% recidivism reduction) for treatment in reducing IPV recidivism
No clear evidence for relative superiority of one program over another, but most evidence for Deluth and CBT
Both generated small effects
Small effect size
IPV Treatment Attrition
(Dropping out of treatment)
Men referred to IV treatment have big problem with drop out (aka attrition)
Highest rates of attrition compared to all offender programs (Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011)
IPV Treatment Attrition
(Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011)
IPV Treatment Attrition
Men who fail to complete IPV programs have significantly higher rates of IPV recidivism, violent recidivism, and general recidivism (Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2011)
Textbook Notes:
Violence occurring between intimate partners is called intimate partner violence (IPV).
Intimate partner violence: violence occurring between intimate partners who are living together or separated.
The occurrence and aftermath of this violence can have devastating short- and long- term effects. In some cases, children who witness violence become abusers themselves and the cycle passes from generation to generation
Why study IPV?
It is the most prevalent form of violence in society.
It is distinct from other types of violence since the individuals know each other and there is often an ongoing relationship prior to, during, and after a violent episode.
9.1
Prevalence: the total number of people who have experienced abuse or neglect in a specified time period.
Incidence: the number of new cases identified or reported at a given point in time, usually one year.
Krebs, Breiding, Browne, and Warner (2011) found that nearly all women who experienced physical violence also experienced psychological violence (93%) and 30% of women who experienced physical violence also experienced sexual violence.
Coercive Control: a pattern of behaviour that establishes dominance over another person using intimidation, isolation, and threats of violence. Johnson & Leone, 2005
There are 3 components of coercive control: intentional motivation for an abuser to control their partner, the individual experiencing this control views it as negative, and an abuser making a credible threat towards their partner (Hamberger, Larsen, & Lehrner 2017)
Men Who Experience IPV:
In a large study, (Williams and Frieze (2005) analyzed the occurrence of violence in 3,519 couples and found that most frequently occurring type of violence was mutual and mid violence followed by mutual severe violence. This pattern indicated that, at least for some forms of intimate violence, the long-held belief that males are the primary instigators is false (Carney, Buttell, & Dutton, 2007).
Gender biases in which men are disadvantaged exist in several other contexts. A long-standing belief associated with intimate violence is that due to differences in physical size and strength, women are more likely to suffer serious injuries compared to men.
Gender Bias is also present in police responses to domestic violence. G.R. Brown (2004) found that when the female partner was injured, the male was charged in 91% of the cases; however, when the male was injured, the female was charged only 60% of the time. When no injury occurred, the female was charged in 13% of cases as compared to 52% of cases for males.
Chargers against women are more likely to be dropped by prosecutors and, if charged, women are less likely to be found guilty. Brown (2004) reported that in severe injury cases, 71% of men and 22% of women defendants were found guilty. A major factor for why such a low percentage of women are found guilty is that men who experience violence are often not willing to testify.
9.2 Impact on IPV
(WHO, 2013): The following consequences have been identified:
Physical trauma: Physical injuries can lead to permanent disabilities. IPV resulted in 42% of women reported physical injuries.
Sexual health: Refusal of men who engage in violence to use contraceptives lead to higher rates of HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies in women experiencing IPV
Reproductive Health: Violence during pregnancy increases the likelihood of having a miscarriage, stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight babies
Mental Health: Violence leads to higher rates of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep and eating disorders, problem drinking, and suicide attempts
Physical Health: A wide range of physical health problems can result, including headaches, back pain, gastrointestinal disorders, and fibromyalgia
Social and economic costs: Women who experience violence often suffer isolation, inability to work, loss of wages, and limited ability to care for themselves and their children
Impact on children: Children who grow up in families were there and violence may have emotional and behavioral problems. there are also more likely to engage in violence as adolescents and adults
In some countries, men perceive themselves as “owners” of their partners and children and feel that it is justified to use force in certain circumstances.
Across all countries, the most widely accepted justification for violence was female infidelity, ranging from 6% in Serbia to 80% in Ethiopia.
Individuals Response to Abuse:
Researchers have found that the following factors can keep a women experiencing abuse in a relationship:
Fear of retaliation
Backup alternative means of economic support
concern for their children
emotional dependence
lack of support from friends and family
hope that their partner will change
stigma or fear of losing their children associated with divorce
Ending a relationship may subsequently initiate unwanted Behavior by an ex-partner (such as stalking) in a bid to restart the relationship using intimidation. This type of behavior can lead to tragic consequences. A significant portion of intimate partner homicides occur when a woman makes the decision to leave her abusive mate.
Most women who have been abused seek help first from friends and family and some may then seek help from more formal support (ex. police, domestic violence shelters). In a study assessing the help seeking behavior of women who had experienced violence
The top five and helpfulness were:
subsidized daycare
religious counseling
subsidized housing
Welfare
educational support
The study suggests that although women who experience IPV need emotional support, they also need more tangible support (ex. housing, financial, childcare) that will provide them with the resources necessary to obtain self-sufficiency
9.3 Looking for Causes: Theories and Pathways
This section focuses on two theories: patriarchal theory and social learning theory.
Patriarchal Theory: Suggest violence of men against their female Partners is rooted in a broad set of cultural beliefs and values that supports the male dominance of women.
Social learning theory: A theory of human behavior that posits people develop skills, behaviors, and attitudes by how they are directly reinforced or punished for these skills, behaviors, and attitudes and by observing how others are simply punished or reinforced.
It has three major elements related to aggression: Origins, instigators, and regulators. A key feature of social learning theory is how individuals require new behaviors, especially aggression. A prominent mechanism for learning new behaviors is observational learning, in which an individual models a behavior that they observe.
Bandura (1973) proposed that observational learning could occur in three contexts: family of origin, the subculture and which a person lives, and the media. Consistent with social learning theory, men who engage in Intimate violence are more likely to have witnessed parental violence than men who do not engage in intimate violence (Kalmuss, 1984; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980).
Social learning also states that acquired behaviors are only manifested if an appropriate event in the environment, called an instigator, acts as a stimulus.
Instigator: In social learning theory, events in the environment or within the individual that trigger violence
Dutton (1995) Proposed three categories of instigators and intimate violence: aversive instigators, incentive instigators, and delusional instigators
Aversive instigators are stimuli that the individual attempts to avoid. they produce emotional arousal, and how a person labels that emotional arousal will affect how they react.
Incentive instigators are stimuli that are perceived as rewards for engaging in aggression. When individuals believe they can satisfy their needs by using aggression, they may decide to be violent.
Delusional instigators are associated with bizarre belief systems, such as delusional jealousy, in which an individual erroneously believes their partner to be unfaithful, potentially resulting in aggression.
Regulators: And social learning theory, the consequences of violence that results in increase or decrease in the probability of future violence.
How to measure IPV:
Using police recorded data is one way to measure the prevalence of IPV. However, the “dark figure” of violence within intimate partners leads to an underestimation of the extent of the problem. Therefore self-report measures have been developed to measure IPV.
In 1979, Murray Straus Developed the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) to assess how a person and their partner resolve conflict. The CTS consist of 18 items ranging from constructive problem solving (ex. discussing issues calmly) to verbal aggression (ex. swearing or threatening to hit) and physical aggression (ex. slapping or using a knife). Respondents indicate how often they have used different tactics and how often they experience these acts.
However several limitations have been identified:
These limitations included a failure to assess for context and purpose of violent Acts (offensive versus defensive responses), few items measuring psychological aggression, no assessment of sexual aggression, and no assessment of consequences of aggression (what types of injury occur).
In response to these concerns, Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman (1996) developed a more comprehensive version- the CTS-2, in which the following changes were made:
The physical aggression scale was expanded to include more Acts (ex. burned or scalded partner on purpose, slammed partner against wall)
The verbal aggression scale was renamed psychological aggression and additional items were added (ex. did something to spite partner)
The reasoning scale was renamed negotiation and additional items were added (ex. explained side of argument)
New scales were added to measure sexual aggression (ex. I used threats to make my partner have sex) and physical injury (ex. I had a broken bone from a fight with my partner)
A better description was developed of minor versus more serious forms of Acts
Items from each scale were interspersed to minimize response sets
The CTS-2 contains 78 items and has become the most widely used instrument for assessing violence among dating and cohabitating partners.
Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violent Offending: 9.5
Social Ecological Model: Model of Family Violence that examines the relationship between multiple levels of influence, including individual, relationship, community, societal levels, in understanding Family Violence.
Provides a useful way to conceptualize the interaction among risk factors related to violence and intimate relationships.
Young age and low income have consistently been found to be associated with increased likelihood of men committing physical violence against a partner. Exposure to parental violence as a kid is also a historical risk factor that has been related to domestic violence.
There are also psychological, relationship, community, and societal risk factors that have been found to contribute to the perpetration of intimate violence.
Are there specific risk factors for abuse that occur during pregnancy? James, Brody, Hamilton (2013) conducted a meta analytic study that found that two of the strongest predictors for abuse during pregnancy were lower educational level and passed history of abuse.
These Studies have found that female perpetrators were more likely to drink and use drugs, experience depression, experiencing prior assaults by partner, witness parental IPV, and feel less happy about their pregnancies.
Protective Factors:
Studies of resilience and protective factors have used both quantitative and qualitative methods when studying IPV.
The protective factors measured include: spirituality, social support, Community cohesion, and ethnic identity. Only spirituality and social support related to resilience in the sample the importance of pure and found support were also found in a longitude study which followed individuals from ages 12 to 13 into their 30s (Greenman and Matsuda 2016)
Overlapping Violence: Child Abuse, IPV, Elder Abuse, and Pet Abuse:
The first to look for evidence of IPV and families for child abuse has occurred. For example, Hangen (1994), examined all child protection cases in Massachusetts over 7 months and found evidence of IPV in 33% of the cases. The second approach is to look for evidence of child abuse and cases of IPV. Some of these studies have asked mother's in women’s shelters about whether their child also experiences violence, whereas other Studies have surveyed battered women. Studies from women shelters have reported 40% and 60% of children also experience abuse.
Fewer studies have been done examining Elder abuse, but Studies have found that Partners who perpetrate IPV in early years of their relationships tend to engage in coercive control tactics (ex. isolation, threats, and manipulation) to maintain control over their partners late in life.
Risk Assessment:
An actuarial instrument developed in Ontario to predict future intimate violence is the:
Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA): an actuarial instrument developed in Ontario to predict intimate partner recidivism.
The ODARA is an empirically derived 13-item measure designed to predict spousal assault recidivism in males who committed spousal assault who have physically assaulted a female intimate partner. The purpose of the ODARA is to provide researchers and police who are responding to intimate partner violence incidents to assess the likelihood the perpetrator will abuse again.
Scores range from 0-13
Scores are divided into 7 risk bins with each risk bin having a probability of 1 recidivism within 5 years, ranging from 5% (Bin 1) to 70% (bin 7). The items in the ODARA include:
Number of Prior domestic incidents
Number of Prior non-domestic incidents
Prior Correctional sentence 30 days or more
Failure on prior conditional release
Threat to harm or kill at the index incident
Confinement at the index incident
Victim concern
Number of children
Victims number of biological children from previous partner
Violence against others
Substance use score
Assault on victim when pregnant
Number of barriers to victim support
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA): A structured professional judgment instrument consisting of both historical and dynamic risk factors designed to estimate risk for spousal assault recidivism.
The SARA uses the structured professional judgment approach to risk assessment and was developed by a group of researchers in British Columbia.
the evaluator conducts a comprehensive assessment and refers to a list of risk factors, each having a specific coding criteria and a demonstrated relationship with spousal assaults recidivism based on the existing professional and empirical literature
version 3 of SARA was published in 2015 (Kropp & Hart, 2015) and consists of 24 items divided into three domains
8 items focused on the nature of IPV, 10 items on perpetrator risk factors, and six items measuring victim vulnerability factors
users code each of the items on a three-point scale, indicating the presence of any specific case risk factors, and making a summary wrist Judgment of low moderate or high risk for future IPV.
Some researchers have some of the risk factors together to create a total risk score. A sample of items at the SARA-V3 include:
Use of threats
severe IPV
IPV related supervision violations perpetrator risk factors
employment/financial problems
personality disorder
substance use
distorted thinking about IPV victim vulnerability factors
barriers to Independence
Community Resources
Mental Health
The ODARA appears to be slightly more accurate than the SARA (versions 1 and 2).
There have been few predictive validity studies using the SARA-V3
Treatment Approaches and Effectiveness:
Duluth Model: Treatment program for male batterers that assume abusers were mostly men who use violence to exercise power and control over woman
Originated in 1981 in Duluth, Minnesota
The goal of this program, like other treatments, is to prevent future violence. However, in contrast multifaceted Treatment programs, it focuses on men's use of power and control. The Duluth model focuses on changing patriarchal beliefs; however, some programs tend to be judgemental and use shaming to accomplish this change
The other most common type of treatment program for men who have committed battery is based on social learning models of violence and use cognitive behavioral techniques.
These programs are multi-faceted, targeting a range of different risk factors with the goal of helping participants understand their motivations for engaging in violence and focus on alternative skills (ex. emotion dysregulation, cognitive distortions, and relationship deficits) and behaviors to form non-abusive positive relationships.
Using Official Police reports, CPT was most effective at recidivism, followed by other types of treatment; many types of treatment were not specified with the Duluth Model being the least effective.
Which Treatment for Whom?
The family-only batterer: A male batterer who is typically not violent outside the home, has few psychopathological symptoms, and does not possess negative attitudes supportive of violence.
Engages in the lowest levels of intimate violence
is infrequently violent outside the home and rarely engages in other criminal Acts
does not show much psychopathology
has few risk factors (witnessing violence as a child, poor relationship skills)
aggression is triggered by stress
Generally violent/Antisocial batterer: a male batterer who is violent inside and outside the home; engages in other criminal Acts; has drug, alcohol, and impulsive problems; and possesses violent supportive attitudes
Engages in moderate to high levels of intimate violence
Is frequently violent outside the home and engages in other criminal Acts
has antisocial and Psychopathic personality features
has substance use problems
has problems with impulsivity and many violent support beliefs
attachment style best described as dismissive
Dysphoric-borderline Batterer: male batterer who is depressed and has borderline personality traits, primarily exhibits violence toward his intimate partner, and has problems with jealousy and abandonment
Engages in moderate to severe levels of intimate violence
usually focuses violence on female partners
High rates of mood disorders
Has borderline personality features such as instability, jealousy, and fear of rejection
experience childhood abuse
attachment style best described as preoccupied
Working from a physiological perspective, Gottman and Colleagues (1995) use the heart rate of male batterers at rest and during conflict to categorize batterers into groups.
type 1 abusers or the “cobra group” ( accounting for 20% of the sample) showed a decreased heart rate as they became verbally abusive. Type 1 abusers engaged in high rates of severe violence in and outside the home.
Type 2 or the “pitbull group” (accounting for 80% of the sample) showed an increased heart rate as they became verbally abusive. Type 2 abusers were more insecure and emotionally dependent, and primarily engaged in violence inside the home.