Programs for Partner-Violent Men: Shared Goals With Different Strategies

Partner Abuse ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eveliina Holmgren ◽  
Juha Holma ◽  
Jaakko Seikkula
Keyword(s):  
Partner Violence ◽  
Violent Behavior ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
Group Program ◽  
Group Format ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
The Many ◽  
Partner Violent Men ◽  
Group Programs

Currently, the most popular intervention in the problem of intimate partner violence (IPV) are shelter-based services for victims and the group program model for perpetrators. Since its establishment in the 1970s, the perpetrator group format has been adopted throughout the world, in various settings. Most services are directed at partner-violent men; however, there are initiatives for offering interventions for partner-violent women, lesbians, and gays (e.g., Hamel, 2014). Some smaller scale studies have indicated that these programs result in important changes and help clients stop their violent behavior; however, the effectiveness of these programs has yet to be demonstrated by research using the most rigorous experimental designs. Because there is currently no conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions, or best practices, many programs face challenges in justifying their work. In addition, many ideological disputes have characterized the development of the group programs. Given the many controversial viewpoints on these interventions, the aim of this article is to discuss some key issues concerning these programs’ history, development, and current challenges in both practice and research.

Therapeutic Dynamics of Aggression, Readiness to Change, and Recidivism in a Partner Violent Men Typology

2021 ◽  
pp. 001112872110364
Author(s):  
Natalia Redondo ◽  
Marina J. Muñoz-Rivas ◽  
Arthur L. Cantos ◽  
Jose Luis Graña
Keyword(s):  
Stages Of Change ◽  
Transtheoretical Model ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Readiness To Change ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
Partner Violent Men

The Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavior change predicts that patients go through different stages of change prior to changing their problematic behavior. This study aims to evaluate the utility and validity of this model in a sample of 549 court-ordered partner violent men. Three types of perpetrators with respect to their readiness to change were revealed. Those in more advantage stage of change use more processes to change their problem and present with higher levels of intimate partner violence (IPV). Low readiness to change levels and treatment drop-out predict short-term criminal justice recidivism, while treatment drop-out predicts medium and long-term recidivism. Results highlight the applicability of the TTM in IPV and its usefulness in designing behavioral interventions with this population.

Are Men With a History of Head Injury Less Responsive to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Intimate Partner Violence?

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicia A. Akerele ◽  
Christopher M. Murphy ◽  
Megan R. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Head Injury ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Criminal Involvement ◽  
History Of ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
Partner Violent Men

Head injury is highly prevalent among intimate partner violence (IPV) offenders. This study investigates responsiveness to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for partner-violent men with and without a history of head injury using archival data on 310 males seeking IPV counseling at a community domestic violence agency. Participants reported on their history of head injury, age at injury, and length of time unconscious in a structured interview at program intake. Criminal justice outcomes were assessed for the 2-year period after scheduled completion of treatment using a publicly available state database. A significantly greater percentage of men with a history of head injury (N = 84) than those without (N = 226) had criminal involvement for incidents of partner abuse during the follow-up period. In addition, men with a history of moderate-to-severe head injury (n = 25) had more criminal involvement for general violence than those with no history of head injury. The findings highlight the need to screen partner-violent men for head injury and to develop and investigate intervention enhancements for those individuals.

scholarly journals Self-reported psychopathology profiles of high risk violent men with and without a history of physical intimate partner violence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Kelsi Laing
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Latent Profile Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
Partner Violent Men

<p>Although intimate partner violent men have been found to be different from non-violent men on a number of variables, little research has compared partner violent men to men who engage in violence outside of relationships. The present research explored the similarities and differences between men with and without a history of physical partner violence within a sample of high risk violent men who attended New Zealands' High Risk Special Treatment Units. Pre-treatment psychopathology, measured on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997) was compared between these two groups and few differences were found. Comparisons on criminal history, criminal risk and change in dynamic risk also revealed no significant differences between these two groups. This research also explored whether similar or different psychopathology subtypes exist among men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. A latent profile analysis was conducted to examine psychopathology subtypes, and the proportions of men with and without a history of partner violence within each subtype were compared. The results showed that there were similar proportions of men from both groups within each of the subtypes, suggesting that men with and without a history of intimate partner violence share similar psychopathology profiles. The likelihood of reconviction or reimprisonment within 1 year of release from prison was also comapred between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. The two groups were found to be reconvicted at a similar rate for any offence, violent offences, and were at a similar likelihood of being re-imprisoned. To conclude, the results suggest some similarity between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence, but future research should explore a wider range of factors that may distinguish between these two groups and inform whether men who engage in partner violence are unique from men who engage in other forms of violence.</p>

Using a General Case Management Tool With Partner-violent Men on Community Supervision in Iowa

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052097818
Author(s):  
Bronwen Perley-Robertson ◽  
Ralph C. Serin ◽  
Nick Chadwick
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Community Supervision ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
Partner Violent Men

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is among the most common acts of violence against women worldwide, making it a major global threat to women’s health and safety. The assessment and management of IPV offenders are therefore vital tasks in criminal justice systems. The current study examined whether the DRAOR, a general case management tool, was useful for supervising 112 male IPV offenders in Iowa, United States. Several risk factors emerged as potentially important treatment targets for partner-violent men, including poor attachment with others, substance abuse, anger/hostility, opportunity/access to victims, and problematic interpersonal relationships. While further research is needed to improve the utility of the DRAOR for predicting IPV recidivism, it assesses several factors that are relevant for supervising IPV cases (e.g., substance abuse, anger/hostility, victim access). This suggests the DRAOR could potentially be used to guide case management in the presence of a validated IPV tool that focuses on static risk factors, such as the ODARA. The use of the DRAOR with IPV offenders may also be warranted if they are found to be generally violent/antisocial rather than as family only offenders.

How Do Intimate Partner Violent Men Talk About Self-Control?

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 1315-1331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Walker ◽  
Simon Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Psychological Perspective ◽  
Male Perpetrators ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
Multiple Uses ◽  
Partner Violent Men

This study investigates discourses that male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use regarding self-control when talking about their IPV. Literature addressing the role of self-control in committing and avoiding using violence toward partners is discussed; however, it is shown that self-control has not been investigated from a discursive psychological perspective, in which the function of talk, rather than what this talk says about speakers’ cognitions, is analyzed. Discourse analysis of interviews with six male perpetrators, currently attending treatment and selected for their recent and multiple uses of IPV, revealed that talk of lacking self-control was used to account for situations when individuals engaged in violence. Conversely, talk about having self-control was used to account for refraining from IPV. An improvement narrative in which perpetrators of violence talked about moving from lacking to gaining self-control was also evident. Talk about self-control however was not as simple as this suggests because of particular note is the situation where perpetrators offered varying levels of self-control within their accounts of violence where having and lacking self-control was presented simultaneously. This demonstrates that talk about self-control is a discursive device that is used flexibly by perpetrators to manage their accountability for acts of IPV.

scholarly journals Self-reported psychopathology profiles of high risk violent men with and without a history of physical intimate partner violence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Kelsi Laing
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Latent Profile Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Violent Men ◽  
Partner Violent Men

<p>Although intimate partner violent men have been found to be different from non-violent men on a number of variables, little research has compared partner violent men to men who engage in violence outside of relationships. The present research explored the similarities and differences between men with and without a history of physical partner violence within a sample of high risk violent men who attended New Zealands' High Risk Special Treatment Units. Pre-treatment psychopathology, measured on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (MCMI-III;Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997) was compared between these two groups and few differences were found. Comparisons on criminal history, criminal risk and change in dynamic risk also revealed no significant differences between these two groups. This research also explored whether similar or different psychopathology subtypes exist among men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. A latent profile analysis was conducted to examine psychopathology subtypes, and the proportions of men with and without a history of partner violence within each subtype were compared. The results showed that there were similar proportions of men from both groups within each of the subtypes, suggesting that men with and without a history of intimate partner violence share similar psychopathology profiles. The likelihood of reconviction or reimprisonment within 1 year of release from prison was also comapred between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence. The two groups were found to be reconvicted at a similar rate for any offence, violent offences, and were at a similar likelihood of being re-imprisoned. To conclude, the results suggest some similarity between men with and without a history of intimate partner violence, but future research should explore a wider range of factors that may distinguish between these two groups and inform whether men who engage in partner violence are unique from men who engage in other forms of violence.</p>

Socialization processes within adolescents’ relationships with parents and peers predicting couples’ intimate partner violence in adulthood: A social learning perspective

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Thao Ha ◽  
Mark J. Van Ryzin ◽  
Kit K. Elam
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Violent Behavior ◽  
Early Adulthood ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
High Risk Sexual Behavior ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Socialization Processes ◽  
Risk Sexual Behavior

Abstract Previous studies have established that individual characteristics such as violent behavior, substance use, and high-risk sexual behavior, as well as negative relationships with parents and friends, are all risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV). In this longitudinal prospective study, we investigated whether violent behavior, substance use, and high-risk sexual behavior in early adulthood (ages 22–23 years) mediated the link between family conflict and coercive relationship talk with friends in adolescence (ages 16–17 years) and dyadic IPV in adulthood (ages 28–30 years). A total of 998 individuals participated in multimethod assessments, including observations of interactions with parents and friends. Data from multiple reporters were used for variables of interest including court records, parental and self-reports of violence, self-reports of high-sexual-risk behaviors and substance use, and self- and romantic partner-reports of IPV. Longitudinal mediation analyses showed that violent behavior during early adulthood mediated the link between coercive relationship talk with friends in adolescence and dyadic IPV in adulthood. No other mediation paths were found and there was no evidence of gender differences. Results are discussed with attention to the interpersonal socialization processes by which IPV emerges relative to individual risk factors.

Social Norms Sustaining Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Methodologies for Proxy Measures

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110131
Author(s):  
Ilana Seff
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Boolean Search ◽  
The Many

In light of the many robust quantitative data sets that include information on attitudes and behaviors related to intimate partner violence (IPV), and in an effort to expand the evidence base around social norms and IPV, many researchers construct proxy measures of norms within and across groups embedded in the data. While this strategy has become increasingly popular, there is no standardized approach for assessing and constructing these norm proxies, and no review of these approaches has been undertaken to date. This study presents the results of a systematic review of methods used to construct quantitative proxy measures for social norms related to IPV. PubMed, Embase, Popline, and Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched using Boolean search techniques. Inclusion criteria comprised studies published since 2000 in English that either (i) examined a norm proxy related to gender or IPV or (ii) analyzed the relationship between a norm proxy and perpetration of, experiences of, or attitudes toward IPV. Studies that employed qualitative methods or that elicited direct measures of descriptive or injunctive norms were not included. Twenty-six studies were eligible for review. Evidence from this review highlights inconsistencies in how proxies are constructed, how they are assessed to ensure valid representation of norms, and how researchers acknowledge their respective method’s limitations. Key processes and reflections employed by some of the studies are identified and recommended for future research inquiries.

Intimate Partner Violence

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane S. Sillman
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Abuse ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Violent Behavior ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Gay Couples

Intimate-partner violence describes relationships characterized by intentional controlling or violent behavior by someone who is in an intimate relationship with the victim. The abuser’s controlling behavior may take many forms, including psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, economic control, and social isolation. Abuse may ultimately lead to the death of the victim from homicide or suicide. Typically, an abusive relationship goes through cycles of violence. There are periods of calm, followed by increasing tension in the abuser, outbursts of violence, and return to periods of calm. These cycles often spiral toward increasing violence over time. The victims of intimate-partner violence are usually women, but intimate-partner violence is also a significant problem for gay couples and for the disabled and elderly of both sexes. This review discusses the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes, and prevention of intimate-partner violence. Risk factors for experiencing violence, risk factors for perpetrating violence, and consequences of abuse are also analyzed. This review contains 5 figures, 14 tables, and 30 references. Keywords: Domestic abuse, intimate-partner violence, elder abuse, child abuse, batterer, sexual abuse, physical abuse

Global Application of Intersectionality Theory

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-53
Author(s):  
Johanna Bond
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Black Girls ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
The Many ◽  
Inadequate Prenatal Care ◽  
The Right

This chapter delves into examples of global intersectionality to illustrate the need for a thorough and consistent intersectional approach to human rights violations around the world. Although it is impossible to provide an exhaustive analysis of the many and varied types of intersectional human rights violations, this chapter offers multiple examples of intersectional human rights violations, including (1) gender-based violence, including both non-state actors who commit intimate partner violence and sexual violence in armed conflict; (2) maternal mortality and inadequate prenatal care in Brazil; (3) coerced sterilization among the Roma in Europe; (4) disproportionate discipline and punishment of Black girls in the United States; and (5) inconsistent LGBTQI rights. These case studies implicate different human rights, including the right to be free from violence, the right to education, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Each example demonstrates how a more nuanced, intersectional lens is necessary to capture the rights at stake and to contemplate appropriate remedies for victims of human rights violations in full.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document