No abstract

This study hypothesized that power discrepancies in the marital relationship, where the husband is subordinate, serve as risk factors for husband-to-wife violence. The construct of marital power was assessed from 3 power domains operationalized by discrepancies in economic status, decision-making power, communication patterns, and communication skill. Three groups of married couples (N = 95) were compared: domestically violent (DV), maritally distressed/nonviolent (DNV), and maritally happy/nonviolent (HNV). DV couples were more likely than the 2 nonviolent groups to engage in husband demand/wife withdraw interactions. Within the DV group, husbands who had less power were more physically abusive toward their wives. Thus, violence may be compensatory behavior to make up for husbands' lack of power in other arenas of marriage. Difficulties in assessing marital power and future direction for the study of power and violence are discussed.

A. Holtzworth-Munroe and G. L. Stuart (1994) proposed a tripartite typology of men who batter their female partners based on the severity of violence, extent of violence, and personality disorder characteristics. The current study attempts to empirically validate this typology using data from 75 domestically violent (DV) men and their partners, and 32 maritally distressed, nonviolent (DNV) comparison couples. Mixture analysis results generally supported the model, although 2 types were not distinguishable on personality disorder characteristics as predicted. Generally violent batterers were significantly more violent within and outside the relationship. The pathological group was moderately violent within and outside the relationship and endorsed numerous psychological symptoms. Family-only batterers endorsed fewer symptoms and were less violent. Violence in the family of origin, attachment, and communication skills also differentiated the 3 types and DNV men.

The purpose of this investigation was to study the affect, psychophysiology, and verbal content of arguments in couples with a violent husband. On the basis of self-reports of violent arguments, there were no wife behaviors that successfully suppressed husband violence once it began; moreover, husband violence escalated in response to nonviolent as well as violent wife behaviors, whereas wife violence escalated only in reaction to husband violence or emotional abuse. Only wives were fearful during violent and nonviolent arguments. The observational coding of nonviolent arguments in the laboratory revealed that both battering husbands and their wives (DV) were angrier than their maritally distressed but nonviolent (DNV) counterparts. As predicted, on the more provocative anger codes, only DV men differed from their DNV counterparts. However, DV wives were as verbally aggressive toward their husbands as DV husbands were toward their wives.

Based on previous typologies of domestically violent men (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), women who were referred to a treatment agency for abusive behavior (N = 52) were categorized into two groups based on the breadth of their use of violence: Partner-Only (PO) and Generally Violent (GV). PO women were hypothesized to use reactive violence, for example, out of fear or in self-defense, whereas GV women were hypothesized to use instrumental violence, that is, in order to exert control. Self-defense was assessed in three different ways and convergent validity was demonstrated for these three new measures. GV women reported using instrumental violence more than PO women, in a variety of situations. GV women tended to report more traumatic symptoms than PO women, although they did not experience significantly more abuse. GV women were more likely to witness their mothers' physical aggression. Thus, we theorize that GV women have been socialized to believe that it is acceptable for women to use violence to resolve conflict. Trauma history and violent socialization should be addressed clinically.

In the United States, the judicial system response to violence between intimate partners, or intimate partner violence (IPV), typically mandates that adjudicated perpetrators complete a batterer intervention program (BIP). The social science data has found that these programs, on the whole, are only minimally effective in reducing rates of IPV. The authors examined the social science literature on the characteristics and efficacy of BIPs. More than 400 studies were considered, including a sweeping, recently conducted survey of BIP directors across the United States and Canada. Results of this review indicate that the limitations of BIPs are due, in large part, to the limitations of current state standards regulating these programs and, furthermore, that these standards are not grounded in the body of empirical research evidence or best practices. The authors, all of whom have considerable expertise in the area of domestic violence perpetrator treatment, conducted an exhaustive investigation of the following key intervention areas: overall effectiveness of BIPs; length of treatment/length of group sessions; number of group participants and number of facilitators; group format and curriculum; assessment protocol and instruments; victim contact; modality of treatment; differential treatment; working with female perpetrators; working with perpetrators in racial and ethnic minority groups; working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) perpetrators; perpetrator treatment and practitioner–client relationships; and required practitioner education and training. Recommendations for evidence-based national BIP standards were made based on findings from this review.

No abstract

Men who batter (N = 387) were followed over 2 years using a quasi-experimental design. "Batterers" were court-mandated into domestic violence (DV) group treatment, DV treatment plus chemical dependency treatment, or were incarcerated in lieu of treatment. Official criminal records of treatment completers, treatment noncompleters, and incarcerated batters were compared 2 years after sentencing. Batteres who completed DV group treatment had fewer DV reoffenses at follow-up, and incarcerated batterers had a greater number, as compared with DV treatment noncompleters, after controlling for criminal record and demographics. The number of DV sessions attended was negatively correlated with recidivism. This study provides suggestive evidence that the coordinated domestic violence intervention may have a statistically significant but small impact on reducing domestic violence.In recent years, the police, the courts, and the community have begun to view domestic violence as a serious criminal offense in need of concerted attention. Around the country, a number of treatment programs have been established to treat domestically violent offenders. In the state of Washington, the police, when