A Brief Motivational Intervention for Physically Aggressive Dating Couples

Abstract

Motivational interviewing is a brief non-confrontational intervention designed to enhance motivation to reduce harmful behavior (Miller and Rollnick 2002). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of motivational interviewing as a targeted prevention approach for partner aggression in emerging adulthood. Participants were 50 college dating couples between 18 and 25 years old who reported at least one act of male-to-female physical aggression in their current relationships. After completing a 2-hour assessment session, half of all couples were randomly assigned to a 2-hour individualized motivational feedback session targeting physical aggression and risk factors for aggression. The remaining couples received minimal, non-motivational feedback. Follow-up surveys were conducted 3, 6, and 9 months later. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses indicated that, compared to the control condition, the motivational feedback intervention led to reductions in physical aggression and harmful alcohol use and to less acceptance of female psychological aggression and male psychological aggression (among women only). Lagged analyses indicated that changes in physical aggression were predicted by reductions in psychological aggression and by lower acceptance of both male and female psychological aggression. Reductions in physical aggression predicted lower anxiety and greater relationship investment and male relationship commitment over time. These findings suggest that a brief motivational intervention is a useful prevention approach for high-risk dating couples, with benefits to both individual and relationship functioning.

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…Among the more promising findings have been for psychoeducational programs that incorporate an MI component. MI significantly predicts increased motivation and responsibility taking among partner violent men as well as a stronger client-facilitator alliance and lower recidivism rates (Mbilinyi et al, 2011;Musser et al, 2008;Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). MI techniques also have been significantly correlated with group cohesion, which in turn is correlated with increased motivation as well as reduced rates of recidivism (Alexander, Morris, Tracy, & Frye, 2010;Taft et al, 2003).…”

“…(p. 1) Such concerns are, to some extent, valid, but the danger to victims is unlikely to be with the modality per se but rather the therapist's skills set and competence, and whether or not a client acquires early on the necessary emotion management skills with which to stop their abuse, Murphy and Eckhardt (2005) argue that individual treatment can hold perpetrators more accountable in comparison to group treatment, particularly those groups that are too large or led by poorly trained facilitators who are unable to prevent negative role modeling and reinforcement. So far, the only outcome studies to have been published on individual psychotherapy have focused on the effectiveness of MI techniques delivered in the one-on-one format but only for a short number of sessions (Crane & Eckhardt, 2013;Crane, Eckhardt, & Schlauch, 2015;Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2008;Mbilinyi et al, 2011;Murphy, Linehan, Reyner, Musser, & Taft, 2012;Musser, Semiatin, Taft, & Murphy, 2008;Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). (The empirically demonstrated effectiveness of MI is discussed in an upcoming section.)…”

“…Researchers have conducted numerous quasi-experimental and experimental investigations that examined different types of conjoint interventions, including interventions based on cognitive-behavioral principles (Brannen & Rubin, 1996;Dunford, 2000;O'Leary, Heyman, & Neidig, 1999); Domestic Violence Focused Couples Treatment (DVFCT; Stith, Rosen, McCollum, & Thomsen, 2004); nonaggression-focused behavioral couple therapy (Simpson, Atkins, Gattis, & Christensen, 2008); brief motivation-focused interventions (Woodin & O'Leary, 2010); and interventions based on Gottman's principles such as communication, conflict management, intimacy/ friendship, and creating a shared meaning (Adler-Baeder, Robertson, & Schramm, 2010;Bradley et al, 2011;Bradley & Gottman, 2012;Wray, Hoyt, & Gerstle, 2013). These types of interventions typically occur in a group format and include participation from both individuals involved in the violent relationship.…”

“…One study found the use of MI techniques to be effective in reducing IPV and alcohol ingestion in college dating partners (Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). Another possibility is to design interventions based on a client's mental health or personality profile.…”

“…Although the need for individual treatment is recognized to address those with special circumstances, such as serious mental health issues, some state standards go as far as prohibiting individual treatment, although 45% of BIPs offer this modality to domestic violence perpetrators (Cannon et al, 2016). In spite of positive evidence forthcoming from numerous quasi-experimental and experimental investigations that examined different types of conjoint interventions, including interventions based on cognitive-behavioral principles (Brannen & Rubin, 1996;Dunford, 2000;O'Leary et al, 1999), DVFCT (Stith et al, 2004), non-aggression-focused behavioral couple therapy (Simpson et al, 2008), brief motivation-focused interventions (Woodin & O'Leary, 2010), and interventions based on Gottman's principles such as communication, conflict management, intimacy/friendship, and creating a shared meaning (AdlerBaeder et al, 2010;Bradley et al, 2011;Bradley & Gottman, 2012;Wray et al, 2013), 68% of states prohibit the use of couples treatment of any kind either before or concurrent with a primary domestic violence intervention. In the select states that do not explicitly ban couples therapy for domestic violence, standards prohibit any couples-based intervention that advocates for an equal distribution of responsibility for violence or abuse (Maiuro & Eberle, 2008) for fear of potential negative impact on the victim.…”