A Large Sample Empirical Typology of Male Spouse Abusers and Its Relationship to Dimensions of Abuse

Abstract

A number of studies have described typologies of domestically violent men. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) recently proposed a theoretical model for predicting violence severity and generality from personality “type.” The present study, using data from 833 identified abusive men, tested the model. Personality types were determined from cluster analysis of data from the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, and resulted in a three-cluster solution consistent with the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart model. The three main clusters included nonpathological, antisocial, and passive aggressive-dependent groups. Three other, smaller types were also identified. Multivariate and chi-square analyses comparing the main clusters on other variables generally supported the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart model. Nonpathological men had the lowest maximum violence and frequency. They restricted their violence primarily to intimate relationships and had the fewest police contacts. Antisocial and passive aggressive-dependent men did not differ in maximum violence, but antisocial men were the most generally violent and had the most police contacts. Passive aggressive-dependent men had the highest frequency of violence. Clinical, theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.

Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach

“…In a later empirical test of this hypothesized typology (using cluster analysis of measures of husband violence toward a partner, general violence, antisociality, and fear of abandonment), four clusters were identified, including the three hypothesized groups and an additional low-level antisocial group who fell between the family only and generally violent and antisocial group . Several studies have generally found support for the three group batterer typology (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1996;Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Huss, & Ramsey, 2000;Tweed & Dutton, 1998;Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman, 2000), although the number and characteristics of all the subgroups are still debatable . Holtzworth-Munroe at al.…”

“…Cavanaugh and Gelles (2005) summarize findings from batterer typology studies, including Gondolf (1988), Gottman et al (1995), Hamberger et al (1996), Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994), and Johnson (1995). They conclude that three types of batterers are common across current typology research--a low, moderate, and high-risk offender.…”

“…Therefore, when the subgroups are determined by mean composites of personality and psychopathology, it would be difficult to determine which batterer belongs to which subgroup (LanghinrichsenRohling et al, 2000). Lohr, Bonge, Witte, Hamberger, and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2005) conducted a further study on the consistency and accuracy of batterer typology identification using experienced clinicians to sort profiles into an empirically derived MCMI-based batterer typology (Hamberger et al, 1996) of three groups, namely negativistic-dependent, antisocial, and nonpathological. Most of the profiles were sorted accurately; however, the raters had the most difficulty sorting some of the "nonpathological" profiles, as 40% were placed in the antisocial cluster and 6% into the negativistic dependent cluster.…”

Supplemental mental health treatment for batterer program participants

“…This research suggests a substantial prevalence of major disorders and their association with batterer program dropout and re-assault (Hamberger & Hastings, 1991;Hamberger et al, 1996;Gondolf, 1999b). Other research addressing distinguishing personality traits, batterer types, and risk assessment have also indirectly raised questions about psychopathology (e.g., Dutton, 1998;Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994).…”

“…A few of these studies specifically indicate a high prevalence of psychopathology (i.e., DSM-IV Axis I disorders or DSM-IV Axis II disorders) among batterer program participants (Hamberger et al, 1996;Gondolf, 1999b). According to studies with the MCMI-I, as much as 40% of men entering programs show evidence of psychopathology, much of which might be expressed in the form of personality tendencies or disorders (Hamberger & Hastings, 1991;Hamberger et al, 1996).…”