Antisocial traits, distress tolerance, and alcohol problems as predictors of intimate partner violence in men arrested for domestic violence.

Abstract

These results support and extend existing conceptual models of IPV perpetration. Findings suggest intervention efforts for IPV should target both distress tolerance and alcohol problems.

Considering the Effect of Sexism on Psychological Intimate Partner Violence: A Study with Imprisoned Men

“…Different personality traits and disorders also represent possible risk factors of IPV perpetration (Capaldi et al, 2012). In particular, antisocial personality traits and antisocial personality disorder (APD) have been broadly studied in relation with male-to-female IPV perpetration (Brem, Florimbio, Elmquist, Shorey, & Stuart, 2018;Capaldi et al, 2012;. Batterer typologies, for example, have identified specific types of batterers characterized by a large criminal curriculum, violence within and outside the family, including batterers that are: dominating and violent/bully (Faulk, 1974), controllers (Elbow, 1977), tyrants (Caesar, 1986), undercontrolled with regard to hostility (Hershorn & Rosenbaum, 1991), narcissistic/antisocial (Hamberger & Hastings, 1986), antisocial and sociopathic (Gondolf, 1988), generally violent (Herrero, Torres, Fernández-Suárez, & Rodríguez-Díaz, 2016;Saunders, 1992), and generally violent/antisocial (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994).…”

Risk and protective factors of intimate partner violence among South Asian immigrant women and perceived need for services.

“…The individual level represents the personal history of the partner or the woman (Pinnewala, 2009). A partner’s personal history of witnessing marital violence as a child, experiencing child abuse, having a personality disorder, and problem with alcohol use have been identified as risk factors for IPV in prior research (Brem, Florimbio, Elmquist, Shorey, & Stuart, 2018; Heise, 1998; Pinnewala, 2009). Women married at a younger age with little education and low socioeconomic status are likely to adhere to norms justifying IPV (Jesmin, 2015), which places them at risk for exposure to IPV.…”

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

“…Authors of a recent validation study on a domestic abuse risk assessment tool in the U.K. (Domestic Abuse, Stalking and harassment and Honour-based violence; DASH) also reported that problematic alcohol use was significantly positively related to repeat general and violent domestic abuse (note that offenders' gender was not specified; Almond, McManus, Brian, & Merrington, 2017). Substance abuse has further been identified as a significant predictor of male-and female-perpetrated IPV onset and recidivism in various other studies (Brem et al, 2018;Fals-Stewart, 2003;Gordon & Moriarty, 2003;Murphy, Morrel, Elliott, & Neavins, 2003;Shepard, 1992;Tollefson & Gross, 2006;Whitaker, Le, & Niolon, 2010).…”

“…For instance, dynamic risk factors predict violence and serious misconducts-such as escape, smuggling, and inappropriate sexual behaviour-among incarcerated and hospitalized offenders (Hogan & Olver, 2016;Van Voorhis et al, 2010;Wilson, Desmarais, Nicholls, Hart, & Brink, 2013;Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010). Dynamic risk factors also predict rearrest, reimprisonment, and/or hospital readmission for IPV, violent, nonviolent, and sex offences among community-supervised offenders (Brem, Florimbio, Elmquist, Shorey, & Stuart, 2018;Brown, et al, 2009;Feder & Dugan, 2002;Greiner, Law, & Brown, 2015;Hanby, 2013;Hilton & Harris, 2005;McCoy & Miller, 2013;Olver, Wong, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2007;Penney, Marshall, & Simpson, 2016;Van Voorhis et al, 2010).…”