Dyadic violence and readiness to change among male intimate partner violence offenders

Abstract

Background Although readiness to change is associated with mandated partner violence treatment compliance and subsequent violent behavior among male offenders (e.g., Eckhardt et al., 2004; Scott & Wolfe, 2003), our understanding of the factors associated with pretreatment change remains limited. Offender research indicates that individual and dyadic violent behavior are highly variable and that such variability may provide insight into levels of pretreatment change (Archer, 2002; Holtzworth-Monroe & Stuart, 1994). Aims/Hypotheses We sought to examine the associations between indicators of change and individual as well as dyadic violence frequency in a sample of male partner violence offenders. Method To determine whether severity and perceived concordance in the use of violence among male offenders and their female partners influenced readiness to change at pretreatment, 82 recently adjudicated male perpetrators of intimate partner violence were recruited into the current study and administered measures of readiness to change violent behavior (Revised Safe at Home Scale; Begun et al., 2008) as well as partner violence experiences (Revised Conflict Tactics Scale; Straus et al., 1996). Results Analyses revealed an interaction between offender-reported male and female violence in the prediction of pretreatment readiness to change such that greater male violence was associated with greater readiness to change among males who reported that their female partners perpetrated low, but not high, levels of violence. Consistently, greater female violence was associated with lower readiness to change only among the most violent male offenders. Conclusions and Implications for Clinical Practice Results provide support for the assertion that the most violent offenders may be the most resistant to partner violence intervention efforts, particularly when they perceive themselves to be victims as well. Enhanced motivational and couples programming may facilitate treatment engagement among the high-risk group of male offenders who report concordant relationship violence.

Motivational Strategies in Interventions for Intimate Partner Violence Offenders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…This is an important concern and challenge for the reduction and prevention of IPV, since program dropout is associated with higher recidivism rates (Bennett et al, 2007;Chen et al, 1989;Coulter & VandeWeerd, 2009;Dutton et al, 1997;Gondolf, 2000;Taft et al, 2001). Additionally, IPV offenders typically show low levels of motivation to change at the intake phases of IPV offender programs Crane et al, 2015;Zalmanowitz et al, 2013). This is an important issue, because IPV offenders in the most advanced stages of change are more likely to complete the treatment (Eckhardt et al, 2004;Levesque et al, 2000;Scott, 2004;Scott & Wolf, 2003).…”

Motivational Strategies, Working Alliance, and Protherapeutic Behaviors in Batterer Intervention Programs: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Several meta-analyses conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs (BIPs) have indicated that the effect size of these interventions on reducing recidivism tends to be small (Arce et al, 2020;Babcock et al, 2004;Cheng et al, 2019;Eckhardt et al, 2013;Feder & Wilson, 2005;Smedslund et al, 2011). This limited success of BIPs in reducing recidivism has been attributed to different factors such as low treatment compliance and high dropout rates (Bennett et al, 2007;Daly & Pelowski, 2000;Jewell & Wormith, 2010;Lila et al, 2019;Olver et al, 2011), lack of motivation for change Crane et al, 2015;Eckhardt et al, 2008;Zalmanowitz et al, 2013), problems in building the working alliance (Cadsky et al, 1996;DiGiuseppe et al, 1994;Murphy & Baxter, 1997;Taft et al, 2004), and poor engagement in program activities (Musser et al, 2008;Taft et al, 2003).…”

A Model of Engagement for Correctional Practice

“…Despite limited empirical research into the validity of the TTM as it applies to the offending population, the model has been commonly utilised within correctional practice (Casey et al, 2005). The TTM has been used to evaluate behavioural change for substance abuse (D'Sylva et al, 2012), sexual offending (Tierney & McCabe, 2001), intimate partner violence (Gilchrist et al, 2015), general violence (Howells & Day, 2006), forensic mental health treatment (McMurran et al, 1998), juvenile males (Levesque et al, 2012) and motivational programmes (Anstiss et al, 2011;Yong et al, 2015). However, the appropriateness of applying TTM to this population has been debated (Anstiss et al, 2011;Austin, Williams, & Kilgour, 2011;Burrowes & Needs, 2009;Casey et al, 2005;Polaschek, Anstiss, & Wilson, 2010).…”