The heterogeneity of spouse abuse: a review

Abstract

Recent research suggests that spouse abusers are not a homogenous group. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) propose three types of domestic violent men; Family Only, Generally Violent/Antisocial and Dysphoric/ Borderline Personality. This theoretical classification is compared to nine empirical research studies and two hypothetical studies, which can be found in the literature dated from 1994 onwards. The review provides support for the three-fold typology. The total averages of offenders classified by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuarts (1994) typology across the studies were 50%, 30% and 20% respectively. However, when sample type was considered a significant difference between court referrals and volunteers was found for the men's distribution across the three types, with court referred men being less likely to be categorised into the Family Only group.All research to date is criticised for its narrow focus on the offender and its lack of a scientific profiling approach. Other factors such as the context, triggers for violence and the behavioural actions of the victim need to be considered. A more holistic family focused typology is suggested to be more appropriate for those victims who do not want to separate from their violent spouse.Key Words: Family Violence, Spouse Abuse, Typologies, ProfilingThe Heterogeneity of Spouse Abuse: A Review.Violence within the family is a common phenomenon of modern society, occurring across most cultures (Levinson, 1989). In 1996, The World Health Assembly adopted resolution WHA49.25 that declared violence as a priority in public health, together with resolution WHA5019, which called upon member states of the United Nations to eliminate violence against women and children. Hence a science-based public health approach to preventing violence was adopted by The World Health Organisation Task Force on Violence and Health (2000). They recommended four major objectives: The first to define and characterise different types of violence and assess their consequences. The second to understand the causes of violence and identify risk factors for aggressive behaviour. The third to identify best practice and evaluate interventions aimed at preventing violence. The fourth to strengthen the capacity of the health and social systems to disseminate knowledge and implement programs to reduce violence in society, especially that directed at women and children.One of the greatest areas of public health concern is violence in the context of the family. 'People are more likely to be killed, physically assaulted, hit, beaten up, slapped or spanked in their own homes by other family members than anywhere else, or by anyone else in our society ' (Gelles and Cornell, 1990: 11). The Home office (1992) reported that domestic violence accounted for between 42 -49% of all female homicides in the UK.Survey data compiled by the United Nations Statistical Office (2000) disclosed that in the U.S, 28% of women had been physically attacked by an intimate partner in the last year, whilst 25% of women in ...

An Interactional Perspective of Intimate Partner Violence: An In-depth Semi-structured Interview of a Representative Sample of Help-seeking Women

“…A majority of international IPV studies focuses exclusively on violence against female victims. The main argument is that women suffer more severe consequences and seek help more frequently than male IPV victims (Archer 2000;Campbell 2004;Dixon and Browne 2003;Frye et al 2006). A nationwide survey on domestic violence in Norway found that 10% of the women and 2% of the men had experienced severe IPV (Haaland et al 2005).…”

Beyond Typologies: Foregrounding Meaning and Motive in Domestic Violence Perpetration

“…They tend to have quite conservative attitudes toward women, although this may make them appear similar to jealous Dysphoric-Borderline men. Consistent with the work of Johnson (2006) and Kelly and Johnson (2008), Holtzworth-Munroe and Meehan (2004) show that the violence of "Family Only" batterers tends to be less intentionally controlling and more contextually driven than that of domestic violence perpetrators with antisocial or borderline personality disorders; a finding UK researchers have also replicated (Dixon and Browne 2003). Meanwhile, Stuart et al (2006) provide some support for Kelly and Johnson's claims about the way in which Violent Resistance emerges as a response to Coercive Control.…”

Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

“…While typologies of violent men provide useful information for professionals working with male perpetrators, researchers have suggested that such typologies provide a narrow focus as they do not consider other important factors that may contribute to the cause and maintenance of IPV, such as the family context and the role that both partners play in the intimate relationship (e.g., Dixon & Browne, 2003). Indeed, it has been stipulated that aggression in the family is a product of the person -environment interaction (Frude, 1991) and therefore a dyadic approach to understanding IPV seems useful.…”