The Impact of Perpetrator Characteristics on the Completion of a Partner Abuse Intervention Program

Abstract

This study examined how type of perpetrator (family only [FO] vs. generally violent [GV]), readiness to change, and stake in conformity function separately and together in predicting completion of a partner abuse intervention program (PAIP). Data were collected from 192 male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) who were court mandated to attend a PAIP. Participants were categorized as FO violent or GV based on a combination of their self-report and official records of violence. Stake in conformity has been defined as the degree to which an individual is invested in the values and institutions of a society. A composite stake in conformity score was computed for each participant based on his education level, and marital and employment status. Each participant was also assigned a stage of change score based on his responses on a validated measure of stage of change for domestic violence perpetrators. Analyses indicated that stage of change was not related to program completion or attendance. Type of perpetrator and stake in conformity composite score were significantly related to program completion. Perpetrators with higher stake in conformity scores and individuals categorized as FO attended more PAIP sessions and were more likely to complete the program. When both predictors were examined together, only stake in conformity composite score uniquely predicted program attendance and completion. These findings provide additional evidence that subtype of IPV perpetrator has implications for treatment responsiveness and provide preliminary evidence for the value of improved measurement of investment in societal institutions.

Characteristics and recidivism in relation to arrest: differentiating between partner violent perpetrator subtypes

“…The GV subtype has also been described in previous studies as having a lower stake in conformity (e.g. Cantos et al, 2015;Goldstein et al, 2016;Mach et al, 2017). From a theoretical perspective, these perpetrators do not risk losing their employment, social status or social position to the same extent as the PO violent perpetrators, as the GV perpetrators often already lack these features.…”

“…Coupled with findings that the PO violent subtype has a higher stake in conformity, in terms of employment rates, education levels and is more likely to be married to their partner (e.g. Cantos et al, 2015;Goldstein et al, 2016;Mach, Cantos, Weber, & Kosson, 2017), arrest may have a deterrent effect on recidivism for this subtype. For the PO violent perpetrator, an arrest could entail losing his employment, relationship, and his social status and position.…”

“…For example, some studies have demonstrated that PO violent perpetrators are more likely to attend and complete treatment (e.g. Huss & Ralston, 2008;Mach et al, 2017). As such, referring such perpetrators to treatment following their release from arrest could have favourable results in reducing IPV recidivism.…”

Concept Mapping: Engaging Urban Men to Understand Community Influences on Partner Violence Perpetration

“…Furthermore, specific community attributes that contribute to male perpetration of IPV are not widely present in the literature perhaps due to challenges in recruiting this population for research [41]. To date, many of the research studies conducted among male IPV perpetrators have been grounded in the clinical psychology and criminology disciples and have focused on factors such as mental health and recidivism [42][43][44][45]. The current study is unique in that it explores community-based influences of male IPV perpetration.…”

Exploring Typology Categorizations of Male Perpetrators: A Methodology Study

“…The results reveal a very high true concordance of the inter-rater ratings, = .95, and inter-rater reliability, = .60. In addition, one of the raters was reliable in the ratings for a different study, inter-context reliability (Mach, Cantos, Weber, & Kosson, 2017). The results of the true concordance are interpreted as high (> .61 < .81), very high (≥ .81), and weak (< .60).…”