Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) continues to be social problem in the United States. Unfortunately, legislation aimed at solving the problem has been based on models of IPV that are not empirically supported. One example is "psychoeducational" intervention models legislated by the courts in many states. These models eschew psychological treatment even of empirically established factors supporting habits of intimate abusiveness. They have, in effect, removed a psychology of abusiveness from intervention and replaced it with a gender political model. In contrast to this model, research from several longitudinal peer cohort studies shows that a propensity for IPV is predictable in both genders during adolescence. Yet treatment or prevention of psychological risk factors is either neglected or negatively legislated. This paper reviews the prevailing criminal justice intervention model, provides examples of how the paradigm supporting this model distorts interpretation of research and compares this flawed research with methodologically superior studies suggesting a different and potentially more effective approach.

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…• Generally violent versus family-only (Cantos, Goldstein, Brenner, O'Leary, & Verborg, 2015) • Borderline personality characteristics (generalized affect regulation problems) (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994) • Attachment difficulties (relationship specific affect regulation problems; Dutton & Corvo, 2006) • Impulse/anger control difficulties (Gondolf, 2000) • Power and control motivation • History of substantial head injury (Farrer, Frost, & Hedges, 2012;Howard, 2012) Step 3. Determine presence of alcohol or substance abuse, and if present, refer to treatment prior to proceeding with IPV treatment.…”

Supplemental mental health treatment for batterer program participants

“…Conflicts in orientation and emphasis still beset the field, but these may represent more the extremes rather than the emerging convergence (see for example, Dutton & Corvo, 2006). The experience and observations of this researcher are that the differences are historically rooted.…”

“…If not an extension of psychopathology, it is at least substantially reinforced by it (see O'Leary, 1993;Dutton & Corvo, 2006). Individual psychopathology may, in fact, be the main reason that some men, living in similar social environments, are assaultive and others are not.…”

“…The inference of some researchers and clinicians is, therefore, that we can expect a high prevalence of mental health disorders among clinical samples of domestic violence perpetrators (e.g., Dutton & Corvo, 2006). As early as 1986, Bland and Orn (1986) assessed a random sample of an adult urban population (n=1200) using the Diagnostic and Statistical Interview Schedule and found that those with one of three major diagnostic categories (i.e., antisocial personality, major depression, alcohol dependence) were twice as like to have abused a family or nonfamily member in the previous year than those adults without a diagnosis.…”

“…The lead chapter of the book Current Controversies on Family Violence (O'Leary, 1993) outlines this controversy and concludes that psychopathology is often a compounding or reinforcing factor in a batterer's violence that warrants specific treatment. Moreover, a recent journal article accentuates the controversy with its severe criticism of conventional batterer programs' failure to adequately consider the psychological problems associated with violence (Dutton & Corvo, 2006). There is at least some preliminary research suggesting that mental health disorders are associated with re-assault and more severe abuse by batterer program participants, as the Controversies chapter argues.…”