Treating Perpetrators of Domestic Violence: Gender Differences in the Applicability of the Theory of Planned Behavior

Abstract

Female perpetrated intimate partner violence has commonly been treated, both legally and clinically, similarly to male perpetrated violence. However, there is little empirical research of the gender differences in treatment needs or the applicability of classic models of batterer intervention for women. This study examines the applicability of one theory that has commonly been used to guide treatment of male perpetrators, the theory of planned behavior. R. M. Tolman, J. L. Edleson, and M. Fendrich (1996) found the components of this theory to be moderately predictive of abusive behavior among males. In a survey of 114 male and female participants in batterer intervention counseling in Los Angeles County, the current study confirmed that the model predicted male behaviors but found the model did not apply to female violent behavior.

Are Female Stalkers More Violent Than Male Stalkers? Understanding Gender Differences in Stalking Violence Using Contemporary Sociocultural Beliefs

“…This explanatory framework can account for the findings that male victims may be underrepresented in victim and legallydefined samples because male victims of stalking and stalking violence may experience less fear, be less likely to identify themselves as a victim and more reluctant to report the behaviour to the police. Although much of the aforementioned research was conducted in the USA (see Archer 2000;Fontes 2007;Kernsmith 2005), evidence of similar sociocultural beliefs have been documented in Australian studies of domestic violence (e.g., Dennison and Thompson, forthcoming;Indermaur 2001) and stalking (Dennison 2007).…”

“…Accordingly, violence perpetrated by males against females is viewed to be unacceptable and potentially more damaging than violence perpetrated by females against males (Archer 2000;Williams and Frieze 2005a). However, violence perpetrated by females against males may be trivialised and deemed more acceptable than the reverse (see Archer 2000;Fontes 2007;Kernsmith 2005). To illustrate, a female university student commented "even if I hit him [i.e., her intimate partner] my hardest there is no way I could hurt him" (Miller and Simpson 1991, p. 352, US students).…”

“…Consequently male victims of female violence may be expected to exhibit greater physical and emotional strength than female victims (Fontes 2007). It is likely that these beliefs are associated with expected gender differences in the impact of violence, whereby females are perceived to be more vulnerable and males are perceived to be stronger and more capable of defending themselves (Fontes 2007;Kernsmith 2005;Miller and Simpson 1991). Consistent with this, research suggests that community members and university students view male stalking victims and domestic violence victims as more capable of defending themselves (Cass 2007, US students; Dennison and Thompson, forthcoming, Australian community members; Sheridan et al 2003, UK students) and female stalking victims and domestic violence victims having a greater need for police assistance (Cass 2007, US students; Dennison and Thompson, forthcoming, Australian community members; Phillips et al 2004, US students;Sheridan et al 2003, UK students).…”

Understanding Gender and Intimate Partner Abuse

“…Gormley (2005) argues that adult attachment theory explains why severe IPV may be more often perpetrated by men than women, including (a) intimate terrorism, (b) acts that cause injury, and/or (c) acts involving intentions to gain power and control. Kernsmith (2005) examines the adequacy of another explanatory model, planned behavior theory, in predicting women's aggression. According to Kernsmith (2005), components of the planned behavior model (e.g.…”

“…Kernsmith (2005) examines the adequacy of another explanatory model, planned behavior theory, in predicting women's aggression. According to Kernsmith (2005), components of the planned behavior model (e.g. attitude toward violence, normative beliefs about the acceptability of violence, and perceived behavioral control) have been crucial building blocks in prevention and treatment of IPV.…”