What Differentiates Batterer Men with and without Histories of Childhood Family Violence?

Abstract

The goals of this study were to explore the prevalence of childhood family violence (CFV) (both suffered and witnessed) among male batterers in treatment, and to analyze the specific psychological profile of those perpetrators with CFV. A sample of 1,421 men recruited from a specialized batterer treatment program was assessed. A description of the sociodemographic, violence, and psychopathological characteristics of the sample was carried out. Moreover, a comparison of all the variables studied between batterer men with and those without CFV was conducted. The results showed that 35.2% ( n = 500) of the sample reported having been victims of CFV (67.2% of them directly suffered abuse, and 32.8% witnessed violence between their parents, mainly from father to mother). Batterers with CFV presented with more irrational beliefs both about women and about violence as a strategy to cope with everyday difficulties. Moreover, they had significantly higher scores than batterers without CFV on all psychopathological symptoms as assessed by the SCL-90-R, as well as on most of the STAXI-2 subscales. In the logistic regression analysis, the main variables related to having a history of CFV were low education level, voluntary access to the program, having a previous psychiatric history, being an immigrant, having children, and presenting a greater number of psychopathological symptoms. According to these results, batterers with CFV showed a higher severity in most of the variables studied than those without CFV. Consequently, these findings highlight the importance of tailoring batterer treatment programs to their specific characteristics, particularly those regarding childhood victimization.

Is psychological treatment equally effective for intimate partner violence perpetrators with and without childhood family violence?

“…The findings revealed that IPV-P with CFV had more severe psychopathological profiles at the beginning of the treatment, which is consistent with the results of previous studies (Fern andez-Montalvo et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2013;Mbilinyi et al, 2012). At the oneyear follow-up, all participants in the sample scored significantly lower on all psychopathological symptoms, and the rates of success, improvement, and failure did not show significant differences between groups.…”

“…The current research was conducted to assess the differential long-term outcomes of a standard treatment programme for IPV-P with and without CFV. This differential evaluation is needed for two main reasons: First, exposure to childhood trauma and family violence are robust risk factors for the development of IPV and psychopathological disorders (Elklit, Murphy, Jacobsen, & Jensen, 2018;Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001); and second, IPV-P with CFV present with more severe psychopathological symptoms when they attend treatment programmes (Fern andez-Montalvo et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2013;Mbilinyi et al, 2012). The principal hypothesis of the study was not supported because no statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of treatment failure, improvement, or success.…”

“…Childhood family violence among IPV-P has been associated with long-term consequences, such as mental health problems, developmental delays in cognitive, behavioural and emotional processing and regulation, ineffective social processing, poor selfregulation, greater acceptability and normalization of violence, a tendency towards aggression, and attachment problems (Lila et al, 2019;Ruddle et al, 2017;Swopes, Simonet, Jaffe, Tett, & Davis, 2013). Moreover, previous studies have demonstrated that IPV-P reporting CFV have a more severe profile and more associated psychopathological symptoms than those who have not been exposed to family violence (Fern andez-Montalvo et al, 2020;Wareham et al, 2009). Thus, treatments should consider CFV in terms of recidivism prevention.…”

Differential MCMI‐III psychopathological profiles between intimate partner violence perpetrators with and without childhood family violence

“…Even though not all the IPV perpetrators present with a psychopathological diagnosis (Craig, 2003; Weber & Bouman, 2020) and there is no causal link between psychopathology and the perpetration of violence, there are some PD that are commonly present in this population (Craig, 2003; Novo, Farina, Seijo, & Arce, 2012). Additionally, a history of childhood family violence (CFV) plays a significant role in the perpetration of IPV (Afifi, Mota, Sareen, & MacMillan, 2017; Davis et al, 2018; Hilton, Ham, & Green, 2019) and in the development of further psychopathology (Afifi et al, 2011; Anda et al, 2006; Fernández‐Montalvo et al, 2020; Marackova et al, 2016). Some studies have identified that PD traits mediate the consequences of CFV on the perpetration of IPV (Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006; Liu, Zhang, Brady, Cao, & He, 2012; Murphy, Meyer, & O'Leary, 1993).…”

“…Previous research has shown the relevance of the presence of CFV amongst male perpetrators of IPV. The exposure to family violence during childhood has been associated with a more severe psychopathological profile and a higher rate of psychiatric history (Afifi et al, 2017; Davis et al, 2018; Fernández‐Montalvo et al, 2020; Lee, Walters, Hall, & Basile, 2013; Liu et al, 2012). This study is an attempt to further examine the importance of the psychopathological consequences of CFV and its link to the development of IPV perpetration.…”