Working with Male Batterers: A Restorative-Strengths Perspective

Wormer, Katherine van; Bednar, Susan G.

doi:10.1606/1044-3894.66

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bell (2003) suggested that this perspective could prevent secondary trauma among victims of family violence. Lee, Uken and Sebold (2004) and Wormer and Bednar (2002) also showed that the strengths perspective had positive effects on domestic violence offenders in terms of selfesteem, interaction skills and recidivism of partner abuse. These results suggest that the strengths perspective could be an effective treatment approach yet no study in either Taiwan or the West has tested its applicability and effects on the victims of partner abuse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Recovery from partner abuse: the application of the strengths perspective

Song

Shih

2009

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study applied, and examined the effectiveness of, the strengths perspective on women who experienced partner abuse in Taiwan. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were utilised. The findings from quantitative analysis show that the subjects experienced a significant decrease in depression, were positively empowered and had better life satisfaction. The results of the qualitative analysis further denote the functional components of recovery as the growth of sense of self, affirmation and action, or realisation of self. These results suggest that the strengths perspective could be a useful approach for case managers working with this population in helping the women to rediscover their own sense of self and reconstruct a productive life.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Recovery from partner abuse: the application of the strengths perspective

Song

Shih

2009

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been extremely influential in clinical intervention, leading to the widespread adoption of batterer intervention programs that are strongly rooted in feminist ideology and that focus on intimate partner violence as a pattern of coercive control and male domination of women (Young, Cook, Smith, Turteltaub, & Hazelwood, 2007). An example of such a program is the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (Duluth Model), established in Duluth, Minnesota in 1980, which has long served as a model for batterer intervention programs across the nation (Van Wormer & Bednar, 2002). In fact, obtaining state ''certification'' to provide batterer intervention programs are often contingent upon certification standards derived from the Duluth Model.…”

Section: Theories Of Intimate Partner Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Continuum of Conflict and Control: A Conceptualization of Intimate Partner Violence Typologies

Carlson

Jones

2010

The Family Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typologies of intimate partner violence were developed to describe the heterogeneity of abusive men. They contrast with the traditional feminist ideology of abuser etiology that holds all violence is the result of power and control. Over the past 15 years, a large body of knowledge about typologies has amassed, mostly in sociology journals. Thus, very little typology research has been published in counseling journals. This article synthesizes empirically based typological research and introduces the continuum of conflict and control-a conceptual training model to help couples counselors understand the differences among violence within relationships.

show abstract

“…Thus, feminist theorists postulate that relationship violence is homogeneous, stems from a batterer’s need to exert power and control over a victim, and largely occurs in male on female violence incidents. Many state-supported batterer intervention programs (BIPs) today developed from the feminist perspective and incorporated treatment models utilizing the Duluth Model (Van Wormer & Bednar, 2002). The Duluth Model utilizes the Power and Control Wheel as a visual depiction to help victims and batterers understand how controlling behaviors manifest in relationships.…”

Section: An Overview Of Ipv Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Protocol Readiness Model

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread, pervasive issue that affects heterosexual and same-sex relationships. However, IPV is largely underreported, and many counselors do not formally assess for relationship violence. Additionally, counselors typically do not have a plan to manage disclosures of violence when they occur. We present an IPV Protocol Readiness Model that helps counselors determine their readiness to assess for IPV as well as manage disclosures. Additionally, we present a questionnaire intended to provide guidance for counselors regarding organizational and community factors important to the success of an IPV protocol. Finally, we discuss practical applications and suggestions for further research.Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a widespread social, economic, and health-related issue that carries significant negative consequences (Eastman, Bunch, Williams, & Carawan, 2007;Wallace, 2002). Domestic violence (DV), typically defined as a pattern of behaviors used by one partner to establish and maintain power and control over the other, includes physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by a current or former partner (including common-law husbands/wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, lovers, and dating partners) in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012;Walker, 1989). More recently, IPV emerged as a term to describe variances in types of relationship violence. IPV encompasses the traditional power and control violence described by the term DV but also includes relationship violence that does not stem from one partner's attempt to control his or her partner. Although literature discusses the terms DV and IPV interchangeably, we view IPV to be a more inclusive term that reflects current trends in relationship status and the heterogeneity of violence; therefore, we will use IPV for the remainder of the article.The National Violence Against Women Survey conducted a large-scale randomized study on IPV prevalence and health outcomes; results indicated that 28.9% of 6,790 women sampled experienced physical or psychological violence within an intimate relationship during their lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Additionally, results found significant positive correlations between experiencing physical/psychological IPV and deteriorated physical health, substance abuse, and chronic mental illness, illustrating the large-scale impact of IPV. It is important to note that although statistics on the prevalence of IPV indicate that nearly 30% of women experience IPV, actual prevalence is considered to be significantly greater, given the tendency for victims to withhold disclosure of violent incidents due to fear and safety concerns.The majority of research conducted on prevalence of IPV included heterosexual couples; however, previous researchers (e.g., Balsam & Szymanski, 2005;Eaton et al., 2008;Turrell, 2000) indicated that IPV for couples in same-sex relationships exists at similar or increased rates when compared to heterosexual relationsh...

show abstract

Working with Male Batterers: A Restorative-Strengths Perspective

Cited by 19 publications

References 19 publications

Recovery from partner abuse: the application of the strengths perspective

Recovery from partner abuse: the application of the strengths perspective

Continuum of Conflict and Control: A Conceptualization of Intimate Partner Violence Typologies

An Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Protocol Readiness Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About