The most prevalent form of intimate partner abuse is not the physical type, but rather psychological abuse which can itself be differentiated into various subtypes. These include what is known as expressive abuse, consisting of verbal put-downs and various other behaviors intended to diminish the self-esteem of one's partner; and instrumental abuse, which consists broadly of attempts to directly control the partner through jealousy-driven monitoring and surveillance behaviors, threats, and assorted other coercive behaviors such as economic abuse, manipulation of the legal system, and using children. While physical abuse may lead to corporal injuries and psychological trauma, sometimes leading to death, victims generally cite the insidious and long-lasting impact of chronic psychological abuse victimization. However, psychological abuse is mostly measured in terms of the perpetrator's actions, and when its impact has been investigated the focus has been on global mental health symptoms. In this study, the authors report on an internet-based survey of psychological abuse, as measured by the Controlling and Abusive Tactics Questionnaire, and impact of those actions on the partner's daily functioning.

Abstract The chapters presented in this text offer insight and suggested reforms designed to ensure victim safety while balancing the rights of criminal defendants and the family unit. This afterword reviews recently suggested reform recommendations based on empirical literature and domestic violence organizations presently working to advance domestic violence policy and procedure. As this book has demonstrated, the gender paradigm can often lead to injustice in the criminal justice system. We review ideas for reform initiatives in arrest and prosecution, education, and intervention. States are encouraged to utilize evidence-based approaches and revise their current policies and standards to ensure equal protection for all victims while holding abusers accountable. Helpful resources are provided that can be used to develop more effective and inclusive domestic violence policy and procedures.

Although intimate partner violence (IPV), also known as domestic violence, is a set of heterogeneous phenomena, with various causes, dynamics, and consequences, some forms of IPV, known as battering or coercive-controlling violence, can have a profound physical and psychological impact on victims. At the extreme end of these phenomena is intimate partner homicide (IPH), a crime that has been poorly understood and politicized. Attorneys, judges, and juries are asked to adjudicate a crime committed among intimate partners, a context that challenges traditional forms of jurisprudence and invites confusion and politicization. This review examines the causal and motivational factors for IPH in light of the scholarly research literature. It provides a critique of the battered person syndrome, routinely invoked by defense attorneys, particularly in cases involving female suspects. The role of perpetrator sex and gender is also examined.

Children have been found to be adversely affected from not only having experienced physical abuse and neglect directly at the hands of their caregivers but also from having witnessed abuse between those caregivers, known as intimate partner violence (IPV). Because existing statutes limit child custody access to parents who have been shown to have engaged in such behavior, accusations are routinely brought forth by attorneys in family court cases on behalf of litigating parents. In this chapter, an overview is presented of the research evidence on IPV and its impact on the well-being of children. It is argued that accusations of IPV, while often valid, are too often false, exaggerated, or based on a misunderstanding of the extant scholarly research literature. Assessment procedures are suggested by which custody evaluators can make more informed decisions, so that children are protected from abuse and parental rights are not unnecessarily abridged.

Based on the emerging literature being developed in Motivational Interviewing that suggests certain group process factors and facilitator attributes predict treatment outcomes, this study sought to investigate the relationship between both client and facilitator ratings of the batterer intervention group experience. This study presents data from 16 group facilitators drawn from five agencies and 175 clients being served by these facilitators. The data gathered included both facilitator ratings of clients (i.e., Group Engagement Measure-GEM) and client ratings of facilitators and the group experience (i.e., Client Rating of Facilitator-CRF, Client Perceived Benefits of Group-CPBG). Results indicate that facilitators rated clients as being engaged in the group process across all the domains assessed by the GEM and that clients viewed the facilitators and group experiences favorably as assessed by the CRF and CPBG. There was no significant correlation between the GEM and CRF or the GEM and CPBG, but there was a strong, positive correlation between the CRF and CPBG. The results here support previous research findings suggesting a strong correlation between client engagement in the therapeutic process, based on their perception of the facilitator, and their perceived benefits of the group experience. Implications of the findings for improving empirical investigations of the batterer intervention group experience were explored and discussed.

Though usually framed in the context of ideological and political processes, the failure of domestic violence perpetrator programs to embrace research-supported practice may also be influenced by a widespread unwillingness to use public funds for that purpose. This policy analysis examines the links among federal policy, state implementation, organizational structure, and funding sources of perpetrator service-providing organizations. Those links reveal reciprocal relationships among conservative and ostensibly feminist views of domestic violence within an implied policy framework justifying public underfunding of perpetrator treatment programs. Placed within the current hyper-politicized context of US Federal governance and policy, this analysis identifies advancements in perpetrator treatment in several state governments as harbingers of potential movement toward research-supported practice.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide a review of research on the merits of public policy and law enforcement responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA using prevalence rates and dynamics of IPV. Design/methodology/approach A reading of recent comprehensive literature reviews was supplemented by a PsychInfo search of relevant articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings Laws against IPV in the USA have been enforced much more vigorously in comparison with most of the world, many of which have no such laws at all. While more perpetrators have been held accountable for their actions – increasing the safety of victims – many perpetrators are never brought to justice, and “mandatory arrest” laws sometimes result in arrests being made with a scant evidence of wrongdoing. This state of affairs can be traced two key factors. First, the persistence of the gender paradigm – an outdated and discredited set of assumptions about the role of gender in IPV – as formulated by battered women’s advocates, which has informed IPV public policy for several decades. Second, the complex nature of IPV, a phenomenon that mostly happens behind closed doors, varies widely in frequency, intensity, mutuality and impact on victims, and it cannot easily be framed in binary victim/perpetrator terms. Practical implications The arrest and prosecution of possibly innocent individuals is in violation of due process and mitigates against our common efforts to reduce IPV in our communities. Originality/value A compact summary of the relevant IPV policy literature is presented with a focus on an under-studied topic, i.e. the problems inherent in the categorization of individuals as either victims or perpetrators and the failure to recognize the inherently complex nature of IPV.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is regarded by key stakeholders involved in shaping arrest and intervention policies as a gendered problem. The prevailing assumptions guiding these policies, centered on patriarchal social structures and men's motivation to dominate their female partners, have collectively been called the gender paradigm. When states started to enact laws against domestic violence in the late 1970s, it was due to the efforts of battered women and their allies, including second wave feminists fighting for the political, social, and economic advancement of women. The focus was on life-threatening forms of abuse in which women represented, and continue to represent, the much larger share of victims. Since then, IPV has been found to be a more complex problem than originally framed, perpetrated by women as well as men, driven by an assortment of motives, and associated with distal and proximate risk factors that have little to do with gender. Nonetheless, the gender paradigm persists, with public policy lagging behind the empirical evidence. The author suggests some reasons why this is so, among them the much higher rates of violent crimes committed by men, media influence and cognitive biases, political factors, and perpetuation of the very sex-role stereotypes that feminists have sought to extinguish in every other social domain. He then critically reviews two theories used in support of the paradigm, sexual selection theory and social role theory, and explores how empirically driven policies would more effectively lower IPV rates in our communities, while advancing core feminist principles.

A debate persists regarding the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs (BIPs), the predominant form of intervention for individuals who have perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV). Social science research has identified some promising research trends-for example, the effectiveness of motivational interviewing and process factors that maintain an effective therapist-client alliance, what clients say facilitators can do to keep them engaged and motivated, and, for certain low-risk populations, the viability of couples counseling. Unfortunately, most frontline treatment providers lack access to much of this research, which appears primarily in peer-reviewed journals. A previous national survey of BIPs reported that, on the whole, BIP group facilitators have ample clinical experience, but are poorly informed about IPV risk factors and dynamics; and while they report substantial training, the nature of that training, and the extent to which the training accurately reflects current research, remains unknown. BIPs, and most treatment providers, including licensed mental health professionals, depend on organizations who too often lack reliable, up-to-date information about domestic violence. The Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Providers (ADVIP) was created by the first author to provide a platform where researchers and providers could cooperate by exchanging information and resources. This article reports on findings from a larger follow-up to the 2016 survey, that sought to elicit views on how to increase cooperation between domestic violence scholars and treatment providers and advance evidence-based practice, and to gauge the role of ADVIP in this effort.

PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to understand the importance of research-supported practice for batterer intervention programs.METHODSThis study applied descriptive statistics and chi-square analyses to a novel dataset from the Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment Survey (N = 411). This was a 69-item survey developed by domestic violence providers and researchers to understand the role of research-supported practice in the treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV).RESULTSThis study found statistically significant differences between Duluth oriented programs and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) oriented programs with respect to the importance of research-supported practices and motivational interviewing, a strategy found effective in treatment of IPV by extant research.DISCUSSIONThere appears to have been an evolution among practitioners toward more eclecticism, and an acknowledgment that programs should be research-supported.CONCLUSIONImplications of this study for education and treatment are discussed.

In this chapter, the author focuses on partner abuse in disputed child custody cases, to capture his research that commented on how parents are motivated to minimise, distort, and lie in order to maintain custody of their children. The version of the group intervention programme for perpetrators, Alternative Behavior Choices, can be found in Hamel, and reflects findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project literature reviews, including the review of risk factor research by D. M. Capaldi, N. B. Knoble, J. W. Shortt, and H. K. Kim, as well as research conducted with colleagues on evidence-based perpetrator programme standards. The impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) on children is well-known, but alienation is a form of emotional child abuse, with serious lifetime consequences. Some allege IPV or child abuse by the other parent; others, who have minimal visitation rights, charge that the parent with primary custody has been deliberately trying to alienate that child.

We conducted a survey-based study looking at the associations among attachment insecurities (anxiety and avoidance), relationship functioning, and psychological domestic violence. We looked at three relationship functioning variables (i.e., anger management, communication, and conflict resolution) and three domestic psychological violence variables (i.e., derogation and control, jealous-hypervigilance, and threats-control of space). Data were collected from 76 male and 21 female court-mandated batterers. Participants completed the self-report measures of attachment insecurities, relationship functioning, and psychological domestic violence-related variables. Overall, attachment insecurities were negatively associated with relationship functioning and positively associated with psychological domestic violence outcomes. Among the whole sample, attachment anxiety correlated positively with derogation and control and with jealous-hypervigilance. There were also differential attachment associations by gender. Attachment anxiety correlated positively with threats of controlling space only among men, and with derogation and control and jealous-hypervigilance only among women. Finally, avoidance correlated negatively with communication only among women. Overall, this pattern of results is consistent with predictions derived from attachment theory: attachment insecurities are associated with poor relationship functioning and high rates of domestic violence.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV) and, based upon the author’s experience as an expert witness, 25 years of clinical experience working with IPV perpetrators and victims, and a review of the relevant scholarly literature, provide judges, attorneys, mental health professionals and expert court witness suggestions for the adjudication of cases involving IPV in homicide and other cases.Design/methodology/approachThe author reviewed the extant general domestic violence research literature, depending largely on results from findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a series of 17 literature review published in five issues of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Ause. Other relevant research articles were found via a search of the PschInfo database, using the keywords “intimate partner homicides,” “domestic violence homicides,” “intimate partner homicides and gender” and “domestic violence homicides and gender.”FindingsThe judicial response to IPV perpetration has been limited by common misconceptions, among them the confusion between most forms of IPV, which are primarily bi-directional and less consequential and battering, which involves more serious assaults and is typically motivated out of a desire to dominate and control one’s partner. Another misconception is that women are much more likely than men to perpetrate IPV in self-defense or to express emotion. On the other hand, there is no question that female victims are much more likely to experience severe physical injuries, and that women account for approximately three-quarters of homicide victims.Practical implicationsThese include the following: this concise review of IPV research provides a clearer understanding of IPV, useful for anyone working in the field. Mental health professionals working with IPV perpetrators, as well as victims, can draw from this research best practice suggestions in working with more problematic cases. The paper should be especially useful to anyone involved in the adjudication of IPV cases, including lethal cases. In particular, prosecutors and attorneys working for the defense are given suggestions on how to obtain more reliable research data, choose more fruitful questions for their clients, and better conceptualize a case overall.Originality/valueThis paper presents a more nuanced and evidence-based conceptualization of serious and lethal IPV, drawing on a broad research base not generally available to members of the legal profession.

For several decades, domestic violence, otherwise known as Partner Abuse (PA) has been recognised as a major public health issue in the United States, and more recently in Europe and the rest of the world. This chapter addresses issues of relevance to treatment, and in doing so presents an evidence-based model of treatment, based on the latest social science research and the author's 25 years of clinical experience. In the United States, perpetrator treatment guidelines and standards for court-ordered offenders are set by the various states, based not on the body of empirical social science research but rather on recommendations from battered women's advocates, and steeped in sociopolitical theories of gender roles and patriarchy. Court-mandated rehabilitation programmes for perpetrators, a major component of this response, have been only marginally effective in reducing recidivism rates, largely due to the politicisation of the issue.

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of gender and other variables commonly associated with intimate partner abuse perpetration on program completion and pretreatment abusiveness profiles among a sample of men and women ordered into a 52-week batterer intervention program (BIP).Method: The study employed a posttest only design with nonequivalent groups (comparing program completers to dropouts and men to women) in an analysis of 175 clients mandated into a BIP.Results: Analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between men and women in terms of program completion and that women were significantly more likely than men to report engaging in severe physical abuse perpetration, and a logistic regression analysis indicated that dropouts were 6 times more likely to have initiated physical abuse compared to completers.Conclusion: These findings reveal characteristics of BIP program participants as they relate to self-reported abusiveness and provide preliminary evidence suggesting that both BIP pretreatment profiles and treatment completion rates of men and women are similar, with implications for policy and treatment.

A 15-page questionnaire, the North American Domestic Violence Intervention Program Survey, was sent to directors of 3,246 domestic violence perpetrator programs (also known as batterer intervention programs, or BIPs) in the United States and Canada. Respondent contact information was obtained from state Coalitions Against Domestic Violence and from various government agencies (e.g., Attorney General) available on the Internet. Two hundred thirty-eight programs completed and returned the questionnaire, a response rate of 20%. The survey yielded descriptive data on respondent characteristics; program philosophy, structure, content, and service; client characteristics; treatment approach and adjunct services; and group facilitator views on intervention approaches and domestic violence policy and treatment standards. The programs varied in the extent to which they adhere to treatment approaches suggested by the empirical research literature. In addition, chi-square analyses were conducted on the associations between several factors. Significant correlations were found between respondent low level of education and adherence to a feminist-gendered program philosophy; respondent low level of education and use of a shorter assessment protocol; feminist-gendered program philosophy and incorrect facilitator knowledge about domestic violence; and feminist-gendered program philosophy and a program focus on power and control as the primary cause of domestic violence.