Types of Domestic Violence
Implications for Policy
Michael P. Johnson, Ph.D.
Sociology, Women's Studies, and
African & African American Studies
Penn State
Photos from Donna Ferrato, Living with
the Enemy. New York: Aperture, 1991
Catholic Family Services
of Peel Dufferin
June 3, 2010
McKeesport, PA
Types of Domestic Violence
Implications for Policy
 Screening
 Primary
prevention/education
 Intervention
with perpetrators
 Intervention
for survivors
 Law
enforcement
 Custody
and access issues
Intimate Terrorism
Coercive Control
Violent Resistance
Resisting the Intimate Terrorist
Situational Couple Violence
Situationally-provoked Violence
Separation-instigated Violence
No History of Violence or Control
Mutual Violent Control
Two Intimate Terrorists
Screening
 Consider
different models for different clients
 To screen, you need information on control
and violence for both partners
 Safety first!
 Initially
assume intimate terrorism and do all
of the standard safety planning
 If SCV seems likely, try single-gender
application of non-control-focused
approaches
 As SCV and safety feel more certain over
time, move to couple approaches with
protections in place
Coercive Control Scale
Thinking about your husband [yourself], would you say he [you]…
 is jealous or possessive?
 tries to provoke arguments?
 tries to limit your contact with family and friends?
 insists on knowing who you are with at all times?
 calls you names or puts you down in front of others?
 makes you feel inadequate?
 shouts or swears at you?
 frightens you?
 prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family
income even when you ask?
*These are items from the 1995 National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). They were
adapted from the Canadian Violence Against Women Survey (Holly Johnson, 1996) and should be asked
regarding both partner and self (adapted as appropriate).
Danger Assessment
1. Has the physical violence increased in severity or frequency over the past year?
2. Does he own a gun? 3. Have you left him after living together during the past year?
4. Is he unemployed?
5. Has he ever used a weapon against you or threatened you with a lethal weapon?
6. Does he threaten to kill you? 7. Has he avoided being arrested for domestic violence?
8. Do you have a child that is not his?
9. Has he ever forced you to have sex when you did not wish to do so?
10. Does he ever try to choke you? 11. Does he use illegal drugs?
12. Is he an alcoholic or problem drinker?
13. Does he control most or all of your daily activities?
14. Is he violently and constantly jealous of you?
15. Have you ever been beaten by him while you were pregnant?
16. Has he ever threatened or tried to commit suicide?
17. Does he threaten to harm your children?
18. Do you believe he is capable of killing you?
19. Does he follow or spy on you, leave threatening notes or messages, destroy your property,
or call you when you don’t want him to?
20. Have you ever threatened or tried to commit suicide?
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a
lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 24(4), 653-674.
DOVE Scale
Ellis, D., & Stuckless, N. (2006). Domestic violence, DOVE, and divorce mediation. Family Court Review.
Special Issue: The Family Law Education Reform Project, 44(4), 658-671.
Primary Prevention/Education
 Intimate
terrorism
 Equality
 Violent
and respect
resistance
 Dangers
of violent resistance
 Safety planning
 Entrapment/escape issues
 Situational
 Sources
couple violence
of conflict
 Communication and conflict management
 Anger management tactics
 Substance abuse
Primary Prevention/Education
 Programs
for young people—most offered
through shelters and women’s groups
 Middle

school and high school
http://new.vawnet.org/category/Documents.php?docid=849&category_id=10
 Programs
for adults—most offered by
churches, government-funded programs,
and public health agencies
 Marriage

http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/overview_prep.pdf
Healthy

marriage/relationship programs
http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/
Public

preparation courses
health approaches
http://new.vawnet.org/category/Documents.php?docid=1313&category_id=10
Intervention with Perpetrators
 Intimate
terrorism (mostly men)
 Individual
control-focused education
 Perhaps different tactics for sub-types
 Violent
resistance (mostly women)
 Alternatives
to violence/Safety planning
 Neutralize entrapment
 Situational
 Anger
couple violence (both genders)
management individual counseling
 Substance abuse individual counseling
 Couple sources of conflict
 Couple communication and conflict management
Intervention with Perpetrators
Hold them all accountable in the criminal justice system
to provide an essential motivation for change

PAR
 Control-focused
education
 More eclectic than often acknowledged

Couples counseling (screened)
 Couple
communication and conflict management
 Couple approaches that focus specifically on violence

Restorative justice (screened)
 Includes
multiple stakeholders
 Focus on healing

Substance abuse
 Combine
violence counseling with substance abuse
intervention
PAR Success by Type
Outcomes of Duluth-type
Batterer Intervention Program
(Thirteen Months Post-adjudication)
SCV
Dependent
IT
Antisocial
IT
Completed program
77%
38%
9%
No re-arrest
82%
62%
54%
No re-assault
45%
38%
12%
Adapted from Eckhardt, C. I., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Norlander, B., Sibley, A., & Cahill, M. (2008). Readiness to
change, partner violence subtypes, and treatment outcomes among men in treatment for partner assault.
Violence and Victims, 23(4), 446-477.
PAR: A Better Criterion?
Outcomes of Four Duluth-type
Batterer Intervention Programs
No Re-assault
Ever
No Re-assault
in
Previous Year
30 months
55%
80%
48 months
52%
90%
Adapted from pp. 115, 122 of Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and
Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Couples Counseling
 Screening
 Victim preference, violence level, fear
 Continuous monitoring
 Safety monitoring
 Initial screening
 Constant monitoring for violence and fear
 Staging
 Six weeks of gender-specific treatment
Power and control education
 Safety planning, screening

 Twelve
weeks of conjoint treatment
Each session begins with a 15-minute separate gender session
 Flexible—future and goal-oriented, solution focused

Effectiveness of Couples Counseling
(Violent Couples in a Family Counseling Setting)
No re-assault
No
treatment
Individual
couples
Groups of
couples
6 months
33%
67%
75%
Two years
50%
100%
87%
Adapted from Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner
violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal
of Marital & Family Therapy. Special Issue: Implications of Research with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318.
Restorative Justice
Peacemaking or Healing Circles
 Screening
 Only
for situational couple violence
 Only if the victim prefers it
 Safety monitoring
 Initial social compact (no violence, other treatment)
 Continuous screening by facilitators
 Assigned safety monitor
 Circles
 The couple, extended family, and community members
 Focus on acknowledgement, understanding,
responsibility, and healing
 Structured by a facilitator and a “talking piece” that
moves from person to person
Effectiveness of Restorative Justice
Nogales, Arizona Evaluation

Misdemeanor cases only. Partners participate only voluntarily.

Random assignment of 152 domestic violence offenders (intimate
partner and family violence) into PAR or Circles of Peace.

Circles of Peace involved 26 weekly conferences with offenders,
participating victims, extended family members, and trained community
members.
Encourage dialogue about the history of violence in this case and
develop a social compact with the offender.


Circles of Peace participants have lower arrest recidivism two years
post-random assignment than PAR participants.
Linda Mills, personal communication, February 16, 2010
Substance Abuse/Violence Counseling
 Individual
and couples versions
 About six months of weekly sessions
 First half: one-hour sessions with individual
couples
 Second half: two-hour sessions with groups
 Daily sobriety contract, safety planning,
communication and negotiation skills, instigation
of positive couple and family activities
 Antabuse and/or 12-step programs for most
Effectiveness of Couples
Substance Abuse/Violence Counseling
No violence
One year
before
counseling
First year
after
counseling
Second year
after
counseling
Alcoholic men
40%
76%
82%
Female partners
36%
71%
85%
Adapted from O'Farrell, T. J., Murphy, C. M., Stephan, S. H., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2004). Partner
Violence Before and After Couples-Based Alcoholism Treatment for Male Alcoholic Patients: The Role of
Treatment Involvement and Abstinence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(2), 202-217.
Intervention for Survivors
 Intimate
terrorism
 Long-term
support
 Alternatives to violent resistance
 Empowerment to leave (neutralize entrapment)
 Transitional support
 Situational couple violence
 Anger management individual counseling
 Substance abuse individual counseling
 Couple sources of conflict
 Couple communication and conflict
management
Law Enforcement
Moving away from an incident-focused perspective
 The
law
 Coercive
control as a liberty crime (Stark, 2007)
 Coordinated
risk assessment and service
provision
 Arrest
 Collecting
the necessary information
 Bail
 Risk
level and credibility for different types
 Prosecution
 Empowering
the victim and keeping her safe
 Sentencing
 Alternative
sentencing for different types
Coordinated Risk Assessment
 Risk
assessment team (I-TRAC, Alberta)
 Police
members write the threat assessment
 Prosecutor, child protection expert, family law expert,
consulting psychologist and psychiatrist
 Request
for assessment
 Police,
prosecutor, or children and youth
 Others submit through police services
 Information
used
 All
police reports, including Family Violence Investigative
Report and History Evaluation Assessment Tool
 Criminal records, corrections/parole/probation, children
and youth, accused and victim/witness statements
 Submitted
to police, courts, corrections, children/youth
 Assist. Director: john.ratcliff@police.edmonton.ab.ca
Coordinated Service Provision
Family Justice Centers
 Coordinated
victim assistance from police officers,
prosecutors, civil legal service providers, and
community-based advocates
 There are currently 55 centers in the US and three
international Centers, including Waterloo, Canada
www.familyjusticecenter.com/
 www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/family_justice_center_overview_12_07.pdf
 http://www.mosaiconline.ca/wps/portal/cfcc/FVP

 MOSAIC, Waterloo
 Services such as police trained to deal with family violence, personal
counseling for adults and children, assistance with developing safety
plans, shelters, crisis/medical support for sexual assault, financial
counseling, children's services, support groups, outreach services to
the community, legal services, specialized elder abuse services, rural
outreach services and specialized programs - all under one roof.
Custody and Access Issues
(Jaffe et al., 2008)
 Separation-instigated
violence
 Manipulative accusations
 Resources for thorough evaluation
 Custody/access options
 Joint
custody/Co-parenting
 Parallel parenting, minimal couple contact
 Supervised exchanges
 Supervised access
 No contact
Different types of partner violence have…
 Different
causes
 Different developmental trajectories
 Different effects
 Different successful intervention strategies
We make big mistakes if we don’t
make big distinctions.
Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D.
O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269). Washington,
DC American Psychological Association.
Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657.
Hannah, M.T. & Goldstein, B. (2010). Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (Eds.). (2010). Risk assessment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal
justice, offender intervention, and victim services. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence:
Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3), 500-522.
Johnson, M. P. (2008). A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple
Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Strang, H., & Braithwaite, J. (Eds.). (2002). Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary
(Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Support Your Local Women’s Shelter
Safety
Support
Information
Advocacy
Philadelphia, PA
A Few Useful References
Fals-Stewart, W., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Treating intimate partner violence among substance-abusing dyads: The
effect of couples therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 257-263.
Fals-Stewart, W., Klostermann, K., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2009). Substance abuse and intimate partner violence. In K. D.
O'Leary (Ed.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions. (pp. 251-269). Washington,
DC American Psychological Association.
Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 644-657.
Gondolf, E. W. (2008). Implementation of case management for batterer program participants. Violence Against Women,
14(2), 208-225.
Mills, L. G. (2008). Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Stith, S. M., & McCollum, E. E. (2009). Couples treatment for psychological and physical aggression. In K. D. O'Leary
(Ed.), Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions (pp. 233-250). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Stith, S. M., McCollum, e. E., Rosen, K. H., & Locke, L. D. (2002). Multicouple group therapy for domestic violence. In F.
W. Kaslow (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy: Integrative/eclectic (Vol. 4, pp. 499-520). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact
couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy.
Special Issue: Implications of Research with Diverse Families, 30(3), 305-318.
 Pittsburgh,
1978 (Frieze)
Married women from shelters and courts, matched with
married women living on the same block (n=272)
86% White; 14% Black
Data on self and husband, reported by wives
Incident data on most violent incident
 United States, 1995-96 (NVAW, Tjaden & Thoennes)
National random sample; subsample=4967 married women
83% White; 10% Black; 8% Hispanic (all races)
Data on current husbands, reported by wife
Incident data on most recent incident
 Chicago, 1995 (Lloyd)
Random sample of women in a poor neighborhood (n=596)
5% White; 54% Black; 41% Hispanic
Data on male partners, reported by female partner
No incident data
Pittsburgh Control Scale (High>2.74; 40%m; 10%w)
When you and your husband go places together, who decides
where you will go?
 If you disagree [about people you like], which people do the two of
you spend more time with?
 Does your husband know where you are when you are not
together?
 Are there places you might like to go but don’t because you feel
your husband wouldn’t want you to? How often does this
happen?
 Do you generally do what your husband asks you to do?
 Who decides how the family money will be spent in terms of major
expenses?
 [How often} does he try to get what he wants by doing any of the
following?…emotionally withdraws?
 …restricts your freedom?
 …stops having sex with you?
 …threatens to leave you?
 Has your husband ever pressured you to have sexual relations?

Pittsburgh: Other Items
“Has your husband ever gotten angry and threatened to use
physical force with you?” followed by the item that is actually
used: Has he ever actually slapped or pushed you or used other
physical force with you?
 Can you estimate how many times, in total, he was violent with
you?
 Did he become more violent over time?
 How badly were you hurt [the time your husband was most violent
with you]? Frieze codes: severe, severe superficial, severe
trauma, and extreme permanent.
 Were you afraid he would be violent again? Already “very
frightened” at the first violent incident.
 How would you rate the happiness of your marriage on a scale
from 1-Not at all to 10-Very happy? Low=1-4, 32%
 Is sex ever unpleasant for you?
 Do you and your husband have a good time when you go out
together?

Chicago Items
Items: In the past 12 months, when you’ve had
an argument, how often did your husband/boyfriend…
 Control
 …say
something to spite you?
 ...insult you, swear at you, or call you out of your name?
 ...accuse you of being with another man?
 ...try to control your every move?
 ...withhold money, make you ask for money or take yours?
 …threaten you with a knife or gun?
 ...threaten to kill you?
 ...threaten to hurt your family or friends?
Pittsburgh-cutoff
67% severe
72% escalated
37% mutual
1/25
couples
29% severe
29% escalated
74% mutual
1/8
couples
NVAWS Control Scale
(High = 3 or more)
“Thinking about your current husband, would you say he is jealous
or possessive?”
 “…tries to limit your contact with family and friends?”
 “…insists on knowing who you are with at all times?”
 “…calls you names or puts you down in front of others?”
 “…makes you feel inadequate?”
 “…shouts or swears at you?”
 “…prevents you from knowing about or having access to the
family income even when you ask?”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “…insists on changing residences even when you don’t want or
need to?”
 “…prevents you from working outside the home?”

Control Scale
“Thinking about your current husband, would you say he
is jealous or possessive?”
 “…tries
to limit your contact with family and friends?”
 “…insists on knowing who you are with at all times?”
 “…calls you names or puts you down in front of others?”
 “…makes you feel inadequate?”
 “…shouts or swears at you?”
 “…prevents you from knowing about or having access
to the family income even when you ask?”
NVAWS
 The Great Gender Debate
 Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it
A
Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
 The
three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
 Implications for Research and Theory
 Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed
 Need a standard operationalization
 Tricky sampling problems
 Need for differentiated theory
 Implications for Intervention
 Screening/triage
 Intervention with perpetrators
 Intervention for survivors
 Custody and access issues
General Surveys Indicate That
Women Are as Violent as Men
Heterosexual intimate partner violence
by gender
Data Source
Men
Women
NFVS,1975
NSFH, 1988
51%
53%
49%
47%
8th & 9th Grade, NC, 1994
35%
65%
U. Maine students, 1997
New Zealand, 2002
39%
39%
61%
61%
But Agency Studies Indicate That
Men Are the Batterers
Heterosexual intimate partner violence
by gender
Data Source
Men
Women
Divorce Court, Cleveland, 1966
Family Court, Ontario, 1982
92%
94%
8%
6%
Police, Santa Barbara, CA, 1983
94%
6%
Emergency Rooms, U.K., 1988
83%
17%
U.S., FBI, 1996-2001
Spousal Homicide, Canada, 1995-2005
75%
82%
25%
18%
A Small Theory
that
Reconciles the Contradiction
There is more than one type of violence
 The different types are differently gendered
 Both major sampling plans are biased

 General
survey studies are biased toward
situationally-provoked violence, which women
are as likely to perpetrate as are men
 Agency studies are biased toward coercive
controlling violence, perpetrated almost entirely
by men
Table 2: Ex-Spouse Violence by Gender
Violence Type
Intimate Terrorism
Situational Couple
Non-violent
(n)
Violence
Ex-husband
22.0%
7.4%
70.5%
(2413)
Ex-wife
5.4%
3.9%
90.7%
(2051)
 The Great Gender Debate
 Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it
A
Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
 The
three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
 Implications for Research and Theory
 Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed
 Need a standard operationalization
 Tricky sampling problems
 Need for differentiated theory
 Implications for Intervention
 Screening/triage
 Intervention with perpetrators
 Intervention for survivors
 Custody and access issues
Need a Standard Operationalization
 Problems
with cluster analysis
 Extremely
sensitive to sample
 Not comparable across studies

Need a standard operationalization
 NVAWS
items
 Tolman: Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory
 Graham-Kevan & Archer: Controlling
Behaviors Scale
 Dutton & Goodman: Coercive control
Need for Differentiated Theory
 Intimate
terrorism
 Coercive
control theory
 Gender theory
 Theories of paternalism
 Violent
Resistance
 Coping
 Entrapment
 Situational
 Family
couple violence
conflict theory
 Communication
 Anger management
 Substance abuse
 The Great Gender Debate
 Distinguishing among types of partner violence resolves it
A
Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
 The
three major types
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Other differences
 Implications for Research and Theory
 Everything we “know” has to be re-assessed
 Need a standard operationalization
 Tricky sampling problems
 Need for differentiated theory
 Implications for Intervention
 Screening/triage
 Intervention with perpetrators
 Intervention for survivors
 Custody and access issues
A
Control-based Typology of Partner Violence
 The
three major types (plus one or two)
 Gender differences and sampling biases
 Some other basic differences
 We need to re-assess everything we thought we knew
 Implications for Intervention
 Screening/triage
 Primary prevention/education
 Intervention with perpetrators
 Intervention for survivors
 Custody and access issues
Domestic Violence/Intimate Terrorism
Subtypes: Emotionally dependent; Antisocial
Gender Symmetry/Asymmetry
by Type of Violence
(1970s Pittsburgh: Violent husbands and wives)
Husbands
Intimate terrorism
97%
Wives
3%
N
97
Violent resistance
4%
96%
77
Situational couple violence
56%
44%
146
2000s Britain: IT 87% male; VR 10% male; SCV 45% male
The Biases of Major Sampling Plans
(Violent men: Pittsburgh & Britain)
General
Shelter
Court
Sample
Sample*
Sample
(n = 37, 73) (n = 34) (n = 50, 41)
Intimate terrorism
14%, 12%
68%
78%, 88%
Violent resistance
0%, 4%
0%
2%, 0%
29%
18%, 10%
Situational couple violence 86%, 75%
*Pittsburgh only
Sampling Problem: General Surveys
Probability of Violence
Current Spouses-NVAWS
0.14
0.12
Men
Women
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
Felson & Outlaw, 2007
1
2
Control Score
3
4
Sampling Solution: General Surveys
Probability of Violence
Former Spouses-NVAWS
0.14
0.12
Men
Women
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
Felson & Outlaw, 2007
1
2
Control Score
3
4
Spousal Violence Type by Gender
General Survey Data
Intimate Terrorism
Situational Couple Violence
Non-violent
(n)
Husband
0.7%
3.9%
95.3%
(4846)
Wife
0.5%
1.7%
97.9%
(5126)
Ex-husband
22.0%
7.4%
70.5%
(2413)
Ex-wife
5.4%
3.9%
90.7%
(2051)
Data from NVAWS, Johnson, Leone, & Xu, 2008
Pittsburgh data
76% severe
75% escalated
29% mutual
1/25
couples
28% severe
28% escalated
69% mutual
1/8
couples
British data
43% severe
78% escalated
15% mutual
13% severe
20% escalated
87% mutual
Women’s Health Outcomes
by Type of Male Violence
Pittsburgh
SCV
56%
IT
94%
***
NVAWS
13%
32%
***
Pittsburgh
28%
76%
***
NVAWS
2%
5%
*
General health
Chicago
Good to Very
Good
Fair to Good
*
Post-traumatic stress+
NVAWS
37%
79%
***
Any Injury
Severe injury
+ Percent above the median for female victims of partner violence
*.05 **.01 ***.001
Relationship Outcomes
by Type of Male Violence
Situational
Couple
Intimate
Violence Terrorism
Low marital happiness Pittsburgh
13%
50%
***
Left more than once
Rarely a good time
Sex often unpleasant
***.001
Pittsburgh
26%
74%
***
NVAWS
7%
29%
***
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
3%
9%
20%
23%
***
***
Need to Re-assess Everything
Various Studies
 Intergenerational
“transmission”
 SCV
d = .11; IT d = .35
 SCV odds ratio = 2.40; IT odds ratio = 7.51
 Marriage
 SCV
b = -.62; IT b = .58
 Gender
traditionalism or hostility toward women
 Traditionalism:
SCV d = -.14; IT d = .80
 Hostility: non-viol., SCV, IT, IT = 154, 153, 135, 131
 Gender,
frequency, severity, escalation, mutuality,
impact on victim, impact on children, etc.
Differential Success of Intervention
Strategies by IT Sub-type
(Percent non-violent two years after completing treatment)
Dependent
Antisocial
Feminist cognitive-behavioral
48%
65%
Process-psychodynamic
67%
49%
Adapted from Saunders, D. G. (1996). Feminist-cognitive-behavioral and processpsychodynamic treatments for men who batter: Interactions of abuser traits and
treatment model. Violence and Victims, 4(4), 393-414.