Research has attempted to elucidate men and women’s proximal motivations for perpetrating intimate partner violence (IPV). However, previous research has yet to clarify and resolve contention regarding whether motives for IPV are gender-neutral or gender-specific. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare motives for physical IPV perpetration among a sample of men (n = 90) and women (n = 87) arrested for domestic violence and court referred to batterer intervention programs. Results demonstrated that the most frequently endorsed motives for IPV by both men and women were self-defense, expression of negative emotions, and communication difficulties. With the exception of expression of negative emotions and retaliation, with women endorsing these motives more often than men, there were no significant differences between men and women’s self-reported reasons for perpetrating physical aggression. The implications of these findings for future research and intervention programs are discussed.

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.

The Revised Safe at Home instrument (Begun et al., 2008) is based on application of the transtheoretical model of behavior change (TMBC) and offers clinicians and clients an assessment tool to measure client readiness for changing intimate partner violence (IPV) behaviors. Scale scores from this tool can be used to assess client readiness to change and evaluate treatment program outcomes. The purposes of this study are to relate patterns in scale scores with those obtained in previous studies, across the treatment cycle, and for women as well as men. This cross-sectional study engaged 246 participants from 6 IPV batterer treatment programs. Analyses consisted of computing scale totals and means for 5 scales (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation/action, maintenance, and overall readiness), comparing scores for men and women, and drawing comparisons with reports at treatment intake only (Begun et al., 2008; Begun et al., 2003). Findings indicated similar scores on precontemplation and contemplation but significantly higher scores on preparation/action, maintenance, and overall readiness compared to the previous study. No differences related to phase of treatment and no gender differences were significant. The potential impact of self- versus clinical interview administration of the instrument is discussed, along with additional implications for clinical practice and directions for future research using this instrument.

This study examined perceptions of motives in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Respondents (N = 401) of diverse professions read three vignettes and indicated their perception of the aggressor’s motive (from 1 = Exclusively Expressive; 5 = Exclusively Coercive). Half of respondents read vignettes describing male-perpetrated violence against a female partner; the other half, female-perpetrated violence against a male partner. Overall, male-perpetrated aggression was seen as more coercive than female-perpetrated aggression, particularly by shelter workers and victim advocates. Further analyses revealed that men generally gave higher ratings than women, and that women rated female-perpetrated aggression as less coercive than male-perpetrated aggression. In contrast, men did not differ in their ratings of male versus female perpetration. Implications are discussed with respect to the assessment and treatment of partner violence.